Slashdot Mirror
Obama Unveils Plan To Bring About Faster Internet In the US
An anonymous reader writes: President Obama is rolling out a new plan to boost the speed of internet connections throughout the U.S. For one, he'll be asking the FCC for assistance in neutralizing state laws (PDF) that prevent cities from building municipal broadband services. "At speeds of 4 Mbps or less, 75 percent of consumers have a choice between two or more fixed providers, and 15 percent can select among three or more ISPs. However, in the market for Internet service that can deliver 25 Mbps downstream—the speed increasingly recognized as a baseline to get the full benefits of Internet access—three out of four Americans do not have a choice between providers." The state laws laws restrict competition and give the major ISPs no incentive to invest and innovate.
Obama will also be directing other federal agencies to increase the amount of money they grant and loan to ISP-related projects. "Any effort by the FCC to preempt anti-muni-broadband laws will likely focus on a controversial part of the FCC's congressional charter known as "Section 706." That part of the law recognizes the FCC's authority to stimulate broadband deployment, which supporters of preemption argue the tactic would promote. If Section 706 sounds familiar, that's because it's also the legal tool some say should be used to promote net neutrality, or the principle that broadband companies shouldn't speed up or slow down some Web sites over others."
Obama will also be directing other federal agencies to increase the amount of money they grant and loan to ISP-related projects. "Any effort by the FCC to preempt anti-muni-broadband laws will likely focus on a controversial part of the FCC's congressional charter known as "Section 706." That part of the law recognizes the FCC's authority to stimulate broadband deployment, which supporters of preemption argue the tactic would promote. If Section 706 sounds familiar, that's because it's also the legal tool some say should be used to promote net neutrality, or the principle that broadband companies shouldn't speed up or slow down some Web sites over others."
First Cash for Clunkers, now this. Stop helping! Just get out of the way. The market will work.
Oh and as Eric once said, "Fuck the FCC!"
More robust competition at the local level will raise speeds and lower prices. And one day, one bright, glorious day, I can tell Comcast to take a hike.
and I'm already saying, "Hell yeah!"
As soon as he no longer had congress. It's as if it's all just political posturing or something...
Privacy advocates are screaming about this. Yet, ./ is in the tank sucking down the kool aide.
I cannot get anything close to 4M. It is either dial up, ISDN or a T1. There are no other services. And frankly, I am not so far from a reasonably large town. There is some notion that service offerings are better than really exist.
Good idea and long overdue.
Stop giving money to mega companies and tailor your government "cheese" giveaway to companies who will build to new areas. The last stimulus scam that they tried contained so many impossible conditions that no small/start-up company could comply with them. The main deal breaker being giving the government first lien. Foolish to think any company wouldn't have a loan or two out there with a bank that isn't going to give up their lien. So either the people who draft those programs are fools or they are in the back pockets of the lobbyist who care not at all beyond what some money bags is paying them.
No kidding it's long overdue. I've always said if we separated the last mile of coax from the incumbent provider and forced them to interconnect we'd be better off.
I regularly run anywhere from 750GB-1TB/month of traffic
Here are my local choices:
GCEC Max speed 6meg cable 756k Up (cant do shit with this) $45/month no data cap
Suddenlink Cable 15 meg down 1.5 Up $45/month 250gig data cap +$15/50gb over 250gigs so $45+ ($150-$225 overage fees)
Suddenlink Business cable 6 meg down 756k up $78/month NO data cap
Suddenlink Business cable 15 meg down 1.5 up $99/month no data cap
AT&T 3 meg DSL $35/month +$5 for phone line
I would love to see anything OTHER than these 2.... Its the same with POWER. Oncore owns the power pole thats ON MY PROPERTY, yet im stuck with a Co-op power company that uses their poles...
The President has sent his people out over the land, finding things that don't work very well. He will now spend the rest of his tenure urging various federal agencies and Congress to "stop doin' stupid stuff", accompanied, if possible, by some form of federal largess. Rinse. Relather. Repeat.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
I could be mistaken, but my experience would suggest that freeing up some more frequencies for fixed wireless would be a major help at least in rural areas. About a year ago I was shopping for an ISP, The choices were Satellite, local tellco and several fixed wireless providers. Despite having towers all over the place (3 within range) the fixed wireless people weren't able to service me because the frequencies they were using couldn't go through a few trees whereas my cell network based card had no problems.
SOSHALISMS!!
You need to do 3 things.
1 - Make "franchise agreements" in cities, towns and states ILLEGAL. Paying a kickback to the government to keep out competition and to just do business is wrong. time to smack the hands of all these scumbag politicians.
2 - Government funded and OWNED fiber everywhere. Dont let AT&T own it or Comcast. It's all government ownd so that a company can come into town and set up shop as an ISP without having to spend millions to run fibers right next to all the other competition. Plus this allows you to force regulate ISP's from being dicks and only offering their service to the rich parts of town.
3 - FORCE HONEST PRICING make Service Contracts ILLEGAL.. you can not find anywhere on comcasts website the real prices of internet, only their special sale prices that go up from 100 to 600% at a later date. No more of this bullshit, honest prices prominently displayed. no Contracts allowed in any way for any reason.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
The "Market" DOES NOT work in this case.
The "Market" only expands if they can sign exclusivity contracts.
The "Market" RARELY expands into rural areas and never into poor rural areas.
The "Market" overcharges depending on what zip code you are in.
The "Market" redefines words like UNLIMITED in ways that are completely opposite to the meaning of the actual word.
The "Market" wants to throttle us based on what we want to do.
My choices are Service Electric Cablevision or Windstream for Internet access. I would LOVE to be able to complain about Comcast (or Verizon for that matter).
From the article Obama is going to limit choice by preventing municipalities ( you know , the town you actually live in and have a direct say in things) from building broadband services. Then at the same time he is going to give even more tax payer money to the ISPs which worked out so well the first time. To support Obama here would make you look insane.
What the FCC needs to do is better define what you can call broadband. In Europe they have a better system of many more regional and local ISP's that transmit from central areas. I think companies like Comcast have taken baby steps in providing better public broadband by enabling their equipment at customers to offer access. However, its not nearly enough and you still have DSL companies trying to sell broadband which is dreadfully not broadband to most of us. Too many cites do contracts with providers and these agreements hamper other competition for sure. But defining broadband is a better approach to weed out the week ISP's who sell snake oil broadband to consumers.
Face it, unless the general public of a given city is interested in PAYING to build municipal broadband, nothing should change. Obama should not get involved in this. If you disagree, talk to your neighbors about the potential advantages, and disadvantages, of building municipal internet for your neighborhood. Action starts at home. The people in my neighborhood don't give a shit. I suspect most citizens feel that way.
10mbps or 10Gbps is pretty much the same for most uses. If the service has a low data cap it's useless.
My local cable company offers 100Mbps service but has a low data cap to discourage use of their direct competitors (e.g. Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, Youtube, ect).
What we really need is for regulators to prohibit content providers from also being internet service providers.
This is nothing short of a power grab. Obama is trying to take power away from the states using his FCC tool to do it so he can get control over communications.
To the states. I remind you that the federal government only has the power granted to it by the Constitution, and under the 10th amendment, all other rights are reserved to the states and to the people.
Federal government was not granted authority over communications, or internet, and anything similar, so IGNORE the FCC.
Just like universal health care, by the time the lobbyists get done bribing (ummm I mean campaign contributing) Congress this great idea will mutate into a law written by Comcast that has the exact opposite effect.
I'm guessing that the ultimate goal of this "plan" is to lay the legal groundwork so the Federal government can casually get rid of any state law it doesn't like. Perhaps the recently legal dope laws in Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington for example.
Upstream bandwidth is a necessary requirement for the net to progress. Right now we are stuck in the television model - what with facebook and others being central repositories. We need to get back to the mantra of the 90s internet - disintermediation. That's going to take bidirectional bandwidth.
Instead of hosting all our photos and other communications on central servers like facebook, they should just be hosted on our phones and we can cut out the middleman and just share stuff phone to phone. Over the air will be a slow fallback, but at home, at the office, basically anywhere indoors there needs to be highspeed internet connectivity for it all to work.
Thanks Obama!
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
"The state laws laws restrict competition and give the major ISPs no incentive to invest and innovate."
True. And out in the rural areas this is far worse with far higher costs and far lower speeds. A lot of the existing infrastructure that could be used is hoarded by those who have control of it such as tower space and poll space. Vast amounts of money is spent on ultra high speed to urban areas while rural areas are left out creating more of a digital divide which in turns pushes more people to the cities which is a large problem in and of itself.
But my state won't let me and my neighbors do that. It is forbidden. We must let the incumbent provider chosen by the state government have full control. We can't even buy them out.
So I and my neighbors are unable to lawfully act, except to hope to persuade the lawmakers to change the laws. But they refuse, and so continue to wrong us.
Where else am I to go when I am wronged by my state government?
Should I take up arms against the state government instead? If so, please join us in our struggle for liberty against our oppressors.
Ideally, the FCC would assert all authority related to the regulation of broadband, supplanting any local rules. IIRC there are already rulings to that effect, but they've never been applied specifically to regulation of municipal broadband.
Do you also feel that the FDA should exert all authority related to the regulation of marijuana, supplanting any state rules?
Or are you one of the many who really just believe that any argument which promotes the ends you desire is the right argument only in the context of that one question?
Using mobile broadband. I am a full time RVer, the options aren't great but I still have way more options than hardline.....and much more realiable speeds than I ever got at any apartment.
What I do is use two pre-paid phones with data. One is t-mobile and one is att. T-mobile offers now "unlimited" data for $80 and att offers 2 gb for $60 (with up to two additional data purchases allowable per month). T-Mobile is hit and miss as far as coverage goes, but if you "get" lte or faster than 2g works great and I use it as my work line. Att is pretty good about coverage, I have yet to not get a LTE tower signal...but stingy data cap of 4 gb.
Between the two it works pretty good, and I always have a fully mobile data connection at my disposal wherever I park. $140 seems high, but I was paying that on a contract just for a phone when I lived in an apartment.
The only catch really is don't even think about streaming any movies on a regular basis, but for apps, work, surfing, music (free with certain services) it works great, even for multiplayer games. On the flip side, no contract, no penalties for just "quitting" the service for a month. And if I want to turn the data back on, it takes just a few minutes to re-fill.
My 2 copper coins.
Would non-profit co-ops counter the hesitation with govt. owned and run services? For example, by using the FCC authority to allow cities/towns/municipalities to form (a) a non-profit co-op that lays down and owns all the broadband infrastructure in the service area, and (b) another non-profit co-op that bids for access to that infrastructure and if it wins, delivers service on it? The infrastructure co-op would need funding, of course. Could local govt.s use business development funds that they already have to provide loans to the infra co-op? If that is not enough, use a bond issue? The govt. is not running the service, and so is not competing with the private sector. It is allowed to take measures to promote business, though. Local govts negotiate with new business moving to the area and offer incentives already, and much of it is confidential; ie., every business doesn't get the same incentive.
May be this is too naive.
Couldn't one argue that the State laws interfere with methods of interstate commerce, thereby violating Federal authority over such commerce?
>More robust competition at the local level will raise speeds and lower prices.
We used to have something like that in the US until the ISP deregulation of the late 90s removed requirements for allowing subleasing bandwidth and last mile connectivity. (Of the sort the UK uses to proliferate enviable cost competition.)
--- Little Atomo - The Amazing Thinking Robot from Atomocom! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIP9KisHi4k
You do realize that is what he is trying to do... Give you, and your neighbors the choice and opportunity to build your own (well vote to have someone build it for you) broadband network. The reason he is getting involved is that there are about 20 or so states that have laws on the book, written by the telecoms themselves, that outright ban cities, counties, municipalities, etc from building out there own network should the populace decide they want to, or puts restrictions in place that make is almost impossible to build out the network. These are protectionist laws for the incumbents, and removes YOUR choice, which you are bitching about.
Do a little research before making stupid statements, otherwise you look just like the me to people who vote straight down party lines regardless of how stupid their party is (that goes for both sides).
I came, I conquered, I coredumped
Admitting the Republicans hate this country.
Give the telecom companies money for infrastructure? We gave them money. And they did nothing with it except buy advertising and raise rates!
In general I would be happier with a split model. The municipal governments will pay for the network infrastructure, those fiber lines, wide area wireless, in general the big stuff that needs to go to the last mile. just like they pay to keep our roads operational, and will go to our homes, where they will plow, and maintain it to a particular quality level.
However with that municipal government infrastructure. We should be able to choose ISP who will offer the internet services, who can offer us different pricing for faster and slower speeds for less money. I really liked the model of the Old Dialup ISP Days. Where you can find a small local ISP for personal service, or choose the big company with some extra features. Or if you are more enterprising you can create your own ISP without needing millions of dollars to startup.
The problem that happened when we moved off of Dial Up to broadband, was we needed to go with an ISP who also can manage the infrastructure.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
or is Al Gore helping?
This initiative may well make faster Internet speeds available at seemingly moderate increases in monthly payments. But you are likely going to see low end Internet plans cut, forcing people to upgrade to high speed plans they don't want or need, and you are going to see massive direct and indirect subsidies to telecom companies.
I'm on a 50 Mbps plan, and to my provider's credit, that's what they deliver. What they aren't giving me is a 5 Mbps plan at a fraction of the price, which is really all I want.
Reagan: "If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."
>> increase the amount of money they grant and loan to ISP-related projects
I'd say we're in Reagan's third phase with ISPs, wouldn't you?
Honest question: Is your local city government efficient, responsible, technically savvy, and trustworthy enough to expect them to do a great job as your ISP? If so, where do you live?
Why is municipal broadband appealing? Is it only better versus Comcast, or is it actually good in some way? Are you expecting to get it for "free" -- a.k.a. paid for by your neighbors?
Where in the US do they have municipal broadband with a long track record of working well, with competitive pricing not subsidized by tax revenue?
For years companies have been getting billions in incentives to provide high speed access to rural areas, they often just pocked the money and then go ask for more.
We live in one of those areas, no cable service (tv or internet), no dsl, only dial up(yes they still exist), satellite or 4G wireless. We have had both satellite and 4G, both are very expensive for the bandwidth you get and both have small limits or expensive overages. Satellite worse point is the lag, no vonage or skyping (its gets very confusing with a 2 second delay) and its its raining somewhat hard you loose service until it clears up. Also peak time slowdowns were horrible, in early evenings speed would droop down to 10-20k per second, hardly better than dial-up. 4G wireless is fast enough but you can burn though your monthly limit in just days, forcing you to keep raising your plan each week to avoid overages.
I like the idea about letting in market competition. However, Obama's proposal is to allow the government to "compete" in the market. The problems are many. Government makes the rules, so it should not compete in the market place. Government competes unfairly because it is immune to competitive pressure since it does not have to show a profit. It can sell its services for less than cost and drive out private sector competitors. When Obama says, don't worry the government will take care of it, hide your wallets.
We get internet from a local wireless provider. Other people get it from the cable company.
I have 100Mbps right now and many sites are as fast as they were on 6Mbps connection.
See subject: By blocking ads (that also infect us) & hardcoded favorite sites @ the TOP of your custom hosts file - BOTH measures give you a LOT MORE added speed, bigtime!
* Of course, what creates the best hosts file there is (for added speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity to an extent)?
THIS: APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit: -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...
(All the benefits it gives for more speed, security, reliability, & more are listed there in detail... )
APK
P.S.=> Enjoy: It's 100% free, no strings attached, & The BEST in the security antimalware & antispyware business currently, http://www.av-test.org/en/news... per that VERY recent test's results, also host & RECOMMEND my program for hosts -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... ... apk
House and Senate create and pass(dumb executive branch can veto) laws, Legislative questions the legality of the law, and the Executive branch executes the law. Executive orders are for reorganizing departments under the executive branch it's not there to bypass or ignore any laws, this isn't 24. Just because not all duties are described in the constitution does not give the president the power to do whatever the hell he wants to do with executive orders including suspending civil liberties, Martial Law which by the way violates the constitution.
This is the problem when the citizens of a country are a bunch of fucking pussies and can't take care of their own lives including defending themselves against threats, we have to rely on government to protect our sorry asses and in exchange the assholes running the government become kings and queens(mostly corporate whores) controlling every aspect of our lives.
The next president will probably be even worse and our constitution finally nailed to the coffin. #1 Rule in life don't trust anybody always look after #1 or else you will become a slave to an institute(government, religion, etc...).
3 - FORCE HONEST PRICING make Service Contracts ILLEGAL.. you can not find anywhere on comcasts website the real prices of internet, only their special sale prices that go up from 100 to 600% at a later date. No more of this bullshit, honest prices prominently displayed. no Contracts allowed in any way for any reason.
Agree, the free market cannot work under circumstances such as these.
Service contracts makes sense, if the company is putting something in the ground and, hence, wants to make sure you remain a customer for a while before they undertake the investment of connecting you. But once connected and no physical work is involved it makes no sense.
Either way, special sale prices never makes any sense, and wouldn't be allowed in many other countries, because it's dishonest and doesn't facilitate competition.
1. TWC will sell your info to companies and you will start seeing ads for Depends when you reach 65. What will the government do with it?
2. TWC pretty much doesn't care what you look at. Other publicly provided internet access usually does and blocks aggressively (schools, etc.) What will the government do?
3. TWC will always respond to outages because they want your money and don't want to get sued (yes, they do it in an incompetent manner). The government pretty much doesn't care. Resources will go to Electric, Water, Gas, and Storm drains first. So when will THEY fix internet outages?
On the other hand, providing dirt cheap access to higher speed connections will definitely kick TWC into gear...just look at their response when Google comes into a neighborhood.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
You want to work on something that could HUGELY advance connection speeds in the US?
Work on a law neutralizing all the contact clauses that keep municipally owned fiber networks dark.
Require a "must lease" clause for the municipality and specify a 5 year interval with exclusions of previous lesees if they didn't actively develop the network (to prevent the likes of Comcast from just leasing the networks from the municipalities and then sitting on them.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
"Let them eat cake!"
Gotta have the masses able to access the internet faster to entertain themselves while the country falls apart piece by piece. People might realize that we're getting screwed at every turn if they have to kill time waiting for their facebook page to load in the browser, or wait for that meaningless TV show to buffer... Can't have that happen now can we?
The endless, brutal, and almost always hypocritical and contradictory criticism of Obama is the 21st-century's GOP method of continuing to shout 'Nigger!!' at the top of their lungs.
The problem is ISP don't add any value anymore. They essentially only provide network. It used to be that your ISP hosted your home page if you had one, provided you an e-mail domain, provided a POP server so your could fetch that mail when you were good and read, provided your DNS, provided news, and possibly more.
Now they DNS they give you is only so they can stuff ads when your type a domain wrong. If they even offer e-mail nobody uses it. They don't provide hosting space anymore. They really are all about routing packets, and providing shitty tech support.
If the municipal entity is going to manage all the L1 infrastructure, they might as well deliver the L2 and L3 infrastructure as well because those are the easy parts.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
I'd love to see more competition at the 4 MBps level, but I'm not sure why I need 25 MBps of bandwidth. At 4 MBps, I can stream a couple of 1080p videos simultaneously or download almost any triple-A game in an hour or two.
If I were trying to serve a popular website off my home computer, back up my terabyte hard disk nightly, I might need more, but that would be stupid. If I wanted to stream 5k video, I'd need more, but 5k video is also stupid. For consumer use, there's no way the human eyeball can actually consume data at more than 4 MBps; what am I missing out on by not having what TFA calls "baseline for the full benefits of internet access"?
See subject: Via my program (that gets its hosts data from 12 reputable sources in that security community) http://start64.com/index.php?o...
* :)
It works (better than *ANY* single other "so-called 'solution'" there is for more:
1.) Speed (blocking banner ads + hardcoded favorite sites)
2.) Security (blocking known bad sites/servers that serve up malware &/or malicious exploits via scripts, botnet C&C servers + their payload servers)
3.) Reliability (vs. downed, redirect poisoned, or DNS amplication attacked DNS servers)
4.) Even anonymity (to an extent only on the latter, vs. DNS request logs)
Hosts do FAR MORE with LESS, by far, + more efficiently...
(Even to the point of shoring up DNS issues in redirect poisonings, being downed, DNS amplification attacks, rogue DNS servers malware makers use, etc. - et al, by simply AVOIDING DNS, letting your local system be the resolver since my app refreshes your fav. sites @ the TOP of a hosts file, from local RAM caching that information - also lightening up DNS server loads, which admins of them *should* really like too...)
APK
P.S.=> And, there ya go: "Onwards & UPWARDS..."
... apk
While it would be nice to think about FedGov controlling all the fiber pipes, ensuring equal and universal access, real competition, and reasonable pricing, there would be a downside.
It would only be minutes after this dream was realized when moralizing politicians would insist on fine-grained monitoring of all user activities, along with the banning of all websites showing anything more naughty than a fully-clothed nipple. The bible-thumpers and 'think about the children' hand-wringing helicopter freaks would insist on a draconian system that would make even the Suadi Arabian Morality Police jealous.
I'm all for Net Neutrality, but we should be careful what we wish for, as the devil will always own the details.
...can we just cut the bullshit, for once? "...25 Mbps downstreamâ"the speed increasingly recognized as a baseline to get the full benefits of Internet access..." according to whom?
Absolute nonsense. I can stream an HD movie easily at 10mpbs if the neighborhood lets me actually HAVE 10. WTF do you *need* 25mpbs for, much less to assert it's some sort of "bottom adequate floor"?
-Styopa
yup!
Obama is talking about allowing cities and towns to run their own municipal broadband.
Let the public have free slow broadband 1-3 mpbs as a public service and let people pay for higher end products.
If At&t were really smart they would preempt this by offering free 1.5 mbps dsl to all their existing landline phone customers
(on the lifeline customers at&t could claim a tax writeoff).
This is lip service to people complaining about the real problem.
And the real problem can be solved by the existing anticompetition and racketeering rules we have.
-- I was raised on the command line, bitch
Technically, we already have a fast 40 and 100 Gbps - yes, I said Gigabit per second.
It's at most major research universities.
My building and one a couple blocks away have 100 Gbps ports and we have 40 Gbps in most buildings on campus.
We just don't let you use them.
Glad to hear we'll join the First World Nations that have decent speeds on the civilian side.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I can see how they might could try with INTER-state laws, but these are municipal and intRA-state laws they're talking about nullifying. If they can do this, what state laws can the feds NOT just nullify at will?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
correction: should be "single competitor".
Table-ized A.I.
the town I live in bought the small local cable company and it's awesome. first thing they did was upgrade the infrastructure. I get 6ms pings on wireless and with 60/10 mbps. The office I work at has a dedicated business line with time warner and i can't get a ping below 30ms. Speeds are never really as fast either. Not to mention the town owned isp has poured a ton of money into local communities. Twc some how got a legal injunction preventing them from running new lines outside the city tho, assholes.
It isn't just Chattanooga- it's statewide. If you turn your eye north from Huntsville, the city of Tullahoma TN (Tullahoma Utilities Board, TUB) has been having the same bullshit problems rolling out their LightTube service. In order to get it, you have to have their power. In the areas where TUB and the other rural co-op, Duck River Electric (DREMC) butt heads, you end up with areas where one block has LightTube, but this one connecting street crosses into the DREMC zone so they can't. Seriously, islands of 3 or 4 homes all surrounded by fiber, but they were unlucky enough to have Duck River so they get to suck it. DREMC just got online bill pay 2 years ago, and I think they may have hired Geocities to build it. Point being, there is no way in hell Duck River is going to lay fiber in the next decade. They'll get it the decade after once everyone else has quantum or telepathy or whatever the new hotness is. I hate this state...
I am of the opinion that maybe instead of worrying about fiber, that they introduce a state initiative to bring an educator to every house, along with a physician and a substance abuse specialist. You guys are fucked up. Internet is the least of your worries. Talk about bread and circuses.
They marked you troll, but you're right. "Obama" is now the new term for "Nigger". I live down South so I get to hear this shit first hand and daily.
Well I firmly know what your opinion on President Obama is. The powers he uses are not dictatorial. They are baked right into that fucking Constitution you claim to love so much. Was it dictator-like when Bush, Reagan, Nixon, or any of the other presidents you liked used Executive Orders? A veto is not dictator-like. You even wrote out how one bypasses a veto. The only way you bypass a dictator is to kill the bastard or at the very least imprison them. Political suicide is also evidently not an issue. Is there not another post on the front page right now about some bullshit Orrin Hatch is trying to pull in order to combat the latest "dictatorial" EO they don't like? Oh yeah, it's the one about the H1B visas. You simply refuse to admit things really aren't that bad. I also smell a bit of racism here: "Obama could even declare carjacking legal". Of all of the crimes one could possibly choose to use as an example, you choose carjacking- a crime primarily committed by those of color. The only thing you could have chosen that would have been more obvious would be smoking crack. Go ahead and admit to us all the real reason you don't like President Obama.
The important Obama announcement this week has nothing to do with internet.
It's the White House announcement, hours after the Charlie/supermarket massacre, that "Islam is a religion of Peace".
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/obama-spokesman-islam-its-peaceful-religion
Obama's purpose is simple:
cover up Mohammed's command "Oh muslim, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_antisemitism
So...he's concerned that customers don't have enough choice - even though the people in those states could presumably overturn the laws if they wanted - and his solution is to give customers only one choice: government internet. And with all the fabulous regulations and content restrictions that go along with it. Phabulous.
and he hopes you do not notice the pile of poo in his right hand... it's the old magician trick.
In order to give you "net neutrality" or "no state rules against munincipal net service" you have to give the federal government regulatory authority over the internet... which the FCC and big-government advocates desperately desire. Once you support congress granting this authority, the internet will forever-after be under the thumb of an army of completely unknown and unaccountable government bureaucrats who will write hundreds or even thousands of regulations for the net. (as with the ACA, AKA "Obamacare" where regulators have written about 20 pages of rules for every page of legislation that sailed through congress). We the people will have NO say and NO path to undo this stuff and our lawmakers will all pretend to be powerless to undo ANY of it unless we can get them more campaign contributions than all the vested interests who line-up in support of all the new crony rules that will get written.
I'm a big supporter of the idea of every town owning an optical fiber network that reaches all homes and businesses, and leasing bandwidth to the top provider (or providers) selected by the voters every year or two (thus forcing providers to perform) ... BUT if it's illegal in your state the proper fix is to get off your butt and change your state's laws... NOT let federal politicians use the issue to trick you into giving them legislated authority over the internet!!!!!! It's particularly STUPID to give them legislative authority to block your state from ever intervening, thereby making it even harder for the people of your state to ever get any of their power back from the feds. If you live in a less-population-dense state, this change in power will render you forever powerless on internet-related issues. Like I said: Get involved and FIX YOUR STATE LAWS IF YOU DO NOT LIKE THEM; stop looking for some messianic federal huckster to do it for you.
There are HUGE differences between executive orders that instruct a post office to be renamed, or that order the INS to not deport the illegal mom of a handicapped child or some other SMALL and specific thing, and executive orders that order the INS to not detain or deport MILLIONS of illegal aliens or executive orders that tell the justice department to not uphold or defend entire actual laws that have previously been passed properly through congress and signed properly by presidents.
Obama ran for office on, and got lots of cheers from his supporters for, his attacks on Bush's "signing statements" in which Bush signed letters attached to laws that effectively said "I disagree with the following aspects of this legislation..." or "I interpret this part of this new law to mean..." BUT Obama and his supporters are now perfectly happy when he completely ignores actual laws that properly went through the house and senate and were signed by presidents... something not only far worse than a "signing statement", but actually a violation of his oath of office. The Constitution requires a president to see to it that the laws are faithfully enforced (NOT unfaithfully ignored, and NOT selectively enforced)
You Obamabots are going to really HOWL if some future Republican does exactly what Obama has set all the precedents for! What will you say if some future Republican uses his pen and phone to invalidate all gay marriages??? how about not enforcing ANY gun control laws and not enforcing ANY "separation of church and state"????? Are you gonna be intellectually honest and supportive if some future Republican president orders the IRS to not collect taxes from any corporations? orders all Americans to buy a commercial product or pay a big tax? What if that commercial product is a bunch of Koch Industries products or all of the books written by Ann Coulter?
Racism? Sorry, but the racists are the ones who claim Obama (because he is black) cannot be subjected to the same criticisms a white guy would face if he did the same things. Do you love Justice Clarence Thomas? If not, then by your own yardstick you are a RACIST (he's black, so if you disagree with him you must clearly by MSNBC and HuffPo standards be a racist if you disagree with him...)
...from the very same gov't that treats its citizens' privacy as a threat. Pass.
How To Build And Run Google Like Search Engine At Your Home
And of course he waits until he is a lame duck president to do anything.... Not sure what he can accomplish other then more talking. I guess he did appoint the comcast A hole to the FCC, maybe he's got an I O U... This is probably just a way to make Republicans look bad for the next democrat in line. He knows most republicans will be in favor of the big monopolies. Who knows....what I am certain about is that we the people will some how some way get the short end of the stick as long as sociopaths are allowed to control anything. Not sure what's worse Republicans or Democrats.....
And not sure what trading in 1 monopoly for another is going to do for us. What he is saying about lack of choice in internet is exactly the problem we have with our municipally controlled electricity, where I am from. We have a whole choice of 1 company...That's right 1..unless you provide your own power of course (sloar, true independence and freedom imo). I would agree the more local the control is the better, and that a local monopoly is better then the federal level monopoly. But we will still be fighting against county and state level sociopaths instead of federal level. At least there is a chance of pockets of crap instead of all of it being crap. Some place on the local level will get it more right....maybe, hopefull?
Solution = maybe mesh networking? Become and early adopter and lets see