Obama Appears To Endorse Net Neutrality

Discussion in 'The Howard Stern Show' started by BethSucks, Nov 10, 2014.

  1. BethSucks

    BethSucks Well-Known Member Staff Member

    Reputations:
    422,906
    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2012
    Messages:
    23,885
    Likes Received:
    46,366
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/10/obama-wants-ban-on-internet-fast-lane-deals/

    President Obama threw down the gauntlet Monday with cable companies and Internet providers by declaring they shouldn’t be allowed to cut deals with online services like YouTube to move their content faster.

    It was his most definitive statement to date on so-called “net neutrality,” and escalates a battle that has been simmering for years between industry groups and Internet activists who warn against the creation of Internet “fast lanes.” The president’s statement swiftly drew an aggressive response from trade groups, which are fighting against additional regulation.

    "We are stunned the president would abandon the longstanding, bipartisan policy of lightly regulating the Internet and calling for extreme" regulation, said Michael Powell, president and CEO of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, the primary lobbying arm of the cable industry.

    Obama, in his statement, called for an “explicit ban” on “paid prioritization,” or better, faster service for companies that pay extra. The president said federal regulators should reclassify the Internet as a public utility under Title II of the 1934 Communications Act.

    "For almost a century, our law has recognized that companies who connect you to the world have special obligations not to exploit the monopoly they enjoy over access in and out of your home or business," Obama said in his statement. "That is why a phone call from a customer of one phone company can reliably reach a customer of a different one, and why you will not be penalized solely for calling someone who is using another provider. It is common sense that the same philosophy should guide any service that is based on the transmission of information -- whether a phone call, or a packet of data."

    Obama's statement puts him in the middle of a debate between industry groups and the Federal Communications Commission, which is under public pressure – now from Obama as well -- to prevent broadband providers from creating the “fast lanes.”

    The FCC is nearing a decision on how far to go to protect Internet consumers from deals between broadband providers like Verizon and AT&T and content companies like Netflix or YouTube.

    But industry groups pushed back, with Powell arguing that such regulation would slow Internet growth.

    This "tectonic shift in national policy, should it be adopted, would create devastating results," Powell said, claiming only Congress should make a policy change of this magnitude.”

    Likewise, CTIA-The Wireless Association called Obama's proposal a "gross overreaction" that would ignore other viewpoints.

    Last January, a federal court overturned key portions of an open Internet regulation put in place by the FCC in 2010. The court said the FCC had "failed to cite any statutory authority" to keep broadband providers from blocking or discriminating against content.

    That ruling sent the FCC back to the drawing board. Until the FCC can agree on new regulations that satisfy the court's requirements, Internet service providers could block or discriminate against content moving across their networks with impunity.

    Internet activists say the FCC should reclassify the Internet as a public utility under Title II of the 1934 Communications Act to ensure it has enough power to regulate the Internet effectively. That's exactly what industry doesn't want to happen. Industry officials say they are committed to an open Internet in general but want flexibility to think up new ways to package and sell Internet services.

    FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has said he is open to using a "hybrid" approach that would draw from both Title II and the 1996 Telecommunications Act. But Wheeler said Monday that so far, those options have presented "substantive legal questions."

    "We found we would need more time to examine these to ensure that whatever approach is taken, it can withstand any legal challenges it may face," he said.

    The Associated Press contributed to this report.
     
    smichal and 1Vegasgirl like this.
  2. EndOfLine

    EndOfLine PLATINUM SPONSOR VIP

    Reputations:
    70,899
    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2010
    Messages:
    7,368
    Likes Received:
    9,634
    ... not if the cable companies and their lobbying $ have anything to say about it.
     
    Droog likes this.
  3. Mr Fantastic

    Mr Fantastic Found Nemo VIP

    Reputations:
    116,015
    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2010
    Messages:
    9,086
    Likes Received:
    22,485
  4. ScottBaiosPenis

    ScottBaiosPenis Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    76,885
    Joined:
    May 26, 2013
    Messages:
    8,956
    Likes Received:
    15,436
    good luck trying to sail that one thru the republican house and senate
     
    1Vegasgirl likes this.
  5. chapped

    chapped Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    384,616
    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2012
    Messages:
    55,632
    Likes Received:
    61,906
    Fucking douche bag Obama making it look like he gives as shit

    He appointed the cable industries hit-man lobbyist as the head of the FCC!!



    read them and weep......


    Chairman Tom Wheeler. Tom Wheeler became the 31st Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on November 4, 2013.Chairman Wheeler was appointed by President Barack Obama and unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate.

    Net neutrality[edit]
    In late April 2014, the contours of a document leaked that indicated that Wheeler's FCC would consider promulgating rules allowing Internet service providers (ISPs) to violate net neutrality principles by making it easier for Internet users to access certain content — whose owners paid fees to the ISPs (including cable companies and wireless ISPs) — and harder to access other content,[11] thus undermining the traditional open architecture of the Internet. These plans have received substantial backlash from activists, the mainstream press, and some other FCC commissioners.[12][13] In May 2014, over 100 internet companies including Google, Microsoft, eBay, and Facebook signed a letter to Wheeler voicing their disagreement with his plans, saying they represented a "grave threat to the Internet".[14] As of May 15, 2014, the fast lane bill passed voting with a 3/2 vote. It will now be open to public discussion that ends July 2014.[15]
     
  6. isabella

    isabella VIP Extreme Gold

    Reputations:
    64,558
    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2010
    Messages:
    14,357
    Likes Received:
    10,657
    i still don't understand what this means for someone like me.
     
    smichal likes this.
  7. FishySausage

    FishySausage Original Nuttah VIP Gold

    Reputations:
    153,960
    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2010
    Messages:
    12,717
    Likes Received:
    21,685
    It means any site without pockets deep enough to pay ridiculous fees will be slow.
     
    CrucifiedAGT and John Mahlin like this.
  8. cia212

    cia212 Well-Known Member VIP

    Reputations:
    14,308
    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2012
    Messages:
    4,722
    Likes Received:
    3,697
    So, he's picked a safe, youth-oriented, campaign-style cause to champion to try and stay relevant. Good for him...it's cute.
     
    NyMarkNy likes this.
  9. Bosch76

    Bosch76 2016 Politics POTY Gold

    Reputations:
    27,530
    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Messages:
    15,397
    Likes Received:
    45,287
    This
    [​IMG]
     
    smichal likes this.
  10. The Booey

    The Booey Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    112,355
    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    11,162
    Likes Received:
    21,175
    I thought net neutrality was a good thing, but if Obama supports it, maybe I was wrong.

    Or is this a case of a blind squirrel finding a nut?

    " ...and that government of the special interests, by the special interests, for the special interests, shall not perish from the earth."
     
    smichal likes this.
  11. Robert Higgins

    Robert Higgins Well-Known Member VIP

    Reputations:
    86,762
    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2012
    Messages:
    13,177
    Likes Received:
    20,287
    Sounds to me like Obama did a good thing. No?
     
    smichal and abbypark2225 like this.
  12. The Booey

    The Booey Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    112,355
    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    11,162
    Likes Received:
    21,175
    Mind-boggling, isn't it?
     
  13. Robert Higgins

    Robert Higgins Well-Known Member VIP

    Reputations:
    86,762
    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2012
    Messages:
    13,177
    Likes Received:
    20,287
  14. shitba

    shitba Shot Dead VIP

    Reputations:
    12,291
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2011
    Messages:
    1,648
    Likes Received:
    2,348
    .....
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2016
  15. shitba

    shitba Shot Dead VIP

    Reputations:
    12,291
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2011
    Messages:
    1,648
    Likes Received:
    2,348
    .....
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2016
  16. shitba

    shitba Shot Dead VIP

    Reputations:
    12,291
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2011
    Messages:
    1,648
    Likes Received:
    2,348
    .....
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2016
  17. The Booey

    The Booey Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    112,355
    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    11,162
    Likes Received:
    21,175
    Because he's not as bright as the Washington Press Corps told us six years ago. If anything he seems to be a man of average intelligence who is good at political advancement.
     
  18. dawg

    dawg In The Dog House Staff Member

    Reputations:
    540,035
    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    119,421
    Likes Received:
    90,632
  19. Avery

    Avery Well-Known Member Banned User

    Reputations:
    133,878
    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2010
    Messages:
    44,521
    Likes Received:
    24,207
    No, he endorses large companies paying access to a fast lane.

    Techcrunch:

    Now from TechCrunch’s article, The FCC’s New Net Neutrality Rules Will Brutalize The Internet:



    The FCC will propose new net neutrality rules that at once protect content from discrimination, but also allow content companies to pay for preferential treatment. The news, first reported by the Wall Street Journal, would in fact create a two-tiered system in which wealthy companies can “better serve the market” at the expense of younger, less well-capitalized firms.



    The above is only “net neutrality” in that it protects all content from having its delivery degraded on a whim. The rubric reported doesn’t actually force neutrality at all, but instead carves out a way for extant potentates to crowd out the next generation of players by leaning on their cash advantage.



    In practice this puts new companies and new ideas at a disadvantage, as they come into the market with a larger disadvantage than they otherwise might have. Any cost that we introduce that a large company can afford, and a startup can’t, either makes the startup poorer should it pay or degrades its service by comparison if it doesn’t.



    This will slow innovation and enrich the status quo. That’s a shame.


    New York Times:



    Still, the regulations could radically reshape how Internet content is delivered to consumers. For example, if a gaming company cannot afford the fast track to players, customers could lose interest and its product could fail.

    Consumer groups immediately attacked the proposal, saying that not only would costs rise, but also that big, rich companies with the money to pay large fees to Internet service providers would be favored over small start-ups with innovative business models — stifling the birth of the next Facebook or Twitter.

    “If it goes forward, this capitulation will represent Washington at its worst,” said Todd O’Boyle, program director of Common Cause’s Media and Democracy Reform Initiative. “Americans were promised, and deserve, an Internet that is free of toll roads, fast lanes and censorship — corporate or governmental.”


    WSJ:


    WASHINGTON—Regulators are proposing new rules on Internet traffic that would allow broadband providers to charge companies a premium for access to their fastest lanes.

    If the rule is adopted, winners would be the major broadband providers that would be able to charge both consumers and content providers for access to their networks. Companies like Google Inc. or Netflix Inc. that offer voice or video services that rely on broadband could take advantage of such arrangements by paying to ensure that their traffic reaches consumers without disruption. Those companies could pay for preferential treatment on the “last mile” of broadband networks that connects directly to consumers’ homes.

     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2014
    cia212 likes this.
  20. Pigsaw

    Pigsaw Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    20,707
    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2012
    Messages:
    2,576
    Likes Received:
    5,325
    In simple terms. Unless you pay up, you'll probably have to wait 15 minutes for Dawgshed to load.
     
    smichal likes this.