52 ms·
President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet
- kyro 12y agoBecause TC doesn't bother with the editing process anymore, here's a direct link to the letter: https://medium.com/@PresidentObama/my-plan-for-a-free-and-open-internet-c45e2f4ab1e4 https://medium.com/@PresidentObama/my-plan-for-a-free-and-op...
- jordanmessina 12y agoThanks kyro. Also, here's the link to whitehouse.gov page: http://www.whitehouse.gov/net-neutrality http://www.whitehouse.gov/net-neutrality
- shawabawa3 12y agoI'm 99% sure when I first clicked this link it was the whitehouse.gov one. Why did it get changed to techcrunch?
- dang 12y agoI took a quick look at the logs and it seems to always have been techcrunch.com until we changed it a minute ago.
- higherpurpose 12y agoSince 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 Internet? Either way I don't think he's doing this because "he cares". Whatever his angle/hidden agenda, it's probably a bad one for us.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- maxsilver 12y agoIt could be a way for him to involve the demographic that elected him. Last week, Obama said, "To the two-thirds of voters who chose not to participate in the process yesterday, I hear you, too" - http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-tells-gop-br-my-mandate-is-bigger/article/2555866 http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-tells-gop-br-my-mand... It could be a way to make Democrats relevant again, by being the party they're supposed to be. They just lost big by playing it safe, they might as well push something progressive. It's not like they could loose any worse.
- ddoolin 12y agoI don't think that his angle necessarily has to be at odds with our angle(s). It could perhaps be that he's trying to change course after a horrible (to him/Democrats) midterm election season, or just to boost popularity of his party in general, which I'm sure works out better for him in the long run somehow. Though, this is the term where presidents are known for pretty much doing whatever they want since there's no looming election so it's really a good question what his motives are.
- ctdonath 12y agoYup, easy way to make a lot of people happy[er] after an election indicating a lot of people aren't with him. He can just direct the FCC to "give the Internet common carrier status" and it can largely be worked out via Executive Order; if there are any legal objections, they can be tied up in the courts for years until supporting legislation catches up.
- mvd366 12y agoI don't understand this mentality. If Obama comes out as against Net Neutrality, it's him being evil. If he comes out in favor of it, he's lying. I understand politicians often have ulterior motives but from the information provided, this is exactly what the majority of citizens were asking him (and the FCC) to do.
- pconner 12y agoThis proposition (implementation of some of the regulations required for telecommunication services under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934) is taken directly from a notice published by the FCC in 2010 http://www.fcc.gov/rulemaking/10-127 http://www.fcc.gov/rulemaking/10-127 It has been argued previously that the FCC lacks the authority to reclassify Title II common carrier, and that such a reclassification could actually be damaging http://www.mayerbrown.com/files/Publication/b3dde165-879d-41d4-bd11-22cec4ecc93f/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/f8f8d83f-b025-4a9f-8dbd-394dfcad45e1/10937.PDF http://www.mayerbrown.com/files/Publication/b3dde165-879d-41...
- yc1010 12y agoI 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 "Ich bin ein Ost-Berliner" :( The Stasi would be proud of the surveillance state that western countries have created with Obama at the helm. edit: Oh i see the cult of personality is still strong in this one, downvoted in under a minute.
- untog 12y agoPlease don't complain about downvotes, it just makes people downvote you more. And I suspect the reason you're being downvoted in the first place is that the TC post is about net neutrality and not government spying. While the two are connected (they both involve the internet, after all) they're different topics. If we refuse net neutrality until we also disband the NSA then we'll just lose on two counts.
- eps 12y ago> Please don't complain about downvotes, it just makes people downvote you more. No, of course it doesn't. And, no, there's nothing wrong with complaining about the downvotes as there' heck of a lot of knee-jerk downvoting happening on HN. Almost as much as righteous preaching about proper HN "etiquette", but not as damaging in the long run.
- andyl 12y agoShould have had support for Net-Neutrality years ago. Nevertheless glad to see it now. I hope it makes a difference.
- AndrewHampton 12y agoHere'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 neutrality. If this phrasing makes it into eventual laws regarding net neutrality, it seems to me that it could easily require inspection of all traffic by ISPs to ensure the legality of traffic.
- antocv 12y agoWhich is the whole point of net-neutrality, that ISPs must not accountable for what flows through the network, or to block "illegal" messages.
- ctdonath 12y agoNot quite the "whole" point. It's not so much about accountability as not demanding customers pay more based on content; not being accountable for content is a consequence of not analyzing that content for whatever reason. It's about customers getting the bandwidth they pay for by not throttling the content they're requesting.
- couchand 12y agoIt'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".
- AndrewHampton 12y agoIt is. It's just a concern I have since similar language seems to be everywhere, which makes me think including it is intentional.
- jstalin 12y ago
- baldfat 12y agoHave ZERO understanding how the Republicans are going to hold off on Anti-Net Neutrality. I am sure this is something that Libertarians will fight tooth and nail and well I would say over 12% of currently republicans labeled themselves as such. With 30 congressmen in the House Liberty Caucus things are not so easy for the G.O.P. I feel that there is a strong likely hood that G.O.P. will have a switch for Net Neutrality once they see that this policy has such a strong vocal majority.
- untog 12y agoWhy do you assume that Libertarians are pro-net neutrality? It's government regulation that limits what ISPs can do - hardly a free market philosophy.
- LyndsySimon 12y ago+1. I'm a libertarian, and I'm not necessarily pro-NN.
- baldfat 12y agoSo you are for Government to change the Internet by making rules that only help a localized Monopoly? I don't get how people don't see that this is a monopoly based on Government intervention???? Started with cable TV and now we are stuck with this in internet monopolies which are 100% anti-free market.
- LyndsySimon 12y agoI have no idea how you drew that conclusion from my post.
- ende 12y agoAccording to who? Common carrier is precisely the kind of regulation that free market grandfather Adam Smith supported in his writings. Land-based broadband ISPs do not currently exist in a competetive market, and likely cannot due to issues of redundancy in physical infrastructures. Common carrier regulation is an attempt to limit the effects of such monopoly power. It may be 'two wrongs making a right', but suggest an alternative.
- diminoten 12y agoI'm glad the president is giving a hoot about this issue, because it's an issue I care deeply about and follow closely. That said, I'm still not convinced a "no slow lanes" policy is possible. Peering is a huge part of the Internet, and without it, the Internet doesn't work. Paid peering is a private network owner's right to ask for, and it's every other person's right to deny.
- crackalackin 12y agoReally? I wish he'd keep his mouth shut. The moment he makes his position known on anything, the Republican controlled congress makes it their holy crusade to block. Those guys are now in complete control of the legislative body that makes these rules. If he REALLY wanted to help, he'd start supporting the opposite of everything he wants to do. He should be good at that, re: NSA, Drones, Gitmo, etc. "I will close down Gitmo! ... lol"
- Cr3w 12y agoGreat leaders lead. Bad ones complain of opposition.
- belorn 12y agoHow 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?
- diminoten 12y agoThere 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.
- tjaerv 12y agoBecause that worked so well with the phone companies.
- CognitiveLens 12y agoObama's statement isn't quite as limp as the article title implied: "I am asking for an explicit ban on paid prioritization" This isn't a request to "set up a committee to explore regulation ideas and form lobby groups from all stakeholders" - it sounds more like "I want to pass laws AND create an enforcement structure for those laws". Ambitious and probably overly optimistic, but it's a good perspective from the top.
- mpweiher 12y agoWell, the enforcement structure is already in place, AFAIK. This is just putting his finger on the scale as the FCC ponders the issues (and implying that if the FCC doesn't make the right choice by itself, it could be compelled by law).
- CognitiveLens 12y agoYeah - the general FCC structure is in place, but it sounds like the regulatory structure/principle is still being worked out. I suspect that it will be just another political football for a very long time, though...
- netcan 12y agoThe actual statement read fairly explicit and useful to me. I'm no expert though. Basically: No blocking. No throttling. Increased transparency No paid prioritization Same rules apply to mobile internet It's all subject to the caveat that the FCC is independent and they decide how and what exactly is implemented. Those sound to me like the basic and less controversial components of net neutrality. It prevent disadvantaging specific sites, protocols or users if applied in a reasonable way. https://medium.com/@PresidentObama/my-plan-for-a-free-and-open-internet-c45e2f4ab1e4 https://medium.com/@PresidentObama/my-plan-for-a-free-and-op...
- sejje 12y agoThis headline is in such stark contrast to the other, which reads "President Obama calls for a free and open internet." Which reads more like the actual intent? Edit: The two submissions got merged, so my comment is now outdated.
- mpweiher 12y agoThey are the same thing: in order to protect net neutrality (the free and open internet), you need strong regulation, it doesn't happen by itself.
- twoodfin 12y agoBroadband ISPs haven't been regulated like common carriers for almost two decades. Meanwhile consumer access to the internet has been oppressed and stagnant? I don't see the evidence for that.
- xnull2guest 12y agoOr you need competition (see how ISPs work in Britain and some places in Europe). Or you need socialization (see how ISPs work in South Korea). Regulation isn't the only solution.
- thenmar 12y agoIsn't the competition in Britain only possible because regulations require companies to share infrastructure?
- antocv 12y agoWhat an asshole. It was under his Presidency that NSA expanded their programs.
- xnull2guest 12y agoCertainly a little. Though most of it was Bush era expansion of Clinton legacy. Obama has actually made some pretty interesting investments in the defensive and technological side of geopolitical cyber struggle. Here, however, the ISP market is what we're talking about. Certainly the two topics are related. My hope also is that Snowden kickback has informed this Administration, as it finishes its second half of its final term, how the world and how Americans think about the internet.
- medecau 12y agoThe NSA did not make Netflix slower.
- rlpb 12y agoIt seems to me that introducing net neutrality law is a band-aid over what is really just monopolistic behaviour because last-mile providers don't have competition. Why not fix the root cause? Force last-mile providers to provide transit to third party ISPs like they do in the UK, or otherwise regulate them specifically. I don't see why rules should apply across the board to markets where there is healthy competition. There is no problem elsewhere, is there?
- atonse 12y agoSomeone correct me if I'm wrong, but Obama is suggesting that we re-classify ISPs as utilities. That would force them to lease out their lines to competitors.
- adventured 12y agoThat's not going to happen. Comcast is one of Obama's - and the Democrats in general - closest corporate sponsors. And were the Republicans to win the Presidency, I can't see them pushing for a formal classification either. They think Comcast is a private company competing in a market, when it's actually a government protected and sanctioned monopoly just like AT&T and Verizon.
- rayiner 12y agoWhat 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 to build high-speed service in a given area. But almost anywhere that's the case, it's because of telco-unfriendly regulations, not telco-friendly ones. The people who rant about telcos can't get their story straight. They say Comcast has a legally protected monopoly, but then attack Verizon for not building fiber to the huge swath of places where the local governments are dying to get a competitor to the local telco. Their arguments are based on a false premise: that building fiber is profitable enough to justify the investment, and the government and telcos are getting in the way. The falsity of this premise is amply demonstrated when you look at places like New York, where the government has shoved the cable companies out of the way, but still has to drag Verizon kicking and screaming to build all this supposedly lucrative infrastructure.
- DominikR 12y agoHis administration literally started the process that will ultimately be the end of the open internet in the next few years. Now everybody is working on a national/regional "Internet", even the EU is going the first steps into this direction. Him calling for open and free Internet is absolutely bizarre. Who knows, maybe he'll call tomorrow for the end of torture and drone executions without trial.
- adventured 12y agoI never cease to be amazed at the naivety that exists around giving this government more power. This isn't some fluffy nice friendly government that has only our best interests at heart - this is a hyper violent, war mongering, murderous, intrusive, spiteful, extra-legal, Constitution ignoring monster. The military industrial complex has come home to roost - that is what is happening with the spying and police militarization - and now people think it's a great idea to just hand over more power to this government so they can further control the only widely accessible platform left to criticize them.
- Cr3w 12y ago"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." Ronald Reagan
- SergeyB 12y agoWell said
- forrestthewoods 12y ago"So, as I have before, I am asking for an explicit ban on paid prioritization and any other restriction that has a similar effect." Does that work? Is that implementable and/or good? Isn't peering a pretty reasonable thing to do in a lot of cases?
- fit2rule 12y agoThis 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 as ripe as it is now for the new shit to drop. Question is, how? What? These are the sorts of answers we have to find. A DHT over a P2P with no central control? It still seems so out of reach ..
- emcrazyone 12y agoI 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.
- philovivero 12y agoHuh? 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 Wheeler connection: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-10/obama-calls-for-regulating-internet-like-phone-companies.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-10/obama-calls-for-reg...
- tptacek 12y agoNo, 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.
- josh2600 12y agoLook, 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.
- padobson 12y agoI 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 stuck the blue flag in it - at a time when he has less influence over policy than any other time in his presidency. I would have preferred him to just keep his mouth shut.
- ctdonath 12y agoHe still has 2 years to work on legacy and narcissism[1], he still has the Executive Order power which he's shown a keen interest in using, "net neutrality" is low-hanging fruit for him to boost his popularity, and there's still enough tacit supporters in Congress to get supporting legislation thru. There's going to be a whole lotta bills reaching his desk that he won't like; now's the time to start trying to drive the agenda & process toward maximizing favorable ones so he doesn't end up with the "roadblock" label. [1] - you don't get to that level of power without substantial self-confidence and the desire for general adulation.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- thecolorblue 12y agoFirst, I believe we are all on the same team here. Second, in-action on the part of any president is unacceptable. Presidencies are measured by the amount of positive change they can bring.
- forgotpasswd3x 12y agoSure would be fucking nice if they (democrats and republicans) could not have to take opposing sides on fucking everything, but you're right. Since he's for it, they're going to rally against it. Really disappointing.
- stephengoodwin 12y agoThe current Chairman for the FCC is Tom Wheeler. He is a former lobbyist for two telecommunications associations: * National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) (from 1976 to 1984, becoming president in 1979)[1] * Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA) (from 1992 to 2004, serving as CEO)[1] [1] http://www.fcc.gov/leadership/tom-wheeler http://www.fcc.gov/leadership/tom-wheeler
- rayiner 12y agoAnd most recently he was an MD at a VC firm that invests in early stage internet companies: http://www.core-capital.com/portfolio.aspx http://www.core-capital.com/portfolio.aspx. It's pretty disingenuous to note his lobbying for cable companies in the 1970's and 1980's, before they even entered the Internet service business, while ignoring that his most recent connections are to Internet companies that ride on the infrastructure built by the telecoms. Also, CTIA represents wireless carriers, which are under a different regulatory umbrella than telcos or cable. To the extent you can infer bias from Wheeler's work, the strongest inference is in favor of a bias towards Internet companies, not a bias towards telcos. Of course, I wouldn't characterize him as biased, but rather as someone with experience with the "full stack."
- gorhill 12y ago> "Regulating Internet Like Phone Companies" There is this other headline which came to my mind when I read the above headline: "Retroactive Amnesty for Telecoms". https://www.eff.org/pages/case-against-retroactive-amnesty-telecoms https://www.eff.org/pages/case-against-retroactive-amnesty-t...
- bko 12y agoI don't think I fully understand the argument for net neutrality. I try to think about it from a few different perspectives: Broadband intensive services like Netflix: I think a problem that they face is that their connection is often slow, not only intentionally, but also because developing infrastructure is expensive. Why would an ISP bother building out the infrastructure if they can't extract a higher value from those that it most benefits (Netflix)? In fact, Netflix thinks it's worth it to pay Comcast directly. If that was not beneficial, I don't see why Netflix would have done so. Sure, they would probably prefer to get that service for free, but it must be mutually beneficial for both parties to go along. If Netflix were not allowed to make sure a deal with a company like Comcast, would that really benefit anyone? Smaller Websites: There is the risk that ISPs try extracting a toll but I think it may not be worth it a lot of the time for the ISP. I think this fear is overblown, although I could be wrong. Consumers that don't use broadband extensive services: Why should those consumers be subsidizing those that use broadband heavy services? Consumers using broadband extensive services: Why should Netflix not be allowed to help subsidize the cost of providing broadband? Why should this fall solely on the individual? Government: The obvious concerns of more governmental control of the internet. I could imagine a scenario where Netflix was not allowed to pay Comcast directly for increased bandwidth. Instead, Netflix would spend that money to lobby politicians to force Comcast to build out their infrastructure. I don't see how that's a better scenario than currently exists. I think a better solution to very little competition in ISPs would be to decrease the barriers it takes to compete. Further regulation would only increase the barriers. Netflix paying Comcast: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/04/after-netflix-pays-comcast-speeds-improve-65/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/04/after-... Starting an ISP is Really Hard: http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/04/one-big-reason-we-lack-internet-competition-starting-an-isp-is-really-hard/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/04/one-big-reason-we-la...
- benmathes 12y agoShort 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.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/12/books/review/Leonhardt-t.h...
- pvnick 12y agoYes, 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 FCC to exert over the internet does not yet appear directly tied to the NSA, but after the past year of Snowden revelations I just want the government to keep the hell as far away from technology as possible. Because the only way this policy becomes politically feasible is when there's a way net neutrality could somehow be perverted to weaken the internet's ability to shine light on corruption.
- adventured 12y agoIt was always inevitable that the US Government would crawl all over the Internet when it comes to regulation and controlling free speech. Such a thing cannot be allowed to continue to exist in the era of the rising police state. They'll leave the veneer in place.
- ep103 12y agois 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.
- pvnick 12y agoEffective 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.
- whoisthemachine 12y agoObama supports it? Now this is DEFINITELY not going to happen.
- trvz 12y ago1) 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.
- Cuuugi 12y agoNot to mention the policing of content, which this legislation permits. Regulation is the beginning of the end of the open internet.
- adventured 12y agoThe thing the fans of net neutrality don't seem to believe, is the notion that as the US Government gets more entrenched into regulating the Internet, they will regulate content as well. And that's exactly what will happen. It would take a complete lack of understanding of the modern US Government (say the last 40 years) to think they won't regulate content. They abuse every power they're granted to an extreme, in an ever widening spiral. I appreciate the premise behind net neutrality, but all governments are not the same; if you give two different governments the same power, they'll use it differently. This is an extraordinarily abusive government, that just loves to silence people, they cannot be trusted to be hands off when it comes to controlling free speech online. It's best to keep them far away from such powers.
- JediWing 12y agoI'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.
- Cuuugi 12y agoNo, it is not. It's about gov't vs. private control. There are provisions for "lawful content" in this law.
- le_hackour 12y agoErm, this is the guy who brought us all those horrible things Snowden exposed. This is also the guy is notorious for reneging on all his promises. I do _not_ want him anywhere near the internet.
- vegancap 12y agoHe presided over some of the worst breeches of data privacy in contemporary political history, how exactly does he expect anyone to trust him? Would he have made these bold statements, had he not have been found out?
- binarray2000 12y ago1. 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. Democrats (along with BO) were doing the same. Now that GOP has the majority in both the congress and the senate they MIGHT pay lip service to the issue, but, nothing will change in essence. 4. Maybe you think/hope, people will go out on the streets, write petitions, fight for NN. If recent history teaches us something it's this: Snowden revelations didn't move much US citizens on to the streets. And, compared to NN, it was a larger issue. (Hope for a better world is something to strive for, but after all these years, I've realized that there is only one reality: Interest. And Big Money has a lot of it to fight NN)
- unchocked 12y agoFour 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.
- binarray2000 12y ago> 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.
- vegancap 12y agoSo on one hand he calls for state regulation of ISP's, yet on the other he calls for a "free and open" internet. So which is it to be?
- cynicalkane 12y agoThe standard economic and policy solution is local anti-monopoly regulation plus a nationwide free market. Laying fiber and cable is pretty expensive so it's likely the "local" scope will often include entire states. This falls into the category of "free markets need to be regulated", which is the economic field's most important and most repeated caveat.
- yc1010 12y ago"... Obama asked for no blocking of websites ..." So no blocking of torrent sites? yeh as if thats going to happen, rolls eyes
- jjtheblunt 12y agoAs usual, in the general case, President Obama verbs for a noun phrase. (Not that it's bad, just routine.)
- SergeyB 12y agoGetting rid of 'throttling' and 'extra fees' not a bad idea. However, "Free and Open" is a way off. "New ISP Regulations for Internet Access" would be closer to reality. I am sure they will slip in some shady unconstitutional Section in the new Law as they always do.
- aosmith 12y agoHahahah this is laughable...
- DigitalSea 12y agoAs 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 as important as this? He has had six years to act on this. Could it perhaps have anything to do with the fact the Democrats took a heavy blow recently with Republicans being popular with the voters in the recent election? Is Obama merely trying to save some face with the voters for his party to mitigate risk at the next presidential election? Maybe, maybe not. It probably is not fair of me to try and make connections to speculative thoughts like that. I am passionate about net neutrality and it just feels weird Obama is going public on a subject like this not long after votes were casted. But you know what? Either way, if Obama can get a bill deeming internet to be classified as a utility within the next two years, maybe he will leave behind a legacy that we talk of in the years to come. It might be six years too late, but if anyone can make something like this happen, it is the president. I am aware that the FCC can change things without any bills needing to be passed and while I am speculating here, the FCC is not exactly known for being honest and transparent. An independent agency with some suspicious ties to lobbyists and corporations trying to protect their monopolies like Comcast. The issue here is the FCC can change things and should change things but ultimately will not change a thing unless the pressure is there from the right hands. Obama speaking up is great, do not get me wrong, but I think the likes of the FCC will need more than gentle words to start changing things. Action needs to be taken. I simply refuse to believe that an agency can run itself to the point where it controls what can and cannot happen with something as important as the internet which in my opinion is a basic human right to have access to.
- nicksergeant 12y agoBefore there are bills, there must be words.
- 001sky 12y agohttp://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/pres-obama-drops-by-marthas-vineyard-home-of-comcast-ceo_b81465 http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/pres-obama-drops-by-mart... http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-obama-hobnobs-friends-marthas-vineyard/story?id=14371354 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-obama-hobnobs-frien... http://articles.latimes.com/2013/aug/17/nation/la-na-obama-vacation-20130818 http://articles.latimes.com/2013/aug/17/nation/la-na-obama-v...
- davidholmesnyc 12y agoThis is a good thing everybody. Lets see what happens going forward.
- mfisher87 12y agoDo NOT be fooled. An explicit ban on paid prioritization is the only way to preserve the system we have today. If you allow paid prioritization, there will no longer be a "vibrant" tech sector (as we think of it today) in the US. If you only ban paid prioritization, ISPs will continue to hold monopolies, price-fix, offer inferior service, not invest in their infrastructure, and fuck over their customers with fraudulent charges. But, hey, Netflix will stay in business, so all's well, right?! The goal with this move is to AVOID common carriers and AVOID competition. Paid prioritization is a minor symptom of the problem that ISPs are not common carriers. I say this because without common carriers, if the only ISP has paid prioritization, a there is no competitor to switch to. Banning paid prioritization will do nothing to address the actual problems with American ISPs. Our cable lobbyists and therefore our government will do anything to avoid common carrier legislation being passed. Common carriers would not be allowed to control the content on their wires at all -- they would be forced to let ISPs purchase bandwidth and compete on the same wire. Granting wire ownership and content control to one company is a natural monopoly: In almost every locale new ISPs cannot use the wires someone else owns, new ISPs cannot dig trenches for new wires, and new ISPs have no common wires to offer service on. Therefore, no new ISPs can form under normal conditions, and competition cannot exist. The only logical conclusion is that we are being denied a free market, on purpose.
- opendais 12y agoDid you read the article? "No paid prioritization. Simply put: No service should be stuck in a “slow lane” because it does not pay a fee. That kind of gatekeeping would undermine the level playing field essential to the Internet’s growth. So, as I have before, I am asking for an explicit ban on paid prioritization and any other restriction that has a similar effect." "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. This is a basic acknowledgment of the services ISPs provide to American homes and businesses, and the straightforward obligations necessary to ensure the network works for everyone — not just one or two companies." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934 Title 2 is Common Carrier. Now whether they actually do anything with a Republican senate/congress in 2015 idk. But they are suggesting what you are asking for.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- BatFastard 12y agoThis 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.
- bengrunfeld 12y agoYeah, and then he goes and signs an order expanding the permissions of the NSA and FBI to bypass constitutional rights and international law in the pursuit of being able to access and store private and confidential user data.
- misingnoglic 12y agoI know nothing about politics, but my guess is that this is a reaction to the majority republican house/senate. There's no way in hell a bill like this can be passed through congress (with all the special interests and whatnot), so by being at the front of this movement which is important to so many people, they'll opt to blame the republicans (who are now in charge).
- mikeyouse 12y agoThe FCC can designate Title-II carriers with absolutely no input from congress, your theory isn't plausible.
- dschiptsov 12y ago..while all the major manufacturers of network equipment are trying their best to implement and even standardize logging, tracking, data collecting and traffic filtering "features" requested by governments of different countries, including US.
- mickrussom 12y agoYeah, one that he controls and regulates.
- mbrubeck 12y agoThis is very similar to Mozilla's proposal to the FCC last spring: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/mozilla-offers-fcc-a-net-neutrality-plan-with-a-twist/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/mozilla-offers-fc... Mozilla: "The petition calls on the FCC to designate last-mile delivery of edge provider communications as “remote delivery” services, and as telecommunications services under Title II of the Communications Act." Obama: "I believe the FCC should reclassify consumer broadband service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act."
- Selfcommit 12y agoHow is Tom Wheeler not mentioned once in this article? Is there not a direct connection between his appointment by Obama and this issue?
- dgroves 12y agoInteresting, once it is a utility, the government is able to freely apply surveillance...
- zoba 12y agoI am excited Obama is getting in on this, however, I'm concerned Net Neutrality may become a partisan issue. Ted Cruz has stated that Net Neutrality is like Obamacare for the internet (http://www.businessinsider.com/ted-cruz-net-neutrality-is-obamacare-for-the-internet-2014-11 http://www.businessinsider.com/ted-cruz-net-neutrality-is-ob...) which just enrages me. Please get the message out to your conservative friends/family before the right has an opportunity to brain wash them.
- ianburrell 12y agoNet neutrality is already a partisan issue. Republicans have always been opposed to net neutrality as unnecessary regulation of the Internet. Republicans in Congress threatened to overturn the 2010 net neutrality rules through legislation. Then the courts decided the FCC did not have the authority to enforce those rule. Congress could have passed net neutrality legislation but the Republicans are happy with the current unregulated status which is why they haven't discussed it. Since then FCC has been trying to write new rules within their authority. Which is why the proposed rules are so limited and regulate fast lanes. The other option for the FCC is to declare ISPs as common carriers and regulate them like telephone companies. The Republicans will almost certainly try to block this.
- Animats 12y agoUnfortunately, he's saying this at the point he has no chance of getting it through Congress.
- joezydeco 12y agoAnd it's already getting worse: https://twitter.com/SenTedCruz/status/531834493922189313 https://twitter.com/SenTedCruz/status/531834493922189313 "Net Neutrality" is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government.
- smspence 12y agoTed 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/2014/11/05/gop-pledges-to-govern/18534759/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2014/1...
- cement 12y agoTed Cruz is incredibly popular and a frontrunner for the 2016 presidential nomination. If he isn't representative of the modern Republican party, who is?
- smspence 12y agoI'm sorry, I think I'm going to need a citation for that "incredibly popular" claim. Or is it that I run in the more moderate circles, so I am unaware? Is he popular among everyone, or popular among tea-party nutter butters?
- waterlesscloud 12y agoHe'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/2014/10/19/National-Politics/Polling/question_14941.xml?uuid=b0cc4ldEEeS4bRhKwoE4jQ http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/...
- jflatow 12y agoThere's a lot of confusion about net neutrality and regulation of the internet at large. I'd love to see a poll of the HN community to see the distribution of support, amongst what should be a relatively knowledgable group of people. Unfortunately I don't have enough karma to create it myself.
- daveloyall 12y agoWhat 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.
- emjaygee 12y agoIt's a trap! I want net neutrality as much as the next person but having the federal government oversee it like it oversees utilities is a cure far worse than the disease.
- notastartup 12y agoFree and Open Internet Vouched by NSA
- JediWing 12y agoThis 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.
- NiftyFifty 12y agoNow 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 ...
- doctorshady 12y agoThis is almost a little sad. Even on HN, a discussion about net neutrality seems to be devolving into a discussion of partisan politics.
- drawkbox 12y agoI hope this isn't just hope and words, Obama needs to make this his legacy issue. No segregation or discrimination online. There are no fast lanes, only slow lanes and tolls roads in our future if this isn't preserved. The internet is one last place of freedom in the US, don't turn it into a class/caste based system.
- crazy1van 12y agoFirst, 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 focus be on removing barriers to more local competition by getting rid of ordinances that create a defacto monopoly by constricting access to utility poles and right-of-ways. When Verizon offered fios to my area, overnight comcast dropped their prices and then raised their speeds significantly. I want more of that.
- therealdrag0 12y agoWhat 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.
- _greim_ 12y agoThe electrical grid is (supposedly) badly in need of an overhaul. I don't know if this is correlated to electrical being a utility however.
- crazy1van 12y agoWhy would power companies upgrade? Their monopoly status has taken away all financial incentive to improve things. And their monopoly status is given by the federal government. That makes them far more interested in keeping the government happy instead of keeping me, the consumer, happy.
- jameshart 12y agoAC 2.0: now running at 120Hz! That's TWICE AS FAST as your grandfather's AC. And delivered at a selection of voltages to suit your needs - from a new 30V option for price-conscious consumers, right up to 120V to meet the needs of even the most demanding family.* Worried about replacing all your appliances? Don't be! We can supply all the latest AC 2.0 devices from top manufacturers for a low initial price, when you sign up for a three year contract. * Full voltage available for first 2kWh every month only. Fair wattage policy applies.
- byEngineer 12y agoscrewed up medicare. screwed up with russia. screwed up with Iraq. Time to screw up the internet!
- dang 12y agoUrl changed from http://techcrunch.com/2014/11/10/president-obama-calls-for-a-free-and-open-internet-wants-it-reclassified-as-a-utility http://techcrunch.com/2014/11/10/president-obama-calls-for-a..., which points to this.
- quakershake 12y agoWhy should we care about what the POTUS has to say about internet freedom? It's not like the POTUS or politicians in general have a good track record of trustworthiness. IMO, anytime officials are talking about it, they are guaranteed to screw it up. I am actually surprised that they aren't talking more about having it be $Free and under government control. Maybe that is step 2. Either way, the less authority the ISPs and the Government have over your network traffic the better.
- jaked89 12y ago"Free" and "neutral" can't co-exist. "Free" means that the government controls it. This by itself implies that it's not neutral. Q.E.D.
- kolanos 12y agoProbably shouldn't have appointed a former Comcast exec as the head of the FCC, Barry.
- tn13 12y agoThe usual political propaganda where a politician pretends to be "champion of freedom" while doing something that is exactly opposite. (In past he had described Tax Cuts as Tax Subsidies, implying all money belongs to government by default). Here is the more relevant part "In a letter and a video posted on the White House website, President Obama said he believes "the FCC should reclassify consumer broadband service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act," allowing Internet Service Providers to be more heavily regulated. According to Obama, the change would acknowledge that "the Internet has become an essential part of everyday communication and everyday life." This basically would mean government will now have a much bigger control over how new players enter this space and how they operate and how much profit they can make. When was the last time you heard PG&E doing something innovative ? The real problem with net-neutrality has not been that the operators are bad. The real problem is existing government regulation does not facilitate entry of new players. More government regulation would only mean slowing down of innovative services like Google Fiber or SpaceX's internet satellites. This sort of regulation would destroy the internet as we know it and will give more control to Government as to how we consume internet.
- tn13 12y agoThe usual horror of the phrase "I am from government and I am here to fix things for you". Now, the government is in-charge of how we consume internet. This is bad and very bad. I cant see any scenario where this would be good for us. Expect the prices to go up and service to go down.
- cranklin 12y agoI think this statement is just a disclaimer by the president for what's to come. Does anybody truly believe that he's in favor of net neutrality?
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- coupdejarnac 12y agoI'm going to see Sen. Cruz speak on Saturday. If I get the chance, I'll ask him about his net neutrality stance.
- SkyMarshal 12y agoTell him that the de-regulation Republicans want will get us the Enron of the Internet.
- graycat 12y agoOn 'network neutrality', I'm lost: Someone please clear this up for me, say, with this 'scenario': I pay my ISP for 15 Mbps download bandwidth, and some Web site with video clips pays their ISP for 10 Gbps upload bandwidth. So, I connect to that Web site and download or 'stream' a video clip. Then the Web site better get their 1 Gbps upload bandwidth, if they want to send that much, and if they send me 15 Mbps of video then I better get the full 15 Mbps I paid for. So, what's the role of 'fast lane', 'slow lane', the Web site paying my ISP for 'more', 'slow downs', etc. Or as far as I can see, if I'm getting my 15 Mbps (from any Web site sending me that much) and the Web site is getting their 1 Gbps, everything should be okay. Otherwise, either my ISP or the Web site's ISP is not delivering what they were paid for, and I have a tough time believing that that would be common. I'm failing to see the opportunity for funny business. Or, yes, if use the Internet as a video phone, then there could be issues of dropped packets, out of order packets, latency, jitter, etc. -- is that what the talk is about?
- GeneralMayhem 12y ago>either my ISP or the Web site's ISP is not delivering what they were paid for, and I have a tough time believing that that would be common. Believe it. It's happening today. Internet plans are always advertised as "up to" some speed, which is a logically meaningless statement. 0 is "up to" 15.
- mac01021 12y agoIs the proposed policy designed to fix problems that real people are having right now? If so, who is being blocked from what?
- ajcarpy2005 12y ago>And then you encounter things like this by Senator Ted Cruz: The biggest regulatory threat to the Internet is "net neutrality." In short, net neutrality is Obamacare for the Internet. It puts the government in charge of determining Internet pricing, terms of service, and what types of products and services can be delivered, leading to fewer choices, fewer opportunities, and higher prices for consumers. The Internet should not operate at the speed of government >How does one even begin to engage with people that find this in any way intellectually valid? >It doesn't even make sense and yet I have family that shares his status.
- transfire 12y agoIf the FCC rules against Net Neutrality, there is only one thing to be done: All the network administrators in the country must band together and bring the Internet to a screeching halt. Neither the politicians, the lobbyists, nor the corporate suits have any idea how to keep these systems running. But all the system admins that do, they know full well what is at stake here. So I have no doubts about this. As long as all of the admins can organize in action, Net Neutrality will soon become the law.
- MarkMc 12y agoCan a net neutrality advocate please help me understand why the internet is different to physical roads and bridges? UPS and FedEx are free to charge a different price when delivering a package from Amazon.com compared to Walmart.com. So why should an internet service provide be prevented from charging a different price for delivering data from Amazon.com compared to Walmart.com? Is it simply a case of there not being enough competition between internet service providers? If so, should net neutrality still be required in areas where there IS competition? For example, where I live in Australia I can get a 4G mobile data plan from any of 3 different providers (Telstra, Optus and Vodafone). Competition between them seems very effective, so is there really a need to require net neutrality in this case?
- redwood 12y agobecause in your example any number of delivery services can go in and enter to compete for that business; but the realm of the broadband internet only 1, 2 or mayby at most 3 entities have been exclusively given the right to provide you with that access
- aidenn0 12y ago> Is it simply a case of there not being enough competition between internet service providers? This is a big part of it (2/3) of the US have 2 or fewer options for broadband. > UPS and FedEx are free to charge a different price when delivering a package from Amazon.com compared to Walmart.com. This is the wrong analogy. A better one is probably a gated community (which Wikipedia tells me is rare in Australia, unfortunately, so it may not be a good one for you). The cast of this little play is as follows: Netflix (played by amazon). L3, Akamai: Played by UPS and FedEx Comcast: played by the community association You live in the gated community. You pay the association that runs the gated community for upkeep of the roads within the gate. Part of this includes a guard who lets delivery vehicles in. Delivery vehicles used to be relatively low volume, but Amazon becomes popular, and all of the sudden UPS trucks are coming in a lot; as in to the point where the association needs to hire a second guard to let them in. The association refuses to do it unless UPS pays a monthly fee. Around this time, the community association starts its own online store which residents can by from without any shipping delays. Meanwhile, FedEx (which enters the community via a different gate) is having no trouble with deliveries. Amazon notices this and starts using FedEx in addition to UPS to solve the problem. Unfortunately the same pattern as with UPS happens. People start complaining to Amazon and UPS, which results in a blog article from UPS talking about how the Community Association wants them to pay extra for more gates into the community; this makes no sense for 2 reasons: 1) The CA is there to serve the residents, and the residents are the ones who ordered from Amazon 2) Traditionally the CA pays for any infrastructure improvements within the gate, primarily due to #1 So the CA which is supposed to be serving the interests of those living within it is now abusing its status as gatekeeper to charge Amazon for the privilege of delivering packages to it. This finally gets resolved with Amazon, under protest, paying to put a shipping warehouse within the gate, which is something they had earlier offered to do without charge.
- aidenn0 12y agoI feel like he has just guaranteed that Title II won't happen; the Republicans just got elected on a platform that essentially boiled down to "We aren't Obama" and now control a majority of the legislature.
- tn13 12y agoHe is not calling for a free and open internet. He is essentially bringing it under government control by painting ISPs as bad guys.
- sidcool 12y agoI am ready to vote for the President for a third term only on this policy stance. But again, I am from India so can't vote in the US and Presidents can't have a third term in the US.
- morky 12y agoOh you mean the dude who has been persecuting journalists in a more aggressive manner than any previous president. Yeah trust him and his opinion.
- em3rgent0rdr 12y agoObama's comment "and the content is legal" comes the same day we hear the government seizes TOR nodes: http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/11/law-enforcement-seized-tor-nodes-and-may-have-run-some-of-its-own/ http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/11/law-enforcement-seiz...