This is huge. The head of the executive branch just telegraphed one of his appointees that nothing less than Title II would meet his mark, at a time when the rule making process is in full swing. I think people need to dial back the cynicism a few notches. Call me overly optimistic,We could have true net neutrality within the next few years.
President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet
271–280 of 449 posts
Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet
#272And it's already getting worse: https://twitter.com/SenTedCruz/status/531834493922189313 "Net Neutrality" is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government.
Ted Cruz is an extreme outlier. Everyone else in the Republican party hates him. Please don't take his dumb remarks as representative of anyone else.
Here is a quote [1] referring to how Mitch McConnell (Republican Senate Minority Leader, soon to be Majority Leader) handles nut-jobs like Ted Cruz:
"Mitch has very carefully, very methodically, very much under the radar, isolated Ted Cruz. He's kind of sealed him off like the body puts a sack around some foreign matter"
I believe that's how most Republicans feel about him. Cruz echoes the idiotic thoughts of a very very small minority. But, since they sound like such bizarre nut-jobs, they get media coverage.
[1] http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2014/1...
Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet
#273Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the other hand, he's also calling for it to be classified under Title II. Unless Title II is modified, that would prohibit ISPs from deep packet inspection. It would also prohibit ISPs from modifying responses in situ - like inserting tracking beacons gifs into HTML responses or returning a custom search page (with associated ad revenue) when a DNS lookup fails. Edit: So, with the 'if the content is legal' clause,…
I hope you're correct and deep packet inspection is prohibited. The language being used still concerns me though. > If a consumer requests access to a website or service, and the content is legal, your ISP should not be permitted to block it. This implies that ISPs would be permitted to block illegal content. How can they know traffic is legal without some form of traffic monitoring/inspection?
Going from the court decisions, they would know that traffic is illegal if a court tells them it's illegal. Again, refer to People v. Brophy: the common carrier is not "authorized or required" to investigate. Probably meaning they can aid in investigation (e.g., supply information to police) but not perform an investigation (analyze said information themselves).
In addition, Title II would probably put internet traffic on the same level as wiretaps in terms of (non-DHS) data snooping. If anything, it would give internet users more protection for this sort of thing than they are granted now.
Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet
#274Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pro-neutrality libertarian here. I used to think my philosophy precluded net neutrality, then I looked into how these companies became entrenched- and it was by government support. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
two wrongs don't make a right
Catchy, but inappropriate. If there were a free market way to reset the playing field, I'd certainly prefer that. But I've yet to hear one, and crony capitalists are a problem as much as statists.
Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet
#275Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the other hand, he's also calling for it to be classified under Title II. Unless Title II is modified, that would prohibit ISPs from deep packet inspection. It would also prohibit ISPs from modifying responses in situ - like inserting tracking beacons gifs into HTML responses or returning a custom search page (with associated ad revenue) when a DNS lookup fails. Edit: So, with the 'if the content is legal' clause,…
I hope you're correct and deep packet inspection is prohibited. The language being used still concerns me though. > If a consumer requests access to a website or service, and the content is legal, your ISP should not be permitted to block it. This implies that ISPs would be permitted to block illegal content. How can they know traffic is legal without some form of traffic monitoring/inspection?
Usenet is a common carrier service. However, they do make content inaccessible if there's a takedown request for copyright. But they don't filter anything that gets uploaded or block your downloads.
Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet
#276Earlier quoted context omitted.
There aren't different "kinds" of electricity. Electricity you get anywhere is going to be exactly the same. The Internet is completely different, and the whole point of peering is acknowledging that fact. Netflix and Comcast peer because Netflix has something Comcast can't get anywhere else . The Internet isn't very much like a power grid at all, in fact. That's a terrible analogy.
Where I live, I can buy solar power, water power, nuclear power or generic power. The utility providers support many upstream suppliers, and the source of electricity is the defining attribute. It is also dictate where the power bill is sent from. Also, Netflix is not paying money to Comcast because Netflix has something Comcast can't get anywhere else. Netflix is paying comcast because otherwise comcast is refusing…
Netflix is paying Comcast because Comcast has something Netflix can't get anywhere else.
Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet
#277Now if he can call for free and open travel to Cuba. Maybe we can have an open dialog about US influence on a country that might be more "open" if we shared our culture with them. Oh well ...
Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet
#278Earlier quoted context omitted.
But words don't always lead to bills, and Obama's been talking about net neutrality since 2007, before his first election, and before he named a cable lobbyist to lead the FCC[0]. If these words do lead to a bill, then great! But OP's complaint is that he/she believes this to be unlikely, given past precedent. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler
Tom Wheeler was a cable lobbyist from 1977 through 1984. He was a cable lobbyist before the consumer Internet existed, let alone cable Internet. His status as an anti-neutrality lobbyist is a powerful Internet meme based, so far as I can tell, on very few facts. It's sad how much force a tiny factoid can pick up in a public policy debate on the Internet. Public policy facts are about as reliable on the Internet as Go…
not exactly correct. The Internet that we know today existed long before 1977. Around 1987, a freshman in college, I could ftp and gopher with other Universities. I was tickled pink when I found out I could query a time server in Japan from my dorm room of a Michigan University!
Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet
#279And it's already getting worse: https://twitter.com/SenTedCruz/status/531834493922189313 "Net Neutrality" is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government.
Ted Cruz is an extreme outlier. Everyone else in the Republican party hates him. Please don't take his dumb remarks as representative of anyone else. Here is a quote [1] referring to how Mitch McConnell (Republican Senate Minority Leader, soon to be Majority Leader) handles nut-jobs like Ted Cruz: "Mitch has very carefully, very methodically, very much under the radar, isolated Ted Cruz. He's kind of sealed him off l…
Ted Cruz is incredibly popular and a frontrunner for the 2016 presidential nomination. If he isn't representative of the modern Republican party, who is?
Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet
#280Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only difference is that the Stasi didn't have the tech available to them that the NSA has.
Well, plus the culture of informing on your fellow citizens at large scale (10-20% of German citizens were active informers...) ... or the German citizens killed by the Stasi... Do you really think the only difference between the Stasi and the NSA is the technology available?
Absolutely. The mindsets of spy masters never changes, no matter the era or country.