Slashdot Mirror
Obama To Veto Anti-Net-Neutrality Legislation
An anonymous reader writes "In a statement of policy on Tuesday, the White House announced that President Obama will veto upcoming legislation that would undermine the FCC's net neutrality rules. According to the statement (PDF), the rules 'reflected a constructive effort to build a consensus around what safeguards and protections were reasonable and necessary to ensure that the Internet continues to attract investment and to spur innovation.' The statement continued, 'It would be ill-advised to threaten the very foundations of innovation in the Internet economy and the democratic spirit that has made the Internet a force for social progress around the world.'"
I'm impressed. The first time in 3 years I've been impressed, so the bar is pretty low. But good going Obama.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I don't live in America, but it's nice to see that some people in the government appreciate the internet for what it is.
This is why it is so good to have a President who is also a good lawyer, instead of that barely-literate, inbred President Dunsel we had before him.
every once in a while even Bush did the right thing
So far FCC and net neutrality has failed to hold up in court so this is symbolic. The FCC doesn't not have jurisdiction over the Internet and as such the law is baseless. Hot air just like everything else he done his whole life.
But he's so pretty.
ACTA is a Trojan horse for anti net neutrality.
quoting: protections were reasonable and necessary to ensure that the Internet continues to attract investment
I do not want it to 'attract investment'. that usually means money and business people and those are the very ones who have ruined what was an excellent and freedom-based comms medium.
investment means 'I own this!' from some big daddy's point of view.
that's always going to be bad.
the more you throw those insane business-minded folks at what we have, the more they ruin it. its like farting in a pool. we don't want those guys around; they ruin everything they touch.
when the internet was run by techies, it worked. now its well on its way to beign a segmented totally-ruined system. ALL because the money folks came in and polluted what we had. bascially they hijacked our internet as a 'sales tool' when it was SO MUCH more than that and so much more elevated in what it was accomplishing.
10 years from now, the internet is going to be like what TV (broadcast) is now. no one intelligent will be able to stand the bullsht that it will grow to become. I cannot stand to sit in front of a tv anymore; even 1 commecial turns me off and the 'programming' is insulting at best. give the internet 10 more years at the direction its going and it will be worthless to anyone with half a brain cell.
hope there's a new thing that we can jump to before the knuckledraggers come and ruin THAT, too.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
when its 5.30am and you have not had your coffee yet, sometimes tags don't get balanced. sigh. again, sorry I left out a close-bold tag. yeah yeah, preview mode. duh.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
At least he isn't TRYING to get us killed.
I'm sorry to announce this is a trap. Net Neutrality rules the FCC have passed are not about being neutral, they're about picking sides (or rather, the government picking sides for you).
Think about it: who regulates the Internet right now? The ISPs. You may have your complaints about the ISPs, but you can switch to another one if you don't like the one you're on.
But now, the FCC is trying to usurp the power to regulate the Internet from the ISPs, thus restricting the freedom of the consumer to choose the ISP he likes best- which would almost inevitably be the one with the least restrictions.
It's similar to situation with lightbulbs; pretty soon we're going to have to buy $7 mecury-filled lightbulbs- supposedly to combat global warming. See, this decision could have been made at the state or local level (local= ISPs, see the relation?), but now the government has made the decision FOR YOU.
Net Neutrality, in most cases, is a code-word for 'regulation of the Internet'. BE WARY, do your homework, don't let the government defile the greatest tool of free speech man has ever held.
It's not that the military discriminated against homosexuals. You could fight in the army no problem. Just don't let anyone know your sexual preferences. Then again, I didn't see an entry for "Sado Masochism" in the "Sex:" part of the application form, so I'm assuming that the military aren't interested in your sex life.
Is "freedom-based comms medium" some sort of code for POTS?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
I don't care your position on the matter, one way or the other. If there's a complicated rule that wasn't clearly given as a task for a regulatory body, the rule should come from Congress.
I would rather be ruled by a democratic, if incompetent, body than a bureaucracy that has aggregated powers to itself.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
We got this one, now I want more. I want Obama to come out and say he will veto E-Parasite/Protect-IP. If anything is a threat to net neutrality, it's these bills being pushed by the RIAA.
I don't mean to talk in absolutes, but the tech industry seems to be one of the few left that is still actually working and working well. If i were in charge i definitely wouldn't be messing with it.
You mean something may actually pass both houses?
Election time is coming. He has to pretend to be the president we elected for a little while. Now is a good time to do that, if he keeps it up voters short memories will ensure that his first few years in office don't harm him. Then he can go back to being Bush++ when he is re-elected.
of the 2012 presidential election scampaign ?
It's right more often!
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
The FCC's original mandate was to regulate the airwaves not their content. Eventually of course that all changed. I expect the very same thing to happen to the internet ... you know ... to protect children, america's business interests and to fight terrorists of course.
First, writing bold doesn't make your point better. Stop it.
Second, your point is actually good, but I think it's a bit pessimistic. I don't think investement ruined the internet already. It has more content, more accessible than ten years from now and it's more userfriendly. (And for goddamn sake, the average webpage is now actually readable.)
Then it has its drowbacks... Investors like to get much for their money... So some design aren't what makes sense technically... streaming and online money operation comes to mind, and I'm sure there are other stuffs... But what would be Internet without investors? A collection of half empty pages barely readable for huma eye with pretty much no visibility? Well You can always find that web. It's still there somewhere...
(\__/) This is Lapinator
(='.'=) copy it in your sig
(")_(") so it can take over the world
Applying regulation to the internet is the gateway to further government control. A LOT of control. Oh well, we didn't care about freedom anyway I guess.
Anytime someone in the thrall of Hollywood votes on something that pertains to an open network, be afraid... be very afraid.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Did I say that guy going on and on about his SEX LIFE was OK?
No.
I'd like to give him credit, but I see this more as a move to keep power in the executive branch. Obama has been as ferocious as Bush/Cheney to move authorities over to the executive and has challenged pretty much any legislation that would take power away from him. (ex: war power in Libya, Patriot Act extensions, civil liberties)
First, writing fixed width doesn't make your point better. Stop it.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Hey hey, lets be fair; W. wasn't trying to get US killed, just all you little people without money.
I got here through a series of tubes
Oh yeah?
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
We need to let Obama know of our support for this action. You can kevetch and criticize other things or the timeing or the lateness, but you need to show your support (as in email to the White House) for things done right and that emboldens him to do more and take more postitive steps because he knows he is working from a supported position.
Yea. These are problems left behind by Bush. Link me to an article that says they are building nukes because of Obama being president? That's right... you can't.
Nice.
That's good
That's... also good I guess. I forget if we want laws on this or not.
That's bad
That's... let's see. It's anti-anti-net-neutrality. The anti's cancel each other out so we're just left with... ok that's good.
That's also good although... wait, has Slashdot ever run a favorable Obama headline since he took office? Maybe the stem cells thing...
Schnapple
Had to do a little Googling, but it seems Velex appreciates this move by Campbell's the food company, and buys accordingly: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-42740224/campbells-gay-soup-ad-causes-storm-in-a-bread-bowl/?tag=bnetdomain
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
I'm glad you put your entire post in bold so I could instantly realize you were a lunatic and not waste time reading your paranoid ramblings.
Oh. F&F is a Bush thing. Right. No, wrong. You are wrong.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
The FCC chose to re-implement rules that were already struck down by federal courts. By re-implementing something that the courts have viewed as outside the power of the FCC, it could be argued that this is a power grab. The proposed law, promised to be vetoed, is Congress' attempt to define the role that the FCC has - and codify what was already ruled upon by the courts.
Why should the FCC have the power?
"Software is the difference between hardware and reality"
oh for gods sake, get over this mentality that "investment ruins things" - you are posting on slashdot, an advertisement supported site, that is run on commercial hardware, over commercial pipelines. Do you really think this would be there if there wasn't any "investment" in it?
The internet is not "totally ruined" nor on its way there. There may be areas you wish to avoid, but you still have the OPTION to avoid this. And everything still works via those open protocols written by "techies"
Do you think that the "Techies" would have been running the internet if there wasn't investment in it? Someone's gotta pay for all this stuff, all the fiber, the switches, the data centers.
I noticed you excluded broadcast when you mentioned television. That means that you imply that the NON-broadcast options - i.e. cable, premium services - are NOT insulting, idiotic, or whatever you feel. Which I find interesting, because the broadcast you so decry is run over the public airwaves, whereas those premium services have arguably a lot more investment into them by the "money guys," PLUS the end-user pays for the privilege of them. That seems awfully counter to what you appear to see as the ideal of the internet.
By the way, not all broadcast is commercial laden and awful. Yes much of it is, maybe it all is in your area... not in mine, and yes, I am in the US. I suspect that if you were to explore the depths of the "world wide web" these days, you would not find the overwhelming majority of it to your liking.
Yes, there has been a lot of gold-rushes and silliness on the net. Interestingly enough, the same spirit that was present years ago is STILL there today - There are "techies" innovating and collaborating still. You could build that "new thing" out the internet as it stands. Oh, you'll have to pay for connectivity and IP space, but I challenge you to tell me how the internet in ANY form would be able to exist and be sustainable without that at minimum.
F&F?
When the FCC redefined its own role by implementing the so-called Net Neutality rules, it did an end run around America's official representatives in Congress. As the OP noted, the courts have already ruled against a Federal bureaucracy assuming powers it can only be granted by the legislature. This veto, if there is one, can only be framed as Obama & the bureaucratic machine against the courts, the legislature, and the rule of law.
Operation Fast and Furious - where the Obama administration gave guns to Mexican drug lords over the objections of gun shop owners with the stated object of tracking them to catch the bad guys.
In reality, they did no tracking, and when law enforcement agents were KILLED with those guns, tried to cover things up and blame illegal gun sales for their own 'screwup' (and no, I'm not entirely sure it WAS a screwup, that this wasn't just another attempt to weaken the Second Amendment in the eyes of the public). Holder for sure is responsible (especially since he lied about it - they call it 'inconsistent testimony', but it was pretty clearly lies) - which makes it Obama's problem.
Paranoia is a Survival Trait!
See? You have no idea. Try getting your news from more than one point of view, just to have a shot at getting the truth. If you dunno what I am referring to as 'F&F', you're out of the loop. Get back in...
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Now ISP's can regulate how much bandwidth you're allowed based on what your streaming or downloading. Want to watch netflix in your livingroom - no problem, want to also watch it in the bedroom at the same time - I don't think so. Comcast has already regulated their Internet, who want's these companies to dictate how we use the Internet. I'm not fond of the Government but at least I know how they will regulate it.
What makes a man turn neutral ... Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?
Of-course there shouldn't be any legislation to regulate any business, federal government is NOT authorized for any of this by the Constitution.
But once you start killing people based on a hunch, go to wars without declaration and 'forgive' trillion of dollars by abusing the executive order.... what difference does it make then?
Of-course this is a veto of legislation, so I am for it.
You can't handle the truth.
>In early 2011, the operation became controversial when it was revealed that Operation Fast and Furious and other probes under Project Gunrunner had allowed guns to "walk" into the hands of Mexican drug cartels since as early as 2006.[2][3]
Emphasis mine.
So Obama was President in 2006?
--
BMO
Thank you for crushing that moron for me, bmo.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel like title (of both the original article and the slashdot post) is misleading as the article uses very precise wording.
The Senate measure, which mirrors the House resolution, says Congress “disapproves” of the FCC’s net neutrality rules, which “shall have no force or effect.”
Congress, and the EFF as well, disapprove of the FCC having this sort of power over content restrictions on the internet. This power to determine what can and can't go through internet pipes (and what can't be restricted) should be restricted to the legislative branch of the government, not an agency headed by appointed members.
This legislation is not anti-net neutrality; it is keeping the FCC's power in check, which I am all for.
Besides the fact that the FCC doesn't have to listen to voters as much as Congress does, the net neutrality rules that the FCC wants to put into place are far from perfect, and (at some point at least; I am not up to date on the detail) it even included an exception to net neutrality rules in order to aid compliance with copyright enforcement.
Sources:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/09/net-neutrality-fcc-perils-and-promise (Oct 2009) - regarding FCC's drafting net neutrality rules
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/05/net-neutrality-fcc-trojan-horse-redux (May 2010) - issue revisited
https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/01/14 (Jan 2010) - EFF comments on net neutrality loophole regarding blocking copyright infringement.
Yeah ... I pretty much agree with this ... except it may come sooner than 10 years from now ... if things aren't bad enough already.
Yea. These are problems left behind by Bush. Link me to an article that says they are building nukes because of Obama being president? That's right... you can't.
Right. Obama has all the nukes he needs. He's busy building drones instead.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
First, abusing ellipses doesn't make your point better. Stop it.
>In early 2011, the operation became controversial when it was revealed that Operation Fast and Furious and other probes under Project Gunrunner had allowed guns to "walk" into the hands of Mexican drug cartels since as early as 2006.[2][3]
Emphasis mine.
So Obama was President in 2006?
-- BMO
I don't know where you got your information (you neglected to include the references), but I can only assume you are referring to an earlier Bush Administration program called “Wide Receiver.” It was similar in that it also involved letting guns walk into Mexico. It's very different, however in the (1) the guns were actually traced the whole time, and (2) the Mexican LEO authorities knew about, were involved, and continued tracing the guns when they crossed the border.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
*shrug* I said it was his problem, not his initiative. Gunwalking wasn't resulting in dead US enforcement agents under Bush, AFAIK (I could be wrong) - 'just' Mexicans, so few paid attention until F&F and the Obama administration.
Also, the intimation that it was 'easy availability' in the US that was why the US was the source of the guns (when the easy availability was actually encouraged by the ATF operation, and contrary to what the gun shop owners wanted and current laws permitted) is where the outrage comes from. Essentially, the ATF actually was supplying the guns for crime in mexico, and the anti-2nd crowd was behaving as if that pesky 2nd amendment that should be curtailed, rather than gunwalking.
And as I said, it's Holder that should be held accountable. And that IS Obama's problem.
Paranoia is a Survival Trait!
You mean the operation that started in 2006? Care to point out when Obama was elected again?
Exactly. "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." - General George Patton. Drones save lives.
That's right. It wasn't continued under Obama, and the anti-gun nuts weren't calling for greatly increased gun 'control' due to american guns showing up in mexican crimes that happened DURING Obama's administration. Obama didn't keep any of the bad actors from the previous administration and that means that this administration is entirely innocent.
Oh. Wait. Strike that. Reverse it.
I actually LIKE the moderate-to-right approach that Obama has brought to the White House. That's why I voted for him; despite the insane ravings of the right, he is in FACT moderate - but you do no favors to the man by denying that his administration has done any wrong or intimating that his bears no responsibility for initiatives that started with the previous admin - yet continue under his own.
Paranoia is a Survival Trait!
First, writing fixed width makes your text more readable. Don't stop it.
While I sympathize with your point of view, I generally find that all of the things I loved about the internet in the 80s and early 90s still work, and often better. There are several orders of magnitude more internet thingies that are out there now, including the profit driven stuff, but it's still mostly optional.
Also, the profit driven portions of the internet have funded my paycheck and supported my family for quite a few years now, so I won't moan too much about it. That would be rather hypocritical.
Wait... isn't slashdot a profit driven internet thingy?
WALSTIB!
And it bothers me that many ardent supporters of net neutrality would forget it in a heartbeat because they don't like Obama.
Operation Fast and Furious and Operation Wide Receiver were completely different aspects of the Gunwalker program. One had the knowledge, approval, and cooperation of the Mexican government, involved less than 500 firearms, attempted to use tracking devices on over a third of the guns, and had aerial assets in place trying to track said GPS signals, and was not brought to the attention of the White House until it was shut down; the other involved one tracking device that did not work at all, was not known about by the Mexican government, involved over 2000 guns, all specifically guns that would violate any of the AWB bills floated past Congress during Obammy's tenure as president, were given to a very specific cartel, and had the full knowledge and backing of Holder, and probably the president himself, although there are no direct communications to that effect so far.
The sight of African Americans scares your tiny little self and you think that it's OK to have others die so that you can keep your false beliefs of being able to leach off of the healthcare of others. Basically, you are a sorry excuse of a human being, and if you don't like Obama, then he's probably doing a good job.
Crushing? Hardly. I guess you are one of those fools that believe not in arriving at the truth through discussion, but rather supporting your 'team', right or wrong, eh?
Paranoia is a Survival Trait!
In 2003, Gaddafi abandoned his WMD programs and made many other concessions to Western powers, in exchange for normal relations. The West basically turned around and disposed him, when the opportunity presented itself. Shows how trustworthy the West can be.
Every valuable real estate, market segment, marketplace, position, technology, system, etc etc etc will *ALWAYS* be regulated. The choice is whether it's regulated by the force of those who wield their power in secret, preserved by any means necessary including deadly force.... Or by an imperfect set of entities whose names are publicly known, are occasionally and inconsistently subjected to public scrutiny, and inconsistently removed from their positions of power.
As imperfect as "government regulation" is, regulation by thugs running the marketplace is consistently less competent, consistently more violent and consistently less productive.
I think you've got a point here...
(\__/) This is Lapinator
(='.'=) copy it in your sig
(")_(") so it can take over the world