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

261–270 of 449 posts

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#261

Post by spamizbad »

higherpurpose wrote: post #4

Since I have zero trust in Obama these days, I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop - or to see what's Obama's angle in this. Is he doing it because he already knows a Republican-backed Congress and FCC have already made up their minds against net neutrality - and he just wants to be remembered that "he tried"? Or is he supporting full net neutrality because that would give the government much more control over the I…

> or to see what's Obama's angle in this

My guess: He's bringing this up to drive a wedge between tech donors (pro-neutrality) and Republicans (anti-neutrality) in 2016.

This already seems to be working, with Ted Cruz calling Net Neutrality the "Obamacare of the Internet". Cruz knows he doesn't need tech sector money to get re-elected or to run in 2016.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#262

Post by dragonwriter »

300bps wrote: post #90
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…

The President can nominate candidates for various positions, but these positions must be approved by Congress. President Obama was inaugurated January 20, 2009. At that time, his Democratic party controlled both houses of Congress decisively[1]. It was not until 2011 that his party lost the house. And in fact, his party still retains the Senate but will lose it in January 2015. But it is only the Senate that approves…

> The President is the Commander in Chief of the military. He exercises complete authority over them.

No, he doesn't. The Congress has quite expansive (nearly plenary) power over the military (and to a lesser extent, the militia) expressly in the Constitution. The one limit on that power in the Constitution is that the Congress can't adopt a law giving the supreme command of the military (or the militia, when called into federal service) under the rules they adopt to anyone but the President -- that's what the designation of the President as Commander-in-Chief means.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#263

Post by JediWing »

Cuuugi wrote: post #124
trvz wrote: post #109

1) Him having to interfere against the bs of the ISPs makes me sad, as it's one more sign of the politicisation of the internet. 2) I welcome Obama being well advised, but he remains the spy master of the world.

Not to mention the policing of content, which this legislation permits. Regulation is the beginning of the end of the open internet.

I'm not sure if you're ill-informed or being willfully ignorant, but making sure content is not policed is precisely why net neutrality is so necessary. This is much closer to Carterphone and not at all like FISA.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#264

Post by belorn »

diminoten wrote: post #172
belorn wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do the peering different from how the power grid works? Isn't that system also made from private network owner, all needed to work collaborative in a common network? Imagine a power grid where different sources paid different amounts for the last mile. Would it be right to deny the last mile to a new actor, say a new solar power plant, on the basis that its competing with existing coal power?

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 their user access to netflix.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#265

Post by jeangenie »

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…

I agree that the presence of that single qualifier casts an irrevocably ominous shadow over the entire sentiment.

In a purely-hypothetical dystopia it could be the basis of more invasive monitoring and control capabilities over network infrastructure.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#266

Post by malchow »

padobson wrote: post #56

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…

Amen. This will make the issue more political, even though Rs and more Friedman-minded Ds should be behind net neutrality. Now Rs will be driven toward the other side.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#267

Post by fulafel »

revscat wrote: post #55
yc1010 wrote: post #6

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…

> 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.

Compared to most other parliamentary democracies the president in USA is nearly a dictator. So Obama has exceptionally broad abilities in that direction.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#268

Post by ep103 »

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.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#269

Post by rayiner »

narrowrail wrote: post #225
rayiner wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What substantial government sanctioned monopoly does Comcast have? Can we point to something concrete rather than hand waving? It's been illegal to grant monopoly franchises to cable companies since the mid 1990's. I don't know of a single market where Comcast is the only cable company because it has a sanctioned monopoly. There are a lot of places where Comcast has a de-facto monopoly because nobody else is willing…

Here is a link to the info regarding a franchise agreement renewal in a small Colorado town: http://www.louisvilleco.gov/SERVICES/CityManagersOffice/Fran... There are .pdf's with the official agreement and some attempt at simplifying the info contained within on the page itself. I haven't read it yet myself, but I'm curious if it reflects the claims you make.

The franchise agreement you linked, for the city of Louisville, Colorado, exemplifies the claim I'm making.

Section 2.4 - franchise is non-exclusive.

Section 2.2(B) - non-discriminatory requirements to access rights of way.

Section 2.6 - city reserves right to grant other franchises, so long as if it does so on more favorable terms than the existing franchise, then the existing franchise can be modified.

The FAQ on the page you linked has the most interesting information, however:

> Comcast's Franchise with City of Louisville:

> Comcast - the nation's largest cable television provider - is currently the primary source of cable television services in Louisville, serving approximately 4,500 subscribers. They currently operate in Louisville under a non-exclusive franchise agreement [Footnote] effective since April 2006. The agreement allows Comcast to use the City's ROW in return for the payment of certain rental fees - known as franchise fees - and other benefits for Louisville and its residents.

> Footnote: Should another cable provider want to offer cable service in Louisville the City would offer that company the same franchise opportunity that Comcast now has. To date, no other service providers have asked for a franshise.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#270

Post by emcrazyone »

couchand wrote: post #27
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…

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".

Agree. ISP owner here. Not all web sites or IP addresses contain 100% illegal material. Virtual hosting (hosting more than one web site from same IP address) poses problems as does content among sub-domains. I don't have the resources to monitor and track such things and if I were forced into it, I would either go out of business or try to become a search engine.
Post reply on HN