Slashdot Mirror
White House Responds To Net Neutrality Petition
bostonidealist writes "The White House has officially responded to a We The People petition created on January 15, 2014, which urged the President to 'direct the FCC to classify ISPs as "common carriers"' after the D.C. U.S. Court of Appeals 'struck down the Federal Communications Commission's open internet rules.' The White House statement says, 'absent net neutrality, the Internet could turn into a high-priced private toll road that would be inaccessible to the next generation of visionaries,' but notes, 'The FCC is an independent agency. Chairman Wheeler has publicly pledged to use the full authority granted by Congress to maintain a robust, free and open Internet — a principle that this White House vigorously supports.'"
The best thing about 2008 is that hopefully it permanently disillusioned hundreds of thousands of young people in federal government.
Comcast sent us more campaign donations than you did.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
The White House response to this really just uses a lot of words to say "No comment".
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
He has authority over federal agencies, federal commissions are setup to be independent for a reason, mainly to prevent the stupidity that you want.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
True, and well-worded, but I think it's a bunch of handwaving. If he truly believed in an open internet, he'd do something about this more than just saying: "I'm gonna let them handle it"
You must be new to this whole "government" thing.
In general they do nothing. And in general that is actually the best response.
Usually when they do take fast action it is the wrong action. The kneejerk reaction laws are written by organizations that have their own aggressive agendas, they provide them to the legislators during an emergency under the promise that the bad provisions can be corrected later... but they seldom are.
The correct course, even though it is slow and tedious and painful, is for Congress to act deliberately.
Even in the best of times trying to force Congress to pass a law that benefits the people is nearly impossible. Often it requires a massive upswelling, grand marches and presentations and events that are daily on the news until the congress-critters realize they must take action or lose their jobs. In the worst of times, like today, even that wouldn't work since they cn trivially deflect the most severe upheavals with "We worked on a bill but the other party shut it down".
Examples of that were the civil rights movement, the Vietnam and Korean war protests, more recently we have the occupy movement and the tea party movement. It takes considerable force to make congress move, and even these multi-million member groups tend to produce only slight changes in government.
Sadly, the correct action is also the action we are least likely to see. It may not be the one the nation wants, but given the national attitudes and apathy, it is probably the one we deserve.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
I don't think there has ever been a drastic and/or immediate shift in policy based on a "We the People" petition ... no (I could be wrong, so fee free to correct me here if needed)
However by simply answering the petition, the White House has helped to illuminate the problem for the less tech savvy folks who still follow politics. You'd be astonished (or maybe you wouldn't) to realize how many people have absolutely zero idea what "Net Neutrality" actually means. This response, no matter how neutered, will cause at least a small percentage of people to say "Hold on a second. What's this 'free and open Internet' concept?"
Couple that with the real or perceived repercussions and non-techs may actually start putting the pieces together "Why is my netflix so slow today? And what is the white house babbling about now? hey!" light bulb
This signature is false.
How is the that "best thing?" That is the worst outcome. It is better for people to want to change their government, than for them to just not care at all. If it disillusioned them about political parties, then I'd support your statement, but outright not wanting a voting populace goes against the very fabric of this structure we call a nation.
Check your facts - while he's spent more than any other president, the spending is only 11.2% more than Bush. His new spending, removing existing spending he inherited from Bush in 2009, is $203 billion (2005 adjusted $) and the total since that high point has reduced 5%. By comparison Bush increased spending (again, adjusted) by 33% in his first term and 34% in his second. Regan increased spending 41.2% during his presidency.
Adjusted for inflation, Obama has increased the budget by a lower % than any president since Herbert Hoover.
Except Obama didn't spend the money. Congress did. Obama signs laws. The laws the gave the budget crunch were on the books before he got to office. There would be less debt if there were a grand bargain in 2011.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
I do love how, to prove Obama is bad (and he IS bad, just for REAL reasons... ), people trot out the debt. Yes. It's high. Yes, Obama spent a lot of money. But lets face it, the deficit is going DOWN, not up. He inherited a mess, he's cleaning it up, and if we want to blame anyone, we should blame the folks that repealed the Glass-Steagal act (which includes Clinton) for creating our gigantic mess.
If you want to hate on Obama, stick to real facts. There are plenty of reasons to hate on Obama. But he's not responsible for the accumulation of all the debt that came before him, nor is he responsible for the economic situation that we find ourselves in. Go blame the assholes that deregulated an industry that almost immediately started creating a gigantic economic bubble and then begged for help when it popped.
^^ That dude is dead on.
People that argue against different presidents based on spending should be shunned.
First, the conversation devolves into uber-lameness where different jackasses start trotting out more shitty numbers out their ass.
Conversations with things like "But as a percent of GDP divided by the number of years, adjusted for inflation." are fucking lame. Use real reasons to make an argument --- even if the argument is wrong, anything is better than a nerd numbers fight.
For fucks sake!
Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
What some people on the right wing mean by "small government" is - small enough to drown in a bathtub. They believe government is "in the way" and the less there is of it the better. These people are so naïve about human nature that they actually believe social harmony can be obtained via absolute freedom, oddly that is the same problem the extreme left wing "flower power" people had when I was a kid. They expect that people will be fair minded with each other when government gets "out of the way". They think people will respect property rights, etc, without any enforcement. They think a gun rack over the mantelpiece will be a deterrent to an aspiring warlord. Basically they live in a thought bubble blown by people who want to control them, but to do that they must first tear down the protections afforded by the existing social structure.
Now here's the funny/ironic part, these people think a center-right president is the one with the radical agenda!
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
It gets better when you realize that the rest of the right wing mean by smaller government is one run exclusively by them.
Look at it this way the republican who wrote the patriot act is pissed that a democrat is abusing his law in such a way. his answer. it isn't smaller government but to pay a dedicated top secret clearance law firm tens of millions of dollars annually to justify the poorly written law.
If republicans really wanted smaller government then they should be trying to get things like the patriot act NSA spying programs not only under control but shut down to save on government spending. but not one republican will actually push for that.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
He sort of fails to notice the Courts just took away all of that Congressionally Granted Power.
The courts took away nothing. Anyone who was following the story knew that it was almost certain to go that way - the FCC didn't have the authority to create a "third option" the way that it did. The FCC can either classify ISPs as telecommunications providers or not, that's pretty much it.
Obama has weighed in to the extent that he's able. It would be nice if people would some day figure out that the independent agencies that comprise the federal government are independent for a reason. Every time you push for Obama to just roll in and take over the FCC or the justice department, etc., and make them do what you want them to do, and every time you blame Obama for failing to take these drastic steps, what you're really pushing for is a greater degree of authoritarianism. When you say that you hold the president accountable for everything that the federal government does, what you're really saying is that you want the president to directly control all of the federal government.
Very impressive. It's not often you get modded +5 insightful for setting up a series of strawmen and knocking them down.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.