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

301–310 of 449 posts

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#301

Post by josh2600 »

tptacek wrote: post #141
philovivero wrote: post #50

Huh? Is this the same President Obama that put Tom Wheeler in charge of the FCC? In case it isn't obvious (and since no-one else has mentioned it yet, I guess it's not), Tom Wheeler was a huge lobbyist for the very people who are trying to end net neutrality. I don't get calling for X then performing actions that negate X. Edit: there's another front-page story to Bloomberg that actually explicitly mentions the Tom W…

No, Wheeler was not a "huge lobbyist" for "the very people" working against NN. He was the president of the NCTA from the late 70s to 1984, before cable had anything whatsoever to do with the Internet. His status as an anti-neutrality lobbyist is a powerful Internet meme that does not appear to be rooted in fact.

Look, I normally agree with almost everything you say, but this is just not true. Wheeler was at the NCTA until divestiture, then he saw the writing on the wall and went to CTIA and CWA. After CWA he worked for Core which is a very industry heavy VC.

Wheeler was a huge lobbyist for over 20 years, talks to Meredith at CTIA on a first-name basis and knows all of the people who run the telcos and their lobbying organizations. In some narrative, he's the perfect person to lead the FCC and in another, he's not.

My opinion is that, YES, he was a lobbyist and YES he is anti-neutrality because that was the position that made the most sense at the beginning of his tenure. I'm bullish that he'll come over to the Network Neutrality side (and gave indications in that direction at CTIA Super Mobility week this year) but I think there's a chance he'll do title 2 with lots of caveats that will make this, let's say, complicated.

You are right that memes aren't helpful, but Wheeler was actually the biggest lobbyist in the history of telecom, IMHO, so that much is quite true. Whether he is anti-neutrality now is up for debate, but when he took the office, well, I think there's little evidence to show he was in favor of neutrality then.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#302

Post by mark-r »

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.

But if the FCC refuses to act on its own, even with encouragement from the President, a new law is the only way to force the issue.

Hopefully it won't come to that, because I predict the odds of success being very low. Even if a law passes, it won't be before the lobbyists get their fingers all over it.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#303

Post by pvnick »

ep103 wrote: post #268
pvnick wrote: post #95

Yes, let's give the government control to dictate how we may use the most powerful system for free-speech and keeping governments/corporations in check that has ever existed in all of human history. Despite the US government's insistence and profound ability to commandeer the internet for military/spying uses, I'm sure this time they will act in our best interests... And I know the control Obama's saying he wants the…

is this a joke? net neutrality has nothing to do with the NSA, or government control of the internet. Its regulation of a utility, to prevent a monopoly.

Effective regulation requires trust. And the federal government has destroyed that trust with regards to the internet. Completely and irreversibly. My point stands.

Not to mention that given a little time these problems will work themselves out anyway (eg google fiber, municipal broadband, etc). The only reason you have to put your faith in ham-handed federal involvement is an irrational fear of corporations and a lack of patience.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#304

Post by joezydeco »

smspence wrote: post #272
joezydeco wrote: post #238

And 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…

"Please don't take his dumb remarks as representative of anyone else."

The GOP is masterfully adept at deciding on a set of talking points, getting them into the hands of key people in politics and the media, and then beating voters over the head repeatedly with it until the voters start repeating it back.

The Republicans just won the Senate back on the idea that Obamacare is the root of all evil. Watch them leverage that idea into every. single. thing. from now until 2016 (and beyond).

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#305

Post by dragonwriter »

mark-r wrote: post #302
adrianparsons wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

But if the FCC refuses to act on its own, even with encouragement from the President, a new law is the only way to force the issue. Hopefully it won't come to that, because I predict the odds of success being very low. Even if a law passes, it won't be before the lobbyists get their fingers all over it.

> But if the FCC refuses to act on its own, even with encouragement from the President, a new law is the only way to force the issue

The FCC has been acting in the direction of neutrality for some time, and the House majority has been talking more about preventing them from doing so than encouraging them (much less legislating to mandate something more than the FCC wants.)

With a bigger Republican majority in the House and Republican control of the Senate, there's almost exactly zero chance of pro-neutrality legislation from the Congress. Its more likely that pro-neutrality FCC will be met with anti-neutrality Congressional action (the only upside of which, from the pro-neutrality POV, is that it might raise the profile of the issue for the 2016 election.)

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#306

Post by binarray2000 »

unchocked wrote: post #148
binarray2000 wrote: post #131

1. Net neutrality (NN) is of essential importance for the free Internet, now and in the future. 2. Barack Obama (BO) can "call for" many things, but after the latest elections he cannot do much. Even if he, personally and as a POTUS, would want to do something to protect NN. 3. If you hope GOP will do something about it... well, harsh reality is this: Republicans will do what corporate interest wants them to do. Demo…

Four million comments to the FCC is a Big Deal. There's a huge amount of public support for Net Neutrality, plus all the money in Silicon Valley. The liberal side of this issue is huge. Whining about how we can't do anything because big cable and their bought legislators is wrong and counterproductive.

> Four million comments to the FCC is a Big Deal. Great!

> There's a huge amount of public support for Net Neutrality, plus all the money in Silicon Valley. There we have it: Interest. This time for NN. Another great thing.

> Whining about how we can't do anything because big cable and their bought legislators is wrong and counterproductive. For the sake of keeping this discussion sane, let's not use such words as "whining". Now, as a supporter of NN, I've described things one has to be aware of as well. I wish and hope positive attitude of the people like you will prevail and that NN will be protected by law.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#307

Post by joezydeco »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #287
cement wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

He's definitely not a frontrunner for the 2016 nomination. He's polling at around 4%, well behind Paul, Bush, etc. http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/...

Front-runners this early in the game have a very reliable tendency to implode before the primaries. Being the dark horse at this point in time is not a problem.

Obama had a 17% nod from Democrats two years before the 2008 election. It was all Gore, Edwards, and Kerry in that year.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#308

Post by therealdrag0 »

crazy1van wrote: post #300

First, let me say that my local ISPs have left a lot to be desired. Comcast and Verizon have driven me crazy in the past. But making them a utility scares me. As bad as my ISPs have been, looking back 15 years, I was on a 56k modem. Now I have 50 mbps broadband. When I look at other utilities like power and water, I've seen zero innovation and my bill continues to rise. Something should be done, but I'd rather the fo…

What innovation could be done for basic utilities? I understand your concern and sympathize with it. But it seems like there is a difference. Everyone wants faster more reliable internet (Personally I'm more concerned about reliability at peak times at this point; >10mbps is plenty otherwise). But when is the last time you heard someone complain about the reliability of their power/water/sewage? Maybe I'm spoiled, but I haven't noticed systemic negligence with those utilities.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#309

Post by emcrazyone »

fit2rule wrote: post #43

This just provides more impetus for us to get out ahead of the government and implement the next-generation communication technologies that make it impossible for anyone to spy on us.. of course, if that happens, there'll be further battles upstream .. as well as a few submarine battles we probably don't know we have to fight, already, as advocates of peace and communication - but nevertheless the time has never been…

I tend to agree. As an ISP owner, the problem is fundamentally the point to point technology involved along with lopsided peering agreements you can't avoid.

Torrents really expose these issues very well and it's the same sort of thing you see going on between Netflix and Comcast.

One solution is for consumers to have more choices. I recently read an article where some town I think in Colorado put in their Internet access by lighting up dark fiber they had. It use to be something the cable companies fought citing that municipalities could have a monopoly.

The other game changer is WiMAX and generally speaking, faster mobile data rates. If I no longer need my buried cable to get fast Internet coupled with the fact I can take my device with me, is a huge selling point.

But like cable companies, you can have traffic pile up on a cell tower but it seems easier to add more radios to a cell tower than it is to lay more fiber and/or coax.

Maybe the solution is to get rid of TCP/IP and use something different such that traffic can spray out like a torrent and be recollected from different route paths. For example, if you have Internet from two or more cable companies, there is no way to dynamically balance traffic between those two circuits between two parties. You have a default gateway and there isn't much more you can do with that at the end user level.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#310

Post by smsm42 »

guelo wrote: post #214
wahsd wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that society has been sitting on its laurels and even though the default should have been that the inherent spirit of the Constitution be extended into the digital world, instead, we have allowed and been complicit in allowing government to not only become authoritarian on the internet, but even to subvert and pervert the very fundamental concepts that set parameters on our whole existence. People, the…

The government created the internet. For a while in the early 90s corporations tried to create it, and what they came up with were walled gardens, the open internet blew them away, look up Compuserve, AOL and Prodigy. The internet works because of the underlying open, bidirectional, equally privileged connections. If the corps are starting to change that it must be stopped. The internet is one of humanities greatest…

The government didn't create the internet. At the most, the government gave money to some projects that developed some technologies that were subsequently used to create the internet. Yes, there were a lot of failed attempts at how to handle the informational world - like AOL (which btw is alive and well as a company with multibillion revenues), Compuserve, etc. - but some of these attempts worked. And that what we call the internet now. Of course, it's not only companies, but NGOs, universities, etc.

>>> The internet works because of the underlying open, bidirectional, equally privileged connections.

This is very simplistic view which does not match what really happens on the net. There are a lot of barriers, firewalls, routing preferences, private bandwidth exchanges, etc. It still works reasonably well so far.

>>> The internet is one of humanities greatest achievements and we can't let greedy monopoly beuraucrats kill it.

You realize that "monopoly bureaucrats" is the very definition of the government? If you were ever scared of huge bureaucratic power that would take away the control from you and use it for its own purposes, the US federal government would fit this role ideally.

Post reply on HN