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…
You don't get it. That would only be wrong if a republican president did it. When a democrat does it, it's fine.
however it is quite possible it will encumber providers and such with all sorts of new rules, forced compliance, etc. Forced compliance, as in "You are a utility and all such utilities must comply with NSA/CIA/FBI/ABC requirements" Maybe they will be brand it under some title like "Internet Bill of Rights" and watch as people don't read the fine print. All I know is, if I waited for the regulated utility known as the…
One thing that is guaranteed to occur, is that the US Government will regulate the Internet to a greater degree every year that goes by. It's what they do with all segments of the economy, and that regulation has been accelerating for decades. Tech had been largely spared, but the Feds have been increasingly pushing their nose into every area of tech the last decade. What will ultimately happen, is the government wil…
Comcast and others are against Net neutrality.
They want your $50 startup to have to pay for a "fast lane".
For comparison, the electricity company can't restrict your wattage just because you are a business.
I am not American (feel free to ignore my opinion) but this is just a bad joke from someone who seems to be an utmost failure. Especially in light of last week FBI/NSA/DHS undermining TOR and killing its utility for any dissidents and free speech in authoritarian states. Under his watch the surveillance state has expanded and has become downright creepy 25 years after the fall of the Berlin wall we should be saying "…
"Under his watch the surveillance state has expanded and has become downright creepy"
According to Snowden's documents, several mass collection programs shut down under his watch (including email header collection), and no new mass collection programs were added.
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.
I am not American (feel free to ignore my opinion) but this is just a bad joke from someone who seems to be an utmost failure. Especially in light of last week FBI/NSA/DHS undermining TOR and killing its utility for any dissidents and free speech in authoritarian states. Under his watch the surveillance state has expanded and has become downright creepy 25 years after the fall of the Berlin wall we should be saying "…
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 from Freedom Of Information Act)
I hope no one is getting excited about this. President Obama is a lame duck. His party just got tossed out of the Senate, relegating his political capital to basically 0. In the wake of this, he's decided to take maybe the most important economic issue of the next 20 years and politicize it. Neither the red team nor the blue team could say they owned this issue, but one of the most divisive voices in politics just st…
Agreed. Given the knee-jerk reaction of "Anything that Obama supports is bad", Ted Cruz is now tarring this as "Net Neutrality is the Obamacare of the Internet". I like how "Obamacare" has become the new Communism. A lot of people know hardly anything about it or what it's policies actually are, but it's baaaaad.
I like the Digg headline about this: Ted Cruz is the Uber for stupid metaphors.
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 Google symptom search results.
This was a positive statement on an issue we all feel strongly about. Don't listen to all the B.S about the president being a "lame duck", he is still the most powerful man in the world. So give credit where credit is due. And stop listening to all the negative B.S.
Short Answer: Communications industries are different, and too important. The information they carry is, like journalism, a 4th estate to democracy. An econ101 approach to that industry breeds consolidated information empires that influence policy, society, and public discourse to the point of control. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/12/books/review/Leonhardt-t.h...
Communications industries are different, and too important. More important than shelter, food and energy? We draw a line as to what the government should provide/subsidize/control and what the private sector provides in those sectors. The information they carry is, like journalism, a 4th estate to democracy. If the 4th estate is a check on government, why would we want the government to decide what constituted it? Pl…
Yes, similar to shelter, food, and energy in that they are fundamental infrastructure.
I'm sorry I wasn't more clear. You are right: the analogy breaks down on the level of mechanism of preservation.
I attempted to be more general. Specifically: Journalism is a check on public and private coercion, but the mechanism is free speech. Common Carrier regulation is a check on (largely) private coercion. The mechanism is monopoly prevention (originally monopoly rejection, via AT&T breakup).