Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

whitehouse.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 449 posts

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#241

Post by daveloyall »

What do these statements mean, specifically parts I've marked?

> To do that, I believe the FCC should reclassify consumer broadband service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act — while at the same time forbearing from rate regulation and other provisions less relevant to broadband services.

and

> If the FCC appropriately forbears from the Title II regulations that are not needed to implement the principles above — principles that most ISPs have followed for years — it will help ensure new rules are consistent with incentives for further investment in the infrastructure of the Internet.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#242

Post by dabockster »

adrianparsons wrote: post #184
DigitalSea wrote: post #154

As per usual with all politicians, these are just words. Nice words, but until a bill is passed and there is movement in the senate to make something like this closer to a reality, words are meaningless. My question to Obama is: why now? This whole net neutrality debate has been going on long before Obama started his first term of presidency, why wait until you are almost out of the White House to act upon something…

I don't think Title II classification requires a vote from congress, just an action by the FCC.

This. Even if these are just words, they are the words of the President of the United States. To most people, words from the Oval Office carry some weight.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#243

Post by lotharbot »

AndrewHampton wrote: post #9

Here's the thing that bothers me the most about a lot of the talk about net neutrality by government officials: > If a consumer requests access to a website or service, and the content is legal, your ISP should not be permitted to block it. Specifically "and the content is legal" is what raises a flag for me. I've seen similar phrases in nearly everything I've read coming from any government official regarding net ne…

He's basically saying that this ruling wouldn't override other court orders. That's a perfectly sensible thing to say.

(I rarely side with Obama.)

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#244

Post by randomfool »

dguaraglia wrote: post #236
couchand wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a pretty massive stretch to go from "ISPs are permitted to block illegal traffic" to "ISPs are required to perform deep-packet inspection to ensure the legality of all traffic they carry".

On the other hand, just think about it: now you have the wedge in, there'll be a massive lobby (Hollywood, recording companies, 'big media' if you will) trying to use that wedge to push stronger legislation in. In fact, the government itself (NSA, FBI) will think 'hey, now that we have this, we might as well use it to Protect Our Children (tm)'. On the other hand, besides the ACLU and maybe a few people organizing ov…

SSL everything.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#245

Post by mturmon »

SergeyB wrote: post #186
revscat wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me explain a few things about the American government. The most important thing to understand is that the ability of the executive to influence the direction of the government is limited. The reasons for this are several, but I will try to elucidate a few here. First, it is commonly believed that because of the ability to hire/fire people the President can more or less do whatever he wants in regards to the direc…

That`s what it supposed to be like and we wish it was. In reality, starting with Iraq war, Patriot Act, Health Care, Bailouts and much more, didnt have time for debates in Congress. President pushed it, Congress approved. President is Executive branch of government, therefore can pass a new law just by signing it without approval of Congress. Example Executive Order 13233 (signed by Bush, makes President an exception…

"President is Executive branch of government, therefore can pass a new law just by signing it without approval of Congress."

This is false. The president can change interpretations of law (this is how E.O. 13233 was couched), but cannot pass a new law on his own. This is in Articles I and II of the Constitution.

In time of war or crisis, people will allow generous interpretations of the President's role to interpret the law, but time catches up.

Obviously Health Care (i.e., ACA) caused huge debate and negotiation with Congress.

The Iraq War resolution (the 2002 one) was a different situation in which Congress passed a wishy-washy resolution that was, in typical fashion, over-extended by the Bush administration. But Congress went along.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#246

Post by smspence »

narrowrail wrote: post #229
smspence wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't get it. That would only be wrong if a republican president did it. When a democrat does it, it's fine.

Please don't do this on HN. We don't need to politicize the issue among technical people; we can simply discuss the pros and cons on their merits. I, personally, don't care about political parties at all (they're a distinction without a difference, IMO).

Sorry. To me, it looked like the issue had already been politicized, and I was just throwing in a quick sarcastic remark. Didn't think it would be taken too seriously. I get your point.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#247

Post by pessimizer »

organsnyder wrote: post #224
enraged_camel wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>When the FBI start assassinating American Citizens in their sleep after an agent drugs their food to silence African American Political movements... THEN we can start talking about a "police state". You do realize that the USA committed extrajudicial murder of an American citizen during the current president's term, right? Or are you just ignoring it because it's inconvenient to your narrative? >>Today's laws make…

> And yet we have the entire population under surveillance. Compared to that, spying on a handful of civil leaders is nothing. If the FBI of the 1960's had the technology of today, I guarantee that they would have done the same—and probably more. Not to excuse the intrusion of today, but the government of the 1960's was certainly no better.

There's also a case to be made that it was no worse, and it was, in reality, extremely limited technologically.

Most people today living in industrialized countries are living under surveillance nearly as intense as MLK was under, and people of interest are under a lot more. This comment was probably logged.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#248

Post by pessimizer »

dragontamer wrote: post #202
tracker1 wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obama already has a legacy that we can talk about... Expanding a police surveillance state, and raining hell-fire down upon our "enemies" like no other president before him.

Someone needs to learn American History... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_an... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hampton When the FBI start assassinating American Citizens in their sleep after an agent drugs their food to silence African American Political movements... THEN we can start talking about…

>Today's laws make such surveillance and wiretapping illegal.

Which laws are you referring to here?

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#249

Post by lotharbot »

dragontamer wrote: post #202
tracker1 wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obama already has a legacy that we can talk about... Expanding a police surveillance state, and raining hell-fire down upon our "enemies" like no other president before him.

Someone needs to learn American History... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_an... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hampton When the FBI start assassinating American Citizens in their sleep after an agent drugs their food to silence African American Political movements... THEN we can start talking about…

> "Someone needs to learn American History"

Personal attacks like this add nothing to your comment. It would have been better to leave that sentence out, or replace it with something less personal like "there are examples of worse behavior in American History".

-----

"Not the absolute worst US presidential administration of all time" isn't really a compelling argument for why we shouldn't criticize this one.

Post reply on HN