Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Obama To Veto Anti-Net-Neutrality Legislation

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the you-can't-not-stop-that dept.

Censorship 355

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.'"

cancel ×

355 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Wow (5, Interesting)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998070)

I'm impressed. The first time in 3 years I've been impressed, so the bar is pretty low. But good going Obama.

Re:Wow (0, Insightful)

montyzooooma (853414) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998094)

What I want to know is who paid for THIS decision?

Re:Wow (2, Insightful)

zero.ether (2492662) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998110)

What I want to know is who paid for THIS decision?

And hope they're still there when 2012 comes around.

Re:Wow (3)

HopefulIntern (1759406) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998212)

Killjoy, can't we just revel in something without looking for the (often obvious) downside?

Re:Wow (2, Funny)

some_guy_88 (1306769) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998804)

You're new here aren't you?

Re:Wow (2)

Random2 (1412773) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998230)

No one needed to; it's an appeal for popularity at the next election. Kind of like why we're seeing the responses to the petitions crop up in the news.

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37998318)

Except that these were responses to petitions collected on a new platform that the white house had set up, and has now started to issue its first responses. Furthermore, most responses to the petitions were beating the same old dead horse arguments, with no apparent drive towards progress.

Re:Wow (4, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998446)

No one needed to; it's an appeal for popularity at the next election.

Are you joking? How many voters do you think even know what Net Neutrality means?

I've heard people, educated people, who think it's like a Fairness Doctrine for the Internet.

Do you think Obama cares about his popularity among open source geeks?

Let's face it. As hard as it is to swallow he may have just gotten this one right.

Re:Wow (1)

cavreader (1903280) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998778)

This decision is low risk politically. The average citizen,voters, and legislators do not even understand what "net neutrality" means.

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37998808)

What I want to know is who paid for THIS decision?

I did - I had to do something with all that bailout money I got!
You're welcome.

Re:Wow (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37998116)

So far FCC and net neutrality has failed to hold up in court so this is symbolic. The FCC doesn't not have jurisdiction over the Internet and as such the law is baseless. Hot air just like everything else he done his whole life.

Irrelevant! Uncontructive! Let's get dangerous. (1)

zero.ether (2492662) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998160)

So far FCC and net neutrality has failed to hold up in court so this is symbolic. The FCC doesn't not have jurisdiction over the Internet and as such the law is baseless. Hot air just like everything else he done his whole life.

But he's so pretty.

Re:Irrelevant! Uncontructive! Let's get dangerous. (1)

trum4n (982031) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998270)

At least he isn't TRYING to get us killed.

Re:Wow (4, Insightful)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998298)

You do realize that the President isn't the one wasting his time writing legislation like this. Nor was he the one wasting time voting to reaffirm that "In God we Trust" is our national motto or that the mint should print Baseball Hall of Fame coins.

Right now he's the only one making any attempt at fixing anything with the limited powers he has. Even if you don't agree with what he is doing at least he is DOING something.

Re:Wow (2)

JoeMerchant (803320) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998438)

You do realize that the President isn't the one wasting his time writing legislation like this. Nor was he the one wasting time voting to reaffirm that "In God we Trust" is our national motto or that the mint should print Baseball Hall of Fame coins.

Right now he's the only one making any attempt at fixing anything with the limited powers he has. Even if you don't agree with what he is doing at least he is DOING something.

I wouldn't say he's the "only one", but I would say that the majority of the executive branch is doing something, whereas the majority of Congress is not.

Re:Wow (0)

ShavedOrangutan (1930630) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998790)

The best thing the federal government can do is nothing.

Re:Wow (1)

Iceykitsune (1059892) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998444)

Then the FCC did not have the power to classify ISPs as class 2 services from class 1

Re:Wow (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37998166)

I'm impressed. The first time in 3 years I've been impressed, so the bar is pretty low. But good going Obama.

First time? Really? OK, so Obama (just to pick an example) pushed to end military discrimination against homosexuals, and that didn't impress you, but now that comcast can't charge you a little extra to view google, THAT impresses you? Come on, man...get your priorities straight. Are you only impressed when there's something in it for you?

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37998334)

uh, yes.
Absolutely.
Definitely.

And if the OP wasn't impressed by that? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37998362)

It's not that the military discriminated against homosexuals. You could fight in the army no problem. Just don't let anyone know your sexual preferences. Then again, I didn't see an entry for "Sado Masochism" in the "Sex:" part of the application form, so I'm assuming that the military aren't interested in your sex life.

Re:And if the OP wasn't impressed by that? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37998432)

It's not that the military discriminated against homosexuals.

They did -- if they found out. If they found out you were married, or had a heterosexual relationship, nothing happened. That's discrimination.

Re:And if the OP wasn't impressed by that? (4, Insightful)

Velex (120469) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998544)

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.

Re:Wow (2)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998474)

So Obama made it easier for a very small fraction of the population to fight and die for corporate profits. BFD.

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37998594)

Certainly, any person - man, woman or hermaphrodite, of any sexual orientation, or lack/combination thereof should not want to kill children for corporate profits if they want my approval of their actions.

Gay rights is still gay rights. Of course they should be allowed just as much as anyone else to go to a foreign country to kill brown people of all ages and configurations. They shouldn't want to, but they should be allowed in.

Re:Wow (0)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998818)

I agree. But it's nothing to celebrate. Having more hired killers in the country is not a good thing.

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37998596)

To bad they couldn't fight and die for everyone BUT you, because YOU are an asshole. Small fraction of the population? Fuck you. What ever happened to human decency and respect for your fellow man? I guess you just say to hell with his rights if he's part of a small enough minority, eh? Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, unless you're only a few percent of the population, in which case fuckoff?

Re:Wow (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998796)

What ever happened to human decency and respect for your fellow man?

What part of heading off to foreign countries to kill people you've never met because a guy in a suit told you to counts as "human decency and respect for your fellow man"?

Re:Wow (4, Interesting)

migla (1099771) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998236)

I'm impressed. The first time in 3 years I've been impressed, so the bar is pretty low. But good going Obama.

It does read like unexpectedly good news. Maybe a bit too good, even?

Is there any way this could hold up? Is it even remotely possible that white house policy would side with the interests of common people against those of whichever are the industries that have opposing interests? I'm afraid I can't believe that. I'd love to be proven overly cynical.

If this is real, a more likely reason would be that there happens to be big enough players whose interests by chance happen to line with the common good in this particular case, at this point in history, right?

Re:Wow (2)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998752)

Is it even remotely possible that white house policy would side with the interests of common people

No, it's just that with the election a year away, he's decided that it's time for him to pretend to give a shit about his base.

Re:Wow (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37998806)

Is there any way this could hold up? Is it even remotely possible that white house policy would side with the interests of common people against those of whichever are the industries that have opposing interests?

Nope. It's meaningless. On both sides.

Essentially, Republicans are trying to pass a law expressly forbidding the FCC from using powers that the courts hold the FCC doesn't have. (See page 2 of the article.) This has no effect, since the FCC already has no ability to enforce net neutrality, so they're basically just restating what's already the law. (See the whole "US motto" thing.)

Obama, on the other hand, is "sticking it" to the Republicans by vetoing their useless bill in a useless gesture I can only imagine is intended to placate the Occupy Wall Street people. ("See? I support regulation! Of an industry that has nothing to do with the reasons you're protesting!")

In short, this is just pointless posturing on both sides of the aisle. Nothing useful is being done on either side but pandering to talking points.

Re:Wow (3, Interesting)

SuperCharlie (1068072) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998830)

It may be that Google and Facebook, who gladly turn over any and all data and most likely are active participants in govt monitoring, trumped the 'IAA's on this one.

Re:Wow (3, Interesting)

sribe (304414) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998342)

I'm impressed. The first time in 3 years I've been impressed, so the bar is pretty low. But good going Obama.

Really? Getting rid of Ghadafi at very minimal cost and with 0 US lives lost didn't impress you?

Re:Wow (1, Troll)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998442)

I was very impressed by the President acting in violation of the Constitution (even according to him from a few years back). However, that was not a positive impression.

Re:Wow (4, Insightful)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998490)

I'm impressed. The first time in 3 years I've been impressed, so the bar is pretty low. But good going Obama.

Really? Getting rid of Ghadafi at very minimal cost and with 0 US lives lost didn't impress you?

No, hiring thugs and orchestrating a PR campaign to overthrow a government because it was making deals with the wrong country (China) doesn't impress me at all. Especially given that the new government looks to be even more brutal than the one that was replaced (but at least they are making deals with OUR corporations and Frances' instead of Chiner's - that's all the counts, right?)

Re:Wow (0)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998492)

Obama violated the war powers act going into Libya. He should be impeached for it.

Re:Wow (5, Informative)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998618)

Except, of course, that this isn't covered by the War Powers Act because it was a peace-keeping operation under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter which was ratified in Congress over 60 years ago:

"All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security."

Re:Wow (3, Informative)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998742)

Obama's Office of Legal Council disagreed [nytimes.com] .

Re:Wow (2, Insightful)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998888)

Just goes to show you that lawyers don't know everything then. Either way it is a highly debatable topic. If you get away from the opinions on legality, though, you can't argue against the morality of it. It is ironic, though, that Republicans of all people would complain about getting involved in a war.

Re:Wow (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37998810)

The War Powers Act is flagrantly unconstitutional.

The President of the United States is commander-in-chief of the military. Congress has only two powers relating to war: to defund it (fiscal) or to declare it (diplomatic). The War Powers Act does not fall under either of those. Thus it is outside of Congress' remit.

Re:Wow (2)

digitig (1056110) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998528)

Really? Getting rid of Ghadafi at very minimal cost and with 0 US lives lost didn't impress you?

Actually it was the French who did that, but I won't tell if you don't.

Re:Wow (1)

Megane (129182) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998824)

Obama didn't even want to get involved for the whole first month of the rebellion.

Re:Wow (0)

InsertCleverUsername (950130) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998908)

Really? Getting rid of Ghadafi at very minimal cost and with 0 US lives lost didn't impress you?

Obviously you do not understand the rules of American political discourse. You see when a Republican makes up shit to invade a country that poses no threat to us, poses in a military costume, or uses a bullhorn at a disaster site he's a great American hero. When a Democrat orchestrates the killing of several of the world's most dangerous terrorist leaders or removes a much reviled terrorism-sponsoring dictator from power, he's still some "soft on defense" pussy. Our religious beliefs about which party is God's Party precludes thinking any other way.

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37998712)

My data is still being shaped by my ISP. Is this the great job Obambi has done?

Re:Wow (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998716)

Don't worry. I'm sure he'll work out a compromise where the the Republicans get this bill and several other major concessions and he gets a lovely gift basket.

Re:Wow (1)

InsertCleverUsername (950130) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998792)

I'm impressed. The first time in 3 years I've been impressed, so the bar is pretty low. But good going Obama.

You've got to admit his administration is doing a lousy job of PR, but please... In addition to removing insurability/wealth as a prerequisite to medical care, he's managed to do quite a bit with a (post-2010) hostile congress.

Take a look at this list [blogspot.com] (or one of the others turned up in a quick Googling).

STOPPED CLOCK IN 2012! (1)

Megane (129182) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998800)

It's right more often!

Why do you hate the internet? (1, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998846)

Applying regulation to the internet is the gateway to further government control. A LOT of control. Oh well, we didn't care about freedom anyway I guess.

Anytime someone in the thrall of Hollywood votes on something that pertains to an open network, be afraid... be very afraid.

Damn Straight (2)

Saintwolf (1224524) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998072)

I don't live in America, but it's nice to see that some people in the government appreciate the internet for what it is.

Re:Damn Straight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37998250)

You think Obama appreciates the underlying importance of net neutrality (forbidding common carriers from prioritizing traffic based on what traffic directly or indirectly generates the most revenue for the common carrier)?

Nope. He appreciates the importance of votes and campaign donations, and his handlers have told him a veto on this will probably net him both. That's about it.

Re:Damn Straight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37998538)

On one side you have corporations such as Comcast and Verizon who are capable of steering millions of dollars to any cause they want. On the other you have a handful of nerds who are too damned cynical to appreciate anything a president will ever do. Whose side does it make the most sense to take if all you care about is getting elected?

Re:Damn Straight (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998520)

I don't live in America, but it's nice to see that some people in the government appreciate the internet for what it is.

If that were really true, somebody would be trying to stop the "PROTECT-IP" act and the similar PARASITE act. But I don't see that happening. If Obama threatened a veto on those, he would lose to much Hollywood campaign funding.

Yay Obama! (0, Troll)

macs4all (973270) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998074)

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.

Re:Yay Obama! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37998102)

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.

Re:Yay Obama! (1)

masternerdguy (2468142) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998206)

So if I asked to see your SSN and Birth Certificate you'd be ok with it?

Re:Yay Obama! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37998272)

If you demanded to see his birth certificate, he likely couldn't even present it.

I'm sure he'll have a handy excuse as to why his copy of his certificate is totally different from Obama's copy, because the government sure as hell isn't going to let him walk off with the original.

Re:Yay Obama! (0)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998326)

So if I asked to see your SSN and Birth Certificate you'd be ok with it?

For a $200,000/yr job with full benefits, including a mansion to live in with security, food, travel, health, cars, planes, helicopters, all thrown in AND a complete pension for life that includes health insurance, security and an unlimited budget to run an office to do anything you wish FOR LIFE...

Yeah, I'd produce my SSN and Birth Certificate.

Re:Yay Obama! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37998210)

*cough* birther *cough*

Re:Yay Obama! (2)

Iceykitsune (1059892) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998458)

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 [whitehouse.gov]

Re:Yay Obama! (0)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998772)

Connecticut, isn't that where George W. Bush pretended he wasn't from?

Re:Yay Obama! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37998204)

President Dunsel may have started the Patriot Act, but your great lawyer president upheld it.
Sounds to me lile Good Lawyer = Dunsel ?

Re:Yay Obama! (5, Informative)

dogmatixpsych (786818) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998300)

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.

Re:Yay Obama! (4, Insightful)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998346)

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.

Re:Yay Obama! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37998480)

Wow, non-biased, critical thinking at its finest.

Actually Bush didn't use a teleprompter often. And he got lambasted for it when he did.

Have you ever noticed how Obama sounds when he doesn't use a teleprompter? A lot like Bush.

It's marketing, and you, like most, have fallen for it

Obama is taking us down the road of Greece and Italy, and it will not end well. It's right in front of us, and you can't see it. Not very scientific of you, now is it?

Re:Yay Obama! (2)

sageres (561626) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998578)

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."

Re:Yay Obama! (2)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998686)

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.

Re:Yay Obama! (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998680)

He got a 1206 on his SAT's. That doesn't make him bright but pretty much average - even I scored higher.

Doing a quick google on the subject, that puts his IQ in the 130 range. Yes, I used a different source than the one that put his IQ at 125 at the bottom of their chart - apparently the SAT was changed, and the older one had slightly different results.

Which, last I looked, made him bright. Not necessarily brilliant, but bright. Say, in the top 5% of the population.

The fact that you got higher doesn't imply that HE is stupid. It simply implies that you are less stupid.

Note that I also got higher, and while I tend to think most people are idiots, this doesn't actually mean "I got a higher score than XXXXX, therefore he is a moron"...

Re:Yay Obama! (2)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998604)

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.

twice a day (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37998104)

every once in a while even Bush did the right thing

ACTA will pass, so who cares? (5, Interesting)

GeneralTurgidson (2464452) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998176)

ACTA is a Trojan horse for anti net neutrality.

Re:ACTA will pass, so who cares? (1)

Lunatrik (1136121) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998560)

I'm not sure the ACTA is exactly a Trojan horse. More a tank, with trumpets, that ALSO has anti net-neutrality hidden inside it.

Re:ACTA will pass, so who cares? (0)

bobs666 (146801) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998636)


"Administrative Council for Terminal Attachments"
first hit on wikipedia.org

how about
"The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement"

Mod this guy down, at least until he explanes what he is talking about. Thanks

PS.
I know Obama got this one right, Even if he is just supporting his own. The fact that the Congress does not understand the first amendment, that the Internet needs to be free of abuse from ISP's just goes to show how uninformed the Congress is. If nothing else siding on a few ISP's over the greater industry that is the Internet seems counter to Congress's own beliefs, whether its pro business or pro people. Why the Congress is going pro ISP is unbelievable. Unless the Congress is just being anti executive branch in spite. That has to be it the most childish option. Go figure.

If the Congress had a clue they would give teeth to the FCC's rules. Perhaps even make the rules simpler.

Incase you do not know what is at stake. We know Comcast and Time Warner Cable want to sell you TV and Movies. If there local cash of content at there ISP's is fast(1080p) And the Internet upstream is slow(204p) or simply broken then the ISP has a Monopoly.
Net Neutrality fixes that.

Or if the IPS wants to charge other providers for sending the data both to the Net and then on top of that to send it the last mile.
Net Neutrality fixes that.

Re:ACTA will pass, so who cares? (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998826)

Oh, for Christ's sake, dude, this is a nerd site. How can you have a six digit UID and not know what ACTA is?

The first two results were Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. The third is American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA), then Alliance for California Traditional Arts, Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority... none are anything you would expect to see on slashdot.

Sorry, dude, but you're trolling and should be modded accordingly. The rest of your comment is redundant.

investment == marketing pukes and ruining things (3, Informative)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998182)

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.

Re:investment == marketing pukes and ruining thing (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998372)

Is "freedom-based comms medium" some sort of code for POTS?

Re:investment == marketing pukes and ruining thing (1)

Darfeld (1147131) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998836)

First, writing bold doesn't make your point better. Stop it.

Second, your point is actually good, but I think it's a bit pessimistic. I don't think investement ruined the internet already. It has more content, more accessible than ten years from now and it's more userfriendly. (And for goddamn sake, the average webpage is now actually readable.)

Then it has its drowbacks... Investors like to get much for their money... So some design aren't what makes sense technically... streaming and online money operation comes to mind, and I'm sure there are other stuffs... But what would be Internet without investors? A collection of half empty pages barely readable for huma eye with pretty much no visibility? Well You can always find that web. It's still there somewhere...

sorry for the all bold (0)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998202)

when its 5.30am and you have not had your coffee yet, sometimes tags don't get balanced. sigh. again, sorry I left out a close-bold tag. yeah yeah, preview mode. duh.

Re:sorry for the all bold (1)

HopefulIntern (1759406) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998232)

Not to nitpick but you also started a new thread to address this instead of just replying to yourself?
Sorry.

Re:sorry for the all bold (1)

migla (1099771) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998308)

Not to nitpick but you also started a new thread to address this instead of just replying to yourself?
Sorry.

How would you have nitpuck if picking nits would have been what you would have went in for?

Re:sorry for the all bold (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37998330)

He's submitting a story that apologizes for that.

Re:sorry for the all bold (1)

JustOK (667959) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998678)

it's what the internet was created for

Re:sorry for the all bold (1)

Cornwallis (1188489) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998240)

when its 5.30am and you have not had your coffee yet, sometimes tags don't get balanced. sigh. again, sorry I left out a close-bold tag. yeah yeah, preview mode. duh.

Don't sweat it! Your comment was right on target.

IT'S A TRAP! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37998332)

I'm sorry to announce this is a trap. Net Neutrality rules the FCC have passed are not about being neutral, they're about picking sides (or rather, the government picking sides for you).

Think about it: who regulates the Internet right now? The ISPs. You may have your complaints about the ISPs, but you can switch to another one if you don't like the one you're on.

But now, the FCC is trying to usurp the power to regulate the Internet from the ISPs, thus restricting the freedom of the consumer to choose the ISP he likes best- which would almost inevitably be the one with the least restrictions.

It's similar to situation with lightbulbs; pretty soon we're going to have to buy $7 mecury-filled lightbulbs- supposedly to combat global warming. See, this decision could have been made at the state or local level (local= ISPs, see the relation?), but now the government has made the decision FOR YOU.

Net Neutrality, in most cases, is a code-word for 'regulation of the Internet'. BE WARY, do your homework, don't let the government defile the greatest tool of free speech man has ever held.

Re:IT'S A TRAP! (1)

sageres (561626) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998646)

/agree 100%. I'm suprised people do not see this.

Re:IT'S A TRAP! (1)

gearsmithy (1869466) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998670)

Legalize, tax, and regulate the Internet!

Re:IT'S A TRAP! (4, Insightful)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998674)

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.

Re:IT'S A TRAP! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37998696)

It's not the trap he's playing, it's the trap everyone is playing and that's what makes it so dangerous.

Re:IT'S A TRAP! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37998892)

Next thing we know, you're going to tell us how you're the one percent and think that the government should forgive you your student loans. Come ON, man. Would you THINK for just one minute? Are you still hanging on to your Obama Hope? Are you COMPLETELY in denial about the government's motives and reasoning?
 
  Some people just aren't capable of considering the secondary implications of their actions...
 
Captcha congress

Re:IT'S A TRAP! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37998758)

Uuum did the with mercury in your amalgame tooth-fillings delete the fact that those "$7" lightbulbs, which in reality are closer to $4 (for the expensive brand model, that is), last ten times longer than your $0.60 standard bulb, saving you money in purchase price and electricity. (Plus fuel and time to drive to the shop nine times, if you don't buy ten at once.)

Re:IT'S A TRAP! (5, Insightful)

guruevi (827432) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998828)

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.

Re:IT'S A TRAP! (1)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998858)

It's similar to situation with lightbulbs; pretty soon we're going to have to buy $7 mecury-filled lightbulbs

I'm sorry, but you totally dropped the ball right there.

Re:IT'S A TRAP! (2)

morgauxo (974071) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998860)

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.

Re:IT'S A TRAP! (4, Interesting)

gfxguy (98788) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998898)

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.

Laws Should Originate from Congress (2)

geoffrobinson (109879) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998558)

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.

Re:Laws Should Originate from Congress (1)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998766)

This is a law originating from Congress... Even if the President vetoes it they can still override it with a large enough majority.

And... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37998664)

We got this one, now I want more. I want Obama to come out and say he will veto E-Parasite/Protect-IP. If anything is a threat to net neutrality, it's these bills being pushed by the RIAA.

tech industry won't be f*cked with (1)

robmclarty (2211220) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998684)

I don't mean to talk in absolutes, but the tech industry seems to be one of the few left that is still actually working and working well. If i were in charge i definitely wouldn't be messing with it.

Something actually passed (2)

cgfsd (1238866) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998694)

You mean something may actually pass both houses?

I smell an election (0)

morgauxo (974071) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998734)

Election time is coming. He has to pretend to be the president we elected for a little while. Now is a good time to do that, if he keeps it up voters short memories will ensure that his first few years in office don't harm him. Then he can go back to being Bush++ when he is re-elected.

Is this the beginning (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37998768)

of the 2012 presidential election scampaign ?

Baby steps (1)

Boona (1795684) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998832)

The FCC's original mandate was to regulate the airwaves not their content. Eventually of course that all changed. I expect the very same thing to happen to the internet ... you know ... to protect children, america's business interests and to fight terrorists of course.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?