Obama: White House Expects FCC To Uphold Net Neutrality

[theeedude]

LOL, resident Republicans bashing Obama for supporting net neutrality.

 

[JTsyo]

Big money always wins....always.

This is the thing. If you were to take a poll, it should be overwhelming. I haven't heard of anyone that has sided with the ISPs that weren't working for them.

 

[Cozarkian]

LOL, resident Republicans bashing Obama for supporting net neutrality.

It's actually resident Republicans bashing Obama for claiming to support net neutrality while acting in a manner they contend is inconsistent with that belief - leaving the decision of net neutrality in the hands of a person with strong ties to opponents of net neutrality.

 

[Exterous]

No, Biff; it's actually true:

http://www.businessinsider.com/president-obama-thinks-the-internet-should-be-a-utility-2014-11

Assuming there isn't a catch somewhere this seems like a good thing.

 

[xBiffx]

LOL, resident Republicans bashing Obama for supporting net neutrality.

I'm no Republican, but why wouldn't small government people want government to stay out? And on the subject of Obama, he continues to say one thing and then do another so its no surprise that some people think he can't be trusted.

 

[KeithP]

Unless Congress passes a law, the FCC isn't legally allowed to uphold net neutrality

Don't worry, Obama says if elected he will make net neutrality a priority of his first year in office. http://www.cnet.com/news/obama-pledges-net-neutrality-laws-if-elected-president/

I am sure after he nominates a net neutrality champion to run the FCC, everything will fall into place.

-KeithP
(and yes, I have posted this link before in other threads and will probably do so again where appropriate)

 

[Engineer]

This is the thing. If you were to take a poll, it should be overwhelming. I haven't heard of anyone that has sided with the ISPs that weren't working for them.

and politicians are working for them.

 

[Blanky]

Horseshit.

I made two statements. Which is horseshit? Both? The first is debatable. The second is not. The internet is absolutely crucial--the life blood--of many jobs in this country. And it is utilized significantly in virtually all the rest. Not since the telephone or automobiles has a single technology so profoundly changed how society operates. It meets all of the criteria of a utility. If not, I can show you Americans living without running water or electricity but they do not invalidate the necessity of those being tightly regulated.

 

[Engineer]

I made two statements. Which is horseshit? Both? The first is debatable. The second is not. The internet is absolutely crucial--the life blood--of many jobs in this country. And it is utilized significantly in virtually all the rest. Not since the telephone or automobiles has a single technology so profoundly changed how society operates. It meets all of the criteria of a utility. If not, I can show you Americans living without running water or electricity but they do not invalidate the necessity of those being tightly regulated.

and now we know why the rest of the world governments are investing in providing high speed internet (not the US bullshit) to their citizens. Very similar to the Intrastate Highway System of the US back in the day...it provides a path going forward.

Oh, and keep government out of our Intrawebz!!!

http://www.history.com/topics/inventions/invention-of-the-internet

The Internet got its start in the United States more than 50 years ago as a government weapon in the Cold War.

:hmm:

 

[WackyDan]

Article at theverge today, Obama says FCC should reclassify net as utility to hope protect net neutrality. Totally agree. Net should be a utility, it is absolutely essential to modern life.

Be careful what you ask for.

In classifying internet providers as true utilities it opens the door for all of them to implement data caps and overage charges.

So Obama may seem to be saying what everyone wants to hear. In reality, what he is saying is that he doesn't want Netflix, Yahoo, Google, etc to have to pay TWC, Verizon, ATT, etc premiums to move their traffic at priority and by regulating ISPs as utilities it opens the door to what they all wanted all along.... Data caps and overage fees.

Content providers win, ISPs win, yet you lose. In a way, paying for what you use seems mostly fair doesn't it? Except that the amount of data they want to sell you before you hit a cap is extremely low.

Read this: http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2009/tc20090331_726397.htm

From the article: "But Time Warner says most people are not using that much data. The company's trial in Beaumont, Tex., lasted several months. Of the 10,000 broadband customers enrolled—about 25% of the company's total for Beaumont—about 14% exceeded their cap and had to pay additional fees that averaged about $19 a month. Time Warner Cable also discovered that the top 25% of users consumed 100 times more data than the bottom 25% of users, suggesting an enormous gap in usage patterns"

Think about that for a moment. 1400 exceeded their cap monthly out of 10,000 subscribers. 1400 x $19= $26,600 more per month.

Now take that and per the article (based on 2009 numbers) they have 8.4 million broadband customers. 14% of that (if the numbers/averages remain constant) is 1,176,000 subscribers x $19 = $22,344,000 more per month system wide.... That is raw profit on top of what ever margin they get today for their plans.

Would they have to increase quality of service? Fuck no... More people getting wacked with overages means that they would govern their own internet usage more, freeing up the system for other users... Peak time would become more pleasant towards the end of the billing cycle as other subscribers curbed their use of data.

So think really clearly about what Obama is saying here because to me it amounts to a very big hand out to the ISP monopolies and a big fucking of the consumer.

 

[sportage]

The president does not and can not tell them what to do.
Yeah I know everyone thinks Obama is the king and his word is the word.
But not true.
Any president can only suggest to them what to do.
So linking "any" president with net neutrality is wishful thinking, at best.
If you have an opinion on net neutrality, I'd suggest writing a letter.
Not to Obama. Write to the FCC.

 

[theeedude]

I love this new assertive Obama, now that he doesn't have to worry about protecting Southern Democrat Senators from losing their jobs. He and the Democrats have literally nothing to lose and everything to gain by going hard at the GOP and putting them on the spot on immigration, net neutrality, etc. The Democrats are finally standing for something, after all these years. Going to be a fun two years, folks.

 

[rockyct]

Be careful what you ask for.

In classifying internet providers as true utilities it opens the door for all of them to implement data caps and overage charges.

So Obama may seem to be saying what everyone wants to hear. In reality, what he is saying is that he doesn't want Netflix, Yahoo, Google, etc to have to pay TWC, Verizon, ATT, etc premiums to move their traffic at priority and by regulating ISPs as utilities it opens the door to what they all wanted all along.... Data caps and overage fees.

Content providers win, ISPs win, yet you lose. In a way, paying for what you use seems mostly fair doesn't it? Except that the amount of data they want to sell you before you hit a cap is extremely low.

Read this: http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2009/tc20090331_726397.htm

From the article: "But Time Warner says most people are not using that much data. The company's trial in Beaumont, Tex., lasted several months. Of the 10,000 broadband customers enrolled—about 25% of the company's total for Beaumont—about 14% exceeded their cap and had to pay additional fees that averaged about $19 a month. Time Warner Cable also discovered that the top 25% of users consumed 100 times more data than the bottom 25% of users, suggesting an enormous gap in usage patterns"

Think about that for a moment. 1400 exceeded their cap monthly out of 10,000 subscribers. 1400 x $19= $26,600 more per month.

Now take that and per the article (based on 2009 numbers) they have 8.4 million broadband customers. 14% of that (if the numbers/averages remain constant) is 1,176,000 subscribers x $19 = $22,344,000 more per month system wide.... That is raw profit on top of what ever margin they get today for their plans.

Would they have to increase quality of service? Fuck no... More people getting wacked with overages means that they would govern their own internet usage more, freeing up the system for other users... Peak time would become more pleasant towards the end of the billing cycle as other subscribers curbed their use of data.

So think really clearly about what Obama is saying here because to me it amounts to a very big hand out to the ISP monopolies and a big fucking of the consumer.

Look, I hate the idea of data caps and data tiers like cell phone plans, but I would take that over certain data being limited or restricted in some way without telling me. I'd rather get fucked by the ISPs in a way I can define, than in a way I can't. Electricity, water, and gas are billed for usage and while they are pretty similar from one similar household to another, and data is becoming that way as well. Even five years ago, most people didn't watch much streaming video, but now it makes up a huge amount of data traffic. That's why it's becoming an issue now and wasn't much of one five years ago. The ISP business model is going to change. Net neutrality won't fix it because it can't fix a company's obligation to it's shareholders. However, at least it gives a more upfront way of charging for data and keeps the internet a bit more democratic.

 

[HOSED]

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/comcasts-cohen-hosting-obama-dnc-fund-raiser/59076
Apparently sufficient funds were not raised at this event so maybe this is payback ??? :awe:

 

[drebo]

"The Internet" is not a utility and should not be regulated by the government.

What needs to be regulated, and indeed municipalized, is last-mile infrastructure.

Internet service over that last-mile infrastructure is what needs more competition. "The Internet" is functioning just fine as it is and does not need government oversight.

 

[BoberFett]

"The Internet" is not a utility and should not be regulated by the government.

What needs to be regulated, and indeed municipalized, is last-mile infrastructure.

Internet service over that last-mile infrastructure is what needs more competition. "The Internet" is functioning just fine as it is and does not need government oversight.

I'm far more open to that. Federal internet management will open the door to some awful control.

You thought the DMCA was bad? Wait until the internet is a utility...

 

[Genx87]

This whole thing was set in motion decades ago. We signed away competition in these markets for the sake of convenience.

 

[Bubbleawsome]

Him saying that means nothing. That's like telling the head of Monsanto he expects them to stop suing small farmers. Or telling Russia to please stop messing with Ukraine. When you hire the lobbyist head of Comcast as the FCC director you're not trying to fix it.

 

[Newell Steamer]

,...the FCC head repeated "I am an independent agency"

,..wait for it,...

Wheeler spent many years as a lobbyist for large telecom companies — while working in Washington for The Wireless Association, America's main wireless lobbying group, Wheeler supported limiting net neutrality policies and argued that the FCC should leave big businesses to do what they wanted in the space.

http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/12/...ler-may-reject-obamas-plan-for-net-neutrality

Oh well, it was worth a shot.

Now, let us all go back to letting the industry make sure they are taking care of things here in the good old US of A;

Internet Speed Performance In The US:
http://theweek.com/article/index/257404/why-is-american-internet-so-slow

According to a recent study by Ookla Speedtest, the U.S. ranks a shocking 31st in the world in terms of average download speeds.

Pricing:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/31/internet-speeds_n_6078204.html

Americans pay far more and get far less when it comes to the Internet than many other people around the world.

Yup, everything is just dandy!

 

[doubledeluxe]

What's really odd is that despite us having really expensive internet it really isn't very good. There are still caps for example. I had to switch my family to Comcast just to get something without a monthly cap. That's terrifying.

Mobile is worse though. I would be cool with ANY service outside of the major cities but once you get on the road in the US and start travelling between states or rural cities there isn't even edge. I can totally understand pockets with nothing. However to drive for hours and not have internet is just terrible. Once again - at least edge so I can get my e-mail!

 

[doubledeluxe]

So make sure you download those roadmaps to your phone's GPS ahead of time!

 

[piasabird]

The government told dairy farmers it had to kill off its cows. How did that work for the Dairy industry or for you trying to purchase milk for your child?

The government runs the Postal Service?
The government runs the Liquor Industry?
The government runs the Tobacco industry?
The government runs the Train and aviation industry?
The government runs the Car Industry?
The government runs the Education Industry?
The government runs the Farming Industry & Food stamps?

What has the government improved in any of these industries?

 

[doubledeluxe]

The solution is better leaders. Incidentally though we have the best postal service in the world so that's a really bad example.

 

[zinfamous]

The solution is better leaders. Incidentally though we have the best postal service in the world so that's a really bad example.

yep. You really can't appreciate it until you try to mail something in some other country. I work with a lot of international people, and it still amazes them: "You mean it's only 47 cents and this thing gets to the other side of the country in 2 days?"

I think the perception that we have of the USPS is that it isn't as efficient as it should be (I guess he have unreasonable/unnecessary standards?), and going to the post office just flat out sucks, because everyone is horrible. ....that last part is true, of course, and I think is the primary reason that we think of it as a bad service.

 

[Zorba]

The government told dairy farmers it had to kill off its cows. How did that work for the Dairy industry or for you trying to purchase milk for your child?

The government runs the Postal Service?
The government runs the Liquor Industry?
The government runs the Tobacco industry?
The government runs the Train and aviation industry?
The government runs the Car Industry?
The government runs the Education Industry?
The government runs the Farming Industry & Food stamps?

What has the government improved in any of these industries?

They gave us the safest mode of transportation ever with Aviation regulations, and safety improves basically every year.