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!
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."
I know you're just trolling (and/or being ironic) but Pres. Bush was barely literate? He went to Yale and Harvard and did just fine (I'd wager, much better than many people on /. would do). He was quite bright (estimates based on SAT scores) and is a voracious book reader (mostly biographies and histories). Just because Pres. Bush was not an in-your-face-I'm-smarter-than-you type of person doesn't mean that he is barely literate and useless.
You might disagree strongly with his politics and his presidency - that's completely fine - but calling him names and resorting to insinuations about his intelligence adds nothing useful to the public political discourse.
Further, what's your evidence that Pres. Obama is a good lawyer? I'm not saying he wasn't, I just only know what little there is on Wikipedia about his legal work. He only practiced law for 3 years before he entered politics (and became a consultant for a law firm). Obama was never really a lawyer, he wanted to be a politician - law was a means to politics (I'm not saying that's necessarily bad). He's never done anything long enough to get a good gage of how good or not he is at it (other than running grassroots campaigns). He's very successful but a few years doing one thing and then a few years doing something else doesn't leave much of a trail by which to judge the quality of his work. Based on his record, a 4 year presidency would fit the pattern of his life.
I'm not saying these things to be negative, I'm simply offering critiques.
He got a 1206 on his SAT's. That doesn't make him bright but pretty much average - even I scored higher. He went to Yale and Harvard because of who his father was and we have no evidence of how much work he really did while there.
Of course, it is possible that he intentionally played dumb to be more attractive to his illiterate constituency. Some say the same thing about Sarah Palin. If you want dumb people to vote for you then you have to relate to them on their level.
Yeah thats exactly what we need - more lawyers, especially one who has 3 different aliases, 2 different social security numbers including one in Connecticut, and can't even cough up a birth certificate.
Here ya go -> http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/27/president-obamas-long-form-birth-certificate
GENERATION 24: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social exper
Just don't let anyone know your sexual preferences.
So what you're saying is that the guy who goes on and on about his wife and kids is ok, but the guy who lets something slip about his husband and kids...
Oh, nevermind. There's no talking sense into you people. "Family values" is a sham, and it makes me sick. Real family values might mean including your child who turns out to be homosexual or transgendered in your family instead of throwing him out with your trash.
Not like I care. Turns out I didn't need my family after all, just a shame they missed out on their child buying his/her first new car and buying a home because "family values" says that someone who isn't cisgendered and heterosexual can't be part of a family. It's also why when I want canned soup or chili, I buy Campbell's exclusively, even when something else is on sale. At least Campbell's soup thinks I deserve to have a family despite being LGBTQOMGWTFBBQ and has the balls to advertise to people who aren't heterosexual and to go tell "family values" to screw off.
Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
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.
Ok just a small correction: the SAT scores have been "re-centered", and 1206 is actually a bit higher then 1300 right now.
"we have no evidence of how much work he really did while there." -- troll aloud. That's a very faulty argument, specifically designed to discredit the facts when they in fact exists, and targeted at the "dumb" public. I can say that there is absolutely no evidence your mom did not spend a night with me a few years ago....
If you want an elitist snob as your leader then go ahead. You have to know though, that the reason average American people prefer a guy whom they can relate to is because he will understand they wants, struggles and problems. I bet you that a person like Obama before he became a senator and a president would not even let you within 100 feet of him. He can not relate to ordinary people, he only pretends to care about the poor. He once said: "it's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
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.
I fail to see anything better coming out of Dunsel the Second. Drones instead of troops, and the troops can announce their sexual preference before they get sent to die in the desert. Woopee he's defending "Net Neutrality" - completely worthless once PROTECTIP or E-PARASITE gets passed.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
How ironic, you've fallen for the trap.
Net Neutrality IS about being neutral. The only choice it makes for you is that it forces you to choose a neutral ISP, because it doesn't allow for non-neutral ones. I hope this demonstrates what a silly word game you're playing.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
You can't seriously believe anything you said. Obama an elitist snob? He is probably the most approachable president we've had since Carter. I can easily see sitting down and having a beer and talking sports with Obama.
And he cares a lot more about the poor than anybody running for the Republicans right now who want to tax them more and the wealthy less.
He is right about the guns, religion, and xenophobia (and I would add homophobia). These are people screwed and lied to for years and because their education system is so horribly flawed they are clinging to what they know and the Republicans are capitalizing on that while having no intention of fixing it.
You mean something may actually pass both houses?
The problem is... we can't choose ISP's in the US. I don't know where you live but I have a choice between 10/1 cable (which behaves like 8/512k) and if I'm lucky 1/128k (DSL). Verizon FiOS said they were coming for the last couple of years and we even had a petition to urge them to come but they never did.
My parents have a choice between 5/128k cable and... that's it. They can't even get cell phone reception at their house so 4G is out too.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
No, in many parts of the US there is only one ISP to choose from, at least if you want better than dialup anyway. Also, even where there is more than one broadband provider, they are mostly pulling the same kinds of tricks. When it comes to big media and telecom competition has failed to keep them in check a long time ago.
Also, if you are paying $7 for that CFL that's your fault. They haven't been that expensive in years! You are shopping at the wrong place.
There is plenty of reason to fear the government trying to regulate the internet... ACTA, SOPA, etc.. I don't think net neutrality legislation is it. For all the conservatives crying regulation at net neutrality I have yet to see one example of how any net neutrality regulation actually takes a choice away from an individual.
Finally, whoever modded the parent down... shame on you! A/C was just speaking A/C's mind. It doesn't matter that A/C is right/wrong let A/C share A/C's viewpoint! That's called free speech. If you disagree then comment back! 'Enlighten'us with your version of the world.
I used to think that net-neutrality was anti-free market, and I'm generally against new regulations (and many old ones) that violate free market principles. Then I thought about it for a while, and came to an interesting conclusion... Netflix is not Comcast's customer, I am. I pay for the bandwidth, I have an agreement with Comcast, and I want that bandwidth used for downloading content from Netflix.
So the question occurs to me: by what right would Comcast have in charging Netflix a premium, or throttling content from Netflix, when it's Comcast's own customers that are requesting that content using the bandwidth they've already paid for by agreement with Comcast?
Imagine a city that wants to charge Walmart extra because so many people are using the roads to get there instead of charging the people actually using the roads... it makes no sense.
Now if I'm being a bandwidth hog, then Comcast needs to talk to me... not the entity I'm requesting the bandwidth from. It's certainly anti-consumer to sell unlimited bandwidth at certain speeds and then throttle or charge extra for it. It's anti-consumer to sell certain speeds even with a bandwidth limit and throttle content when I haven't hit that limit yet.
On top of all that, charging content providers that compete against your own content is definitely anti-free market. I don't like a lot of regulations, it's true, but the ones that keep the free market free are fine by me; anti-monopoly, anti-lockout, anti-price fixing, anti-collusion... and when you're talking about an entity that was allowed right of way (and even monopoly status way back when they started to create their infrastructure - and in many cases maintains that broadband monopoly), it makes it even more compelling that they remain neutral w.r.t. content providers.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Obama is faced with reversing eight full years of extensive Bush/Republican wreckage!
My theory is that Obama wants to help America go in a sane and good direction, but that he knows that only four years as president would not be enough time to accomplish his goals, and that being followed by a Republican president would totally sabotage whatever progress Obama had made.
So, Obama does what he can to accomplish positive results for America, but cannot risk losing a second term.
I'm hoping that Obama gets a second term and then feels more comfortable advocating changes to government to improve circumstances for the average citizen.
But perhaps Obama really is beholden to big businesses (e.g., copyright and intellectual property holders), bankers, and government itself (e.g., protecting fellow politicians and bureaucrats from the citizens, instead of the other way around; and caring more about supporting government powers instead of supporting the rights of citizens).
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)
The SAT is not an IQ test, and should never be used as a means to determine who is "smart". As with most standardized tests, it tests you on your ability to take a test. Along with some test of knowledge of Math and vocabulary.
Not only that, but when he would have taken the SATs, most colleges other than community colleges would not have accepted a 1206. 1350 -> 1400 was the usual that most prestigious colleges required.
Standardized testing is just stupid in most cases though. I've seen exceptionally bright people who scored low and not quite bright people who've scored high. Not just on the SATs but in general. Some people who are really smart, just have a problem taking tests. Other people who aren't the smartest, are just really good at taking tests. When I was preparing for the SAT, it consisted of mostly standard test-taking strategies. The actual content and knowledge wasn't the focus. I assume it's like that for many people.
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.
I can choose Comcast or AT&T. Not much of a choice. I don't want either one of them regulating the internet -- regulation is government's job. If I don't like the FCC's regulations I can vote against the curent Chief Executive. If I don't like AT&T's or Comcast's "regulations" I have no recourse whaever.
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
That makes no sense to me whatever. How do FCC regs prevent me from switching to Comcast from AT&T (again, my only two choices)?
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.
How in the hell did your comment get modded up? "At the state or local level" means state and local GOVERNMENTS. And the feds do have constitutional authority to ban incandescents under the Commerce Clause. And your inflamatory rhetoric shows either your ignorance or your dishonesty; Far from being "full of mercury", CFLs have less mercury than is released by a coal-fired generator providing the extra power needed for the incandescant.
Net Neutrality, in most cases, is a code-word for 'regulation of the Internet'.
Wrong again, son. Net Neutrality says that ISPs must pass any data you request from any data provider you request it from. It's so Comcast can't restrict you from going to Hulu or CBS.COM or YouTube, which they would gladly do to get you to sign up for cable. Net Neutrality doesn't regulate YOU, it regulates your ISP. It prevents your ISP from fucking you over.
I'll bet you were all for California deregulating the power companies (like them blackouts and brownouts?) and the Feds deregulating the banking industry (how's your 401k? Hows the value of your home?).
Free Martian Whores!
First, writing fixed width doesn't make your point better. Stop it.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
You fell for the trap the telecoms want you to believe. Government control over the Internet is infinitely better than Big Telecom. If the government *wants* to control the Internet, they *will* do it one way or another. So, let's abandon that argument and note that the government is a lot more likely to give us freedoms than Big Business which wants to rape us of everything. What's the worst the government could do? I still have hope for this administration.
He was quite bright (estimates based on SAT scores) and is a voracious book reader (mostly biographies and histories).
That is true, but what's also true is that Bush deliberately cultivated the "Bush is a dummy" meme. "Jes' one o' the boys", as ignorant as the drunken off-duty construction workers he was wooing. An example -- once he was praising some intellectual (I don't remember who) who "Wrote four books when he was in college. I read a book when I was in college," Bush said.
The GP's incorrect vision of Bush lays at Bush's own feet. People think Bush was stupid because he wanted us to think he was stupid.
Free Martian Whores!
Its true with everything. Helmets, Seat Belts, Airbags, Planes that don't break up in the air. Bus drivers that arent drunk. ( I should be free to chose the bus service that does not have drunk bus drivers i don't need the government to make that decision for me.), DOT tires, gas stoves that don't blow up in my face, clean water ways ( if I can simply chose my ISP i can simply chose my water company.) etc etc etc. We need to get rid of government regulation so that the free market can work. If we leave it up to the free market then when companies poison the crap out of the ground water system, we the fully informed consumers will just switch to a competing company and the polluting company would lose in the marketplace. Its really simple. Look how good its working in china We need to be more like them.
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.
If you want an elitist snob as your leader then go ahead. You have to know though, that the reason average American people prefer a guy whom they can relate to is because he will understand they wants
Wow, using "whom" and ebonics in the same sentence
*head asplodes*
I bet you that a person like Obama before he became a senator and a president would not even let you within 100 feet of him
*head asplodes again*
And the high-born Bush would have sat down with you at Felber's bar and bought you a beer?
He can not relate to ordinary people,
You weren't alive when Bush's dad went to Wal Mart and was impressed by the fact that they had bar code scanners? Bush is ordinary people? Boy, he sure fooled you!
At least there's a pretense there, and there's no evidence that he is, in fact, pretending. Except for t he fact that he's done much of what Bush did (spending, bailouts, TSA, etc). Bush held no such pretense. Like most Republicans who were born rich, he's of the opinion that poor people are poor because they're stupid and lazy and deserve no help whatever.
Sorry, son, but you've let the 1% brainwash you.
Free Martian Whores!
Applying regulation to the internet is the gateway to further government control. A LOT of control.
The Internet was started by the US Department of Defense. The telecoms who currently make up most of the backbone have always had lots of regulation about what they can and can't do, and have also typically operated with subsidies to build capacity. Unix, which has formed the software basis of a huge number of Internet nodes, was created by the heavily regulated AT&T. The FCC has always had some authority to regulate Internet traffic.
Saying "Keep your government hands off my Internet!" makes about as much sense as "Keep your government hands off my Medicare!".
I am officially gone from
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
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"
>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
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.
>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
,The uncontrollable break down you experienced that we'll call the third paragraph of your post makes it appear as though your biggest problem is your own self loathing. Your parents and the military could very well be douches, but you clearly are not comfortable with your own sexuality.
How did you get self-loathing out his 3rd paragraph? Sounded more like bitterness against his parents b/c they kicked him out when he came out to them. "Child rejected by parents feels bitterness" might qualify for some counseling, but I don't see how self-loathing comes into it.
Neither Campbell's advertising campaign nor the change of military's position on gays ACTUALLY changed anything outside of your head
The Campbells advertising didn't change anything, but it did signal their support/acceptance/desire to profit from his lifestyle, so he returns the favor by supporting them. Seems reasonable. And revoking DADT certainly did ACTUALLY change the military. It is no longer illegal to be gay in the military. If your CO finds out you are gay (however that may occur) there are no longer official consequences. I'm not sure how that doesn't qualify as a significant difference.
People just don't give a fuck, your self loathing makes you think others care
Again with the self-loathing as a motivation for what already has very clear motivations. People just don't give a fuck? Then why did a whole organization of them (the AFA) criticize Campbells for trying to sell gay people soup? B/c they don't give a fuck about sexual orientation? Why did his parent kick him out for being gay? B/c they don't give a fuck about his sexual orientation?
You know, you try to sound like a caring person with your "You ARE an acceptable human being" line but if you really are trying to be nice, you failed. You are trying to convince this guy that nobody in society judges gay people for their sexuality, but rather all that perceived animosity is really just delusional externalizing of his own self-loathing. That is so mind-bogglingly delusional in and of itself (really, there are no anti-gay sentiments from segments of society???) that if you truly believe it, you need a 24/7 caretaker to make sure you don't hurt yourself. More likely, you're a giant asshole that wanted to see just exactly how much extra evil you could pour into the world by attacking someone you perceived as vulnerable.
...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
I always wondered what devout free market libertarians actually think the world would be like in a purely "let the consumer vote with their dollar" approach.
I imagine it something like this: you would wake up at 5:00 in the morning and start checking the internet and newspapers for any and all scraps of information about companies you may purchase products from. Perhaps your fruit suppliers are now using unethical labour practices (it's up to you the consumer to police that and stop buying from them of course). Perhaps its been found that your lunch meat supplier is occasionally a little lax in their packaging plants and there is potentially contaminated meat out there (we can't give the government powers to regulate that sort of thing). You'll probably also have to check in on any and all processed foods you might want to buy -- it's not like they will publish their ingredients (or if they do, there's no reason to assume they aren't just lying) -- who knows, maybe your favourite brand of peanut butter has realised that lacing their product with opium for that extra addictive quality really helps sales.
Of course you can't just do a casual read to find these things out; large companies with plenty of money can run effective disinformation campaigns in the mainstream media, or otherwise cover up such incidents. You'll have to dig deep through pages of personal consumer reports, spot and ignore the paid industry shills, and so on.
You'll probably be done with that around midday -- presuming you do it every morning to keep up to date and are fairly practiced and know where to hunt down the right information. Now it's time to work on the second order issues: are companies you wish to buy from aiding, funding, abetting, or buying from any companies you have deemed unethical, or inappropriate to support? This is, of course, a bigger task again. Not only do you have the problems tracking down information as before, you have an order of magnitude more companies to work through, and complex supply chains (which you can be sure will use all sorts of subsidiaries, front companies, and other misdirections) to dig through. If you're lucky you might get done all of that before midnight.
That leaves you just enough time to go to bed safe in the knowledge that you are using the money you no longer have the time to earn to make informed consumer choices buying products that you no longer have the time to purchase. And even better, you get to do it all again tomorrow.
Fun, fun fun.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts