Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

White House Responds To Net Neutrality Petition

Soulskill posted about 5 months ago | from the sanitized-to-remove-any-promises-or-useful-information dept.

The Internet 245

bostonidealist writes "The White House has officially responded to a We The People petition created on January 15, 2014, which urged the President to 'direct the FCC to classify ISPs as "common carriers"' after the D.C. U.S. Court of Appeals 'struck down the Federal Communications Commission's open internet rules.' The White House statement says, 'absent net neutrality, the Internet could turn into a high-priced private toll road that would be inaccessible to the next generation of visionaries,' but notes, 'The FCC is an independent agency. Chairman Wheeler has publicly pledged to use the full authority granted by Congress to maintain a robust, free and open Internet — a principle that this White House vigorously supports.'"

cancel ×

245 comments

Translation: Piss off, Peasants (0, Flamebait)

EmagGeek (574360) | about 5 months ago | (#46281409)

I love how Obama signs 100 executive orders a day ordering various federal agencies to implement his radical agenda, but he can't be bothered to ask the Cable and Telecom Monopolist he appointed to chair the FCC to do anything.

Fucking ridiculous.

http://change.gov/agenda/ethic... [change.gov]

        "I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on lobbyists â" and won. They have not funded my campaign, they will not run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president."

        -- Barack Obama, Speech in Des Moines, IA
        November 10, 2007

Re:Translation: Piss off, Peasants (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46281481)

The best thing about 2008 is that hopefully it permanently disillusioned hundreds of thousands of young people in federal government.

Re:Translation: Piss off, Peasants (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46281635)

I hope but if 2012 didn't do it we're going to be fucked up shit creek Deliverance style. :( Being forced to squeal for a pack of wild hillbillies getting ready to violate me is not cool.

Just remember Indy Weeeeeeee, weeeeeeee

Re:Translation: Piss off, Peasants (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46282127)

How is the that "best thing?" That is the worst outcome. It is better for people to want to change their government, than for them to just not care at all. If it disillusioned them about political parties, then I'd support your statement, but outright not wanting a voting populace goes against the very fabric of this structure we call a nation.

Re:Translation: Piss off, Peasants (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46281495)

>I love how Obama signs 100 executive orders a day

Your post was satire, right? In reality, Obama has issued less executive orders per year than every other modern President.

>he can't be bothered to ask the Cable and Telecom Monopolist he appointed to chair the FCC to do anything.

It's like you didn't even read what he said, or just assume he *means* the opposite of what he says...but given your past history of inaccuracy....

Re:Translation: Piss off, Peasants (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46281541)

or just assume he *means* the opposite of what he says...but given your past history of inaccuracy....

Well... it's not exactly like that would be entirely unfounded.

Re:Translation: Piss off, Peasants (-1, Troll)

arbiter1 (1204146) | about 5 months ago | (#46282017)

But he has SPENT more tax payer $ then ALL the presidents before him combined.

Re:Translation: Piss off, Peasants (5, Insightful)

JMJimmy (2036122) | about 5 months ago | (#46282247)

Check your facts - while he's spent more than any other president, the spending is only 11.2% more than Bush. His new spending, removing existing spending he inherited from Bush in 2009, is $203 billion (2005 adjusted $) and the total since that high point has reduced 5%. By comparison Bush increased spending (again, adjusted) by 33% in his first term and 34% in his second. Regan increased spending 41.2% during his presidency.

Adjusted for inflation, Obama has increased the budget by a lower % than any president since Herbert Hoover.

Re:Translation: Piss off, Peasants (-1, Troll)

Bartles (1198017) | about 5 months ago | (#46282595)

This only works if you statistically cast Bush in the worst light possible, and Obama in the best. The fact remains that the national debt is now 17.3 trillion. Obama has spent far, far, more money that we don't have than any previous president.

Re:Translation: Piss off, Peasants (3, Insightful)

microbox (704317) | about 5 months ago | (#46282683)

Except Obama didn't spend the money. Congress did. Obama signs laws. The laws the gave the budget crunch were on the books before he got to office. There would be less debt if there were a grand bargain in 2011.

Re:Translation: Piss off, Peasants (-1, Troll)

Bartles (1198017) | about 5 months ago | (#46282725)

Well if we're going by what congress spends, then we need to start counting at 2007 when Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid took over. They are responsible for the spending handed to Obama. The last Republican budget signed into law had a deficit of 161 billion.

Re:Translation: Piss off, Peasants (0)

whistlingtony (691548) | about 5 months ago | (#46282803)

If we're going to go by what congress spends, lets actually count it all up, not just start at Pelosi and Reid because you like to hate on 'em. There's plenty of blame to spread around. Stop being a partisan asshat.

Re:Translation: Piss off, Peasants (0)

Bartles (1198017) | about 5 months ago | (#46282731)

It should also be added that the legislative branch appropriates money, the executive branch spends it for the most part.

Re:Translation: Piss off, Peasants (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46282733)

You're forgetting, Obama is the sock puppet on stage that everyone sees and when something goes wrong he gets the blame whether or not the executive branch actually had anything to do with it. I'm not saying him and his party haven't made their share of screw ups but usually when something goes wrong is the puppet on stage and his party that gets the blame regardless of the actual cause, it's just easier that way for the public.

Re:Translation: Piss off, Peasants (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46282737)

which Obama was a part of, you DNC dick suck.

Re:Translation: Piss off, Peasants (1)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 5 months ago | (#46282885)

It's seems like a majority of the users on this site either slept through 9th grade Social Studies, or haven't gotten to 9th grade yet.

Re:Translation: Piss off, Peasants (5, Insightful)

whistlingtony (691548) | about 5 months ago | (#46282793)

I do love how, to prove Obama is bad (and he IS bad, just for REAL reasons... ), people trot out the debt. Yes. It's high. Yes, Obama spent a lot of money. But lets face it, the deficit is going DOWN, not up. He inherited a mess, he's cleaning it up, and if we want to blame anyone, we should blame the folks that repealed the Glass-Steagal act (which includes Clinton) for creating our gigantic mess.

If you want to hate on Obama, stick to real facts. There are plenty of reasons to hate on Obama. But he's not responsible for the accumulation of all the debt that came before him, nor is he responsible for the economic situation that we find ourselves in. Go blame the assholes that deregulated an industry that almost immediately started creating a gigantic economic bubble and then begged for help when it popped.

People That Cite The Debt/Deficit (4, Insightful)

TrollstonButterbeans (2914995) | about 5 months ago | (#46282977)

^^ That dude is dead on.

People that argue against different presidents based on spending should be shunned.

First, the conversation devolves into uber-lameness where different jackasses start trotting out more shitty numbers out their ass.

Conversations with things like "But as a percent of GDP divided by the number of years, adjusted for inflation." are fucking lame. Use real reasons to make an argument --- even if the argument is wrong, anything is better than a nerd numbers fight.

For fucks sake!

Re:Translation: Piss off, Peasants (1)

JMJimmy (2036122) | about 5 months ago | (#46282985)

Bush is neither the worst nor Obama the best. Debt is 17.3 trillion - adjusted for inflation 5.47 trillion of that can be attributed to the years Obama was president.3.87 trillion of it can be attributed to Bush.

Re:Translation: Piss off, Peasants (4, Informative)

icebike (68054) | about 5 months ago | (#46282139)

It's like you didn't even read what he said, or just assume he *means* the opposite of what he says..

Its like YOU didn't read what he said.

He said nothing, he promised nothing.

Instead he delivered PURE 100% Obama speak for "Yeah I hear you, now STFU and stop raining on my parade."

The FCC is an independent agency. Chairman Wheeler has publicly pledged to use the full authority granted by Congress to maintain a robust, free and open Internet — a principle that this White House vigorously supports.'

He sort of fails to notice the Courts just took away all of that Congressionally Granted Power.

Re:Translation: Piss off, Peasants (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46282495)

He sort of fails to notice the Courts just took away all of that Congressionally Granted Power.

Meanwhile, you seem to be confusing the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch of government. So I would love to hear what you would have Obama do, keeping in mind that he, a member of the Executive Branch, should not be doling out Congressionally (ie, Legislative Branch) Granted Powers.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no supporter of Obama. But the guy's got a lot that he actually deserves the blame for, that you don't need to be forcing blame on him when none is warranted. Especially if you actually care about fixing the problem for which you are trying to assign blame.

Re:Translation: Piss off, Peasants (1)

icebike (68054) | about 5 months ago | (#46282831)

I'm quite aware of the difference between legislative and executive.

I suspect Obama is too. I further suspect he, unlike you, has heard of the judiciary.

He has no business saying the executive branch will continue to exercise the full authority granted by Congress, when the Judicial Branch just stripped the executive of that very authority.

Re:Translation: Piss off, Peasants (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46282441)

Except he didn't SAY anything...absolutely nothing, the whole response was devoid of any actual content whatsoever. The response from the White House (not Obama you can be sure of that) didn't say he would or would NOT direct the FCC to impose common carrier status on the cable companies. The closest it came was saying ",,The FCC is an independent agency.,,"...alot of 'we support the principles" type of talk but absolutely 0 concrete direction.

Obama COULD have 'directed' the FCC in regards to question asked by the petition it doesn't mean in the least that the FCC HAS to do it. If the FCC truly is an independent agency than Obama's 'direction' in theory means its no kind of order but you can rest assured that if Obama issued an Executive Order that told the FCC that the only relevant option was to declare the cable companies 'common carriers' that this would carry weight and Obama knows it but he'd rather pretend that he has no power and basically say "I know I'm the President but I have no power to help you"...which is flat out false.

Again ,,,...useless waste of electrons.

Re:Translation: Piss off, Peasants (5, Informative)

Cordus Mortain (3004429) | about 5 months ago | (#46281509)

I call BS. On average Obama signs only 38 executive orders per YEAR. On average only one more than Bush, and 10 less than Reagan https://www.politicususa.com/2014/02/16/myth-busted-analysis-reveals-president-obama-behaving-dictator.html [politicususa.com]

Re:Translation: Piss off, Peasants (2, Funny)

stox (131684) | about 5 months ago | (#46281535)

Please don't let facts get in the way of a perfectly good teabagger diatribe.

Re:Translation: Piss off, Peasants (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46281647)

Please don't let facts get in the way of a perfectly good teabagger diatribe.

The guy was in favor of having the FCC regulate cable companies, that does not fit the teabagger profile.

If anything, it makes you look like an irrational Obama kiss-ass, I don't know why you would want to look like that.

Re:Translation: Piss off, Peasants (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46282993)

Please, don't let facts get in the way of the leftie astroturfer meaning to smear a group of people who want to pay less taxes with a sexually-themed slur.

Re:Translation: Piss off, Peasants (3, Interesting)

symbolset (646467) | about 5 months ago | (#46281957)

The truth that Chairman Wheeler was a cable industry lobbyist is here wrapped in just enough rabid partisan garbage to leave everybody unsatisfied.

hello (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46282927)

You just mentioned every political position. How many are in positions of power because there former lobbyist?

Bush appointed or his entire administration where lobbyist sympathizers, but political parties aside, there all doing this. And its just a joke that people cannot tell the difference, and want to argue siding with Republican or Democrat.

Many of the positions filled are either close friends of, or former lobbyists, even former employees of monopolistic companies that all have something to gain from being in there new positions. And they always say the same dead beat thing, "because of my experience in my former job I am qualified to rid or deal with these abuses". The enitre system regardless of the political party have screwed over anyone and everyone, and the only thing I keep reading is about the good things they had done, which usually turns out to be BS, or the things they failed to do, while always being reminded who is buying them off..

Re:Translation: Piss off, Peasants (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46282031)

The problem is, he acts mostly without executive orders. Look at the modifications he has made to Obamacare, delaying this or that, without ever signing an executive order.

So the limited use of Executive order claim, it BS.

Re:Translation: Piss off, Peasants (2)

JWW (79176) | about 5 months ago | (#46282753)

To bad your insults don't help either. Obama could meet with his appointed head of the FCC and strongly encourage him to make the internet common carrier.

Fuck, Obama can call him on his phone and have the FCC do it with their pen.

Its one thing he CAN actually in this case do all by himself.

But it would be for the good of the citizens, and not the cable and telecom industries, so it isn't going to happen.

I am so fucking fed up with the citizens getting screwed no matter what.

Re:Translation: Piss off, Peasants (0)

Bartles (1198017) | about 5 months ago | (#46281737)

On average, being the key phrase. When he had a supermajority in government for the first 2 years of his presidency, he didn't need to sign executive orders. Now he has pretty much flat out said that is how he plans to govern for the rest of his term. How many is he signing per year now?

Re:Translation: Piss off, Peasants (4, Informative)

Cordus Mortain (3004429) | about 5 months ago | (#46281883)

*sigh* 2 minutes of Googling demonstrates that average hasn't actually changed much: https://www.federalregister.go... [federalregister.gov] 2013 - 21 2012 - 38 2011 - 33 2010 - 35 2009 - 39 Super majority or not, he signed more in the first two years than he did in the second two.

Re:Translation: Piss off, Peasants (4, Informative)

the_B0fh (208483) | about 5 months ago | (#46281967)

that super majority lasted a matter of days. 24 days.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/... [usmessageboard.com]

It really isn't that difficult to google for the facts you know. Really, seriously.

Re:Translation: Piss off, Peasants (4, Informative)

JMJimmy (2036122) | about 5 months ago | (#46282283)

I call BS too. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu... [ucsb.edu]

Bush: 290 orders signed
Obama: 169 orders signed

Re:Translation: Piss off, Peasants (4, Informative)

geekoid (135745) | about 5 months ago | (#46281533)

when something sound ludicrous, you should look it up instead of blindly repeating it like some half-wit parrot.

http://www.snopes.com/politics... [snopes.com]

The quote ois accurate, so I"m not sure why you are porting it. Oh Right, you are a half-wit parrot.

Re:Translation: Piss off, Peasants (3, Insightful)

kheldan (1460303) | about 5 months ago | (#46281575)

The White House response to this really just uses a lot of words to say "No comment".

Re:Translation: Piss off, Peasants (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46281731)

Well to be fair it also sort of says, "we aren't going to do anything".

Re:Translation: Piss off, Peasants (3, Insightful)

thaylin (555395) | about 5 months ago | (#46281719)

He has authority over federal agencies, federal commissions are setup to be independent for a reason, mainly to prevent the stupidity that you want.

Re:Translation: Piss off, Peasants (3, Interesting)

samantha (68231) | about 5 months ago | (#46282175)

So, no one elected has any authority over this powerful agency? Is that what is being claimed? Then we have a problem, no?

Re:Translation: Piss off, Peasants (1)

Mashdar (876825) | about 5 months ago | (#46282271)

We could always defund the FCC, I guess. ;)

While Congress never declared War... (1)

IgnorantMotherFucker (3394481) | about 5 months ago | (#46282339)

... on North Vietnam, it was always willing to pass the funding bills for it.

To defund the FCC would require that Congress leave it out of the budget resolution, or reduce the funding provided by the resolution.

That's not something a White House petition would affect.

Re:While Congress never declared War... (1)

Bartles (1198017) | about 5 months ago | (#46282619)

Congress can leave it out of all the budget resolutions it wants to. Until we have a regular budget process again, and the senate starts doing it's job, it's completely pointless.

Re:Translation: Piss off, Peasants (1)

Bartles (1198017) | about 5 months ago | (#46282611)

You can't hold a gun to heads of the American People like that. Defunding anything that was passed into law and found constitutional is extreme, regardless of the quality or effects of the law. Congress isn't actually allowed to do anything.

Re:Translation: Piss off, Peasants (1)

thaylin (555395) | about 5 months ago | (#46282397)

Do we have an issue with the Supreme Court? The agency has limited terms, and have to be appointed, other than that they are supposed to be free of the authority to prevent people from swaying their job, so they can remain impartial...

Re:Translation: Piss off, Peasants (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46282991)

No. We'd have a problem if only one elected official had authority over the FCC. Thankfully, we have 535 elected officials with authority over them.

Re:Translation: Piss off, Peasants (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 5 months ago | (#46282057)

What do you expect, he is from Illinois the state and city known for corruption in all their politicians. What kills me is people still think he is doing a good job, if he would have KEPT his promises and was a leader like he acted he was, this would be different. But honestly he acts more like Dick Cheney than Dick Cheney did. I'm waiting for the man to shoot someone in the face.

Re:Translation: Piss off, Peasants (1)

Bartles (1198017) | about 5 months ago | (#46282629)

He sure copied Dick Cheney on same sex marriage.

Re:Translation: Piss off, Peasants (1)

Tengoo (446300) | about 5 months ago | (#46282469)

I think I just found the guy who creates those insanely wrong political forwards that my darling grandmother likes to send out to the family..

-1 low information voter (3, Interesting)

microbox (704317) | about 5 months ago | (#46282665)

I love how Obama signs 100 executive orders a day ordering various federal agencies to implement his radical agenda

Obama has only signed 170 executive orders since 2009 [wikipedia.org] .

That's less than Bush and Clinton btw.

Re:Translation: Piss off, Peasants (1)

DworkinLV (716880) | about 5 months ago | (#46282797)

Sorry, Obama has signed a total of 167 orders to date for his entire presidency. Not 100's of orders per day. See http://www.archives.gov/federa... [archives.gov] for a comparison of orders.

goodbye /. (-1, Offtopic)

tirnacopu (732831) | about 5 months ago | (#46281419)

It's been nice to visit you for quite a few years, but the website has changed in ways I do not like, and since soylentnews is up I will delete my account. Good luck to the remaining founders in their next endeavour.

Re:goodbye /. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46281483)

It's been nice to visit you for quite a few years, but the website has changed in ways I do not like, and since soylentnews is up I will delete my account. Good luck to the remaining founders in their next endeavour.

Okay? Good for you, I guess?

Petition to Stop Wasting Tax Money on Petitions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46281439)

This is fucking insipid. But as long as it adds to the mirage that Your Government Cares, then let the show go on right?

Re:Petition to Stop Wasting Tax Money on Petitions (4, Interesting)

briancox2 (2417470) | about 5 months ago | (#46281703)

This is fucking insipid. But as long as it adds to the mirage that Your Government Cares, then let the show go on right?

I think any communication between the public and our government that is open and transparent has value. Even if it does not get the desired result immediately, it influences public opinion in our government as the people observe the ebb and flow of government in action. Government officials are almost always influenced to at least some degree by their public perception.

Re:Petition to Stop Wasting Tax Money on Petitions (1)

mrcoolbp (928930) | about 5 months ago | (#46281819)

True, and well-worded, but I think it's a bunch of handwaving. If he truly believed in an open internet, he'd do something about this more than just saying: "I'm gonna let them handle it"

Re:Petition to Stop Wasting Tax Money on Petitions (3, Insightful)

Frobnicator (565869) | about 5 months ago | (#46282041)

True, and well-worded, but I think it's a bunch of handwaving. If he truly believed in an open internet, he'd do something about this more than just saying: "I'm gonna let them handle it"

You must be new to this whole "government" thing.

In general they do nothing. And in general that is actually the best response.

Usually when they do take fast action it is the wrong action. The kneejerk reaction laws are written by organizations that have their own aggressive agendas, they provide them to the legislators during an emergency under the promise that the bad provisions can be corrected later... but they seldom are.

The correct course, even though it is slow and tedious and painful, is for Congress to act deliberately.

Even in the best of times trying to force Congress to pass a law that benefits the people is nearly impossible. Often it requires a massive upswelling, grand marches and presentations and events that are daily on the news until the congress-critters realize they must take action or lose their jobs. In the worst of times, like today, even that wouldn't work since they cn trivially deflect the most severe upheavals with "We worked on a bill but the other party shut it down".

Examples of that were the civil rights movement, the Vietnam and Korean war protests, more recently we have the occupy movement and the tea party movement. It takes considerable force to make congress move, and even these multi-million member groups tend to produce only slight changes in government.

Sadly, the correct action is also the action we are least likely to see. It may not be the one the nation wants, but given the national attitudes and apathy, it is probably the one we deserve.

Re:Petition to Stop Wasting Tax Money on Petitions (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about 5 months ago | (#46282273)

he correct course, even though it is slow and tedious and painful, is for Congress to act deliberately.

Congress doesn't need to act. All they need to do is use some of the consumer protection laws and actually protect the consumer. These internet service providers actually sell access to the internet and they make claims to the speed and reliability in the process of selling it. If comcast or Time Warner or ATT or anyone wants to limit the internet on purpose, they are falsely advertising and committing fraud on their customers. IF they want to limit the speeds to below the advertised speeds based on a third party payment, they are falsely advertising and committing fraud on their customers.

Existing consumer protection laws should apply very nicely. When Comcast advertises an 8 meg unlimited internet connect for $50 a month and delivers a purposely limited version of the internet, they aren't delivering as advertised. It is a purposeful fraud.

Re:Petition to Stop Wasting Tax Money on Petitions (1)

dave562 (969951) | about 5 months ago | (#46282357)

The only problem with your argument is the fine print. All of the ISPs offer the caveat of "up to" in their stated rates. Comcast will give you "up to" 8 meg.

Read the column headers, 4th column over.

http://www.comcast.com/interne... [comcast.com]

Re:Petition to Stop Wasting Tax Money on Petitions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46281875)

Yeah. I would have to wager a hundred letters sent by constituents would be far more influential than 1,000,000 Unknowns, potentially Chinese clicking a "I AGREE" Button.

It's a stupid premise, it's completely ineffective. This is a charade. It's great for having the White House officially declare February 29th the "Fuck Beta" day, but for anything substantive? It's a fucking waste of time, money, and it's a god damn joke that it even exists.

Re:Petition to Stop Wasting Tax Money on Petitions (1)

hypergreatthing (254983) | about 5 months ago | (#46282149)

Communication with no action is worthless.
It's the fucking government. They're supposed to act and respond to the needs of their constituents by doing what they were hired to do, set policies and pass laws. Saying "Sorry, can't do nothing about that, move along" doesn't do anything.

Re:Petition to Stop Wasting Tax Money on Petitions (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 5 months ago | (#46282217)

I think any communication between the public and our government that is open and transparent has value.

But they're doing precisely the opposite of what they're saying, how is that transparent?

Re: Petition to Stop Wasting Tax Money on Petition (1)

kittylu (705146) | about 5 months ago | (#46281753)

Except that tax dollars aren't being spent on petitions.

Re: Petition to Stop Wasting Tax Money on Petition (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46281849)

This Government Petition Website built and maintained by a generous grant from Comcast, Inc?

Oh I get it. Obama programmed, maintains, and develops the Petition interface during his weeks off in Hawaii. Got it!

Re: Petition to Stop Wasting Tax Money on Petition (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about 5 months ago | (#46282037)

The website isn't part of the white house site? Is the white house website being paid for by something other then tax dollars?

Are they saying the FCC isn't in the executive bra (2)

IgnorantMotherFucker (3394481) | about 5 months ago | (#46281459)

-nch? Now there are indeed laws by which the FCC must operate. There is for example a law or are laws that define what a common carrier is. So how about hurling metric boatloads of attorneys, engineers, sociologists or what have you, at the FCC, to convince them that ISPs are really common carriers? At one time an ISP was arguably an information provider, say when they all provided Usenet feeds. But it has been more than ten years since I've been able to get a feed from any ISP. I don't even get my email from my ISP anymore. I get connectivity, that's it. I don't even use their DNS. So from my point of view at least, as well as those of many common types of Internet users, the ISPs are common carriers now, even if they weren't before.

Re:Are they saying the FCC isn't in the executive (4, Informative)

geekoid (135745) | about 5 months ago | (#46281571)

Correct. It is an independent regulatory agency.

"So how about hurling metric boatloads of attorneys, engineers, sociologists or what have you, at the FCC, to convince them that ISPs are really common carriers?"
How about that? have you sent them a letter? have you contact local experts to get them to send a letter? organize anything?

Or do you just complain until someone else does all the work?
And yes, logically they are common carriers.

Re:Are they saying the FCC isn't in the executive (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46282071)

In what way is the FCC independent? Are they a fourth branch of government? Are they a part of the judiciary or legislative branch? I'm pretty sure they're constitutionally part of the executive branch.

The President must follow Congress' laws... (3, Informative)

IgnorantMotherFucker (3394481) | about 5 months ago | (#46282221)

... that is, should he have chosen to sign the laws, the laws passed without his signature while Congress was in recess, or the congress overrode his veto.

Strictly speaking, President Obama cannot just declare that ISPs are Common Carriers. I expect the law says that the FCC determines that, and FDR or some such signed the law that established the FCC, at the time the Common Carrier status was to regulate the phone companies.

However the president does have a lot of power, as I said, to present evidence to the FCC during hearings, to write friend of the court briefs, to petition the courts and so on.

But I'm pretty sure he could not just sign an executive order.

Were that the case, that an executive order could just overturn a law, we'd see a lot more executive orders than we presently do.

Re:The President must follow Congress' laws... (1)

JWW (79176) | about 5 months ago | (#46282775)

He can't just order it, but he can sure as hell meet with the guy he appointed to the position and encourage him to take action.

But he's not going to and it not inclined to do that.

Re:Are they saying the FCC isn't in the executive (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46281585)

Namesake law poised to further destroy the American's productive capacity? We'll just kick that can down the road another two years [leavitt.com] ; fuck the low wage workers with crappy healthcare. Obummer doesn't hesitate to executive order whatever race baiting nonsense [thenewamerican.com] he wants into existence.

Do something about the government sanctioned monopolies looming over the Internet? Oh no. The FCC is "independent" and we don't have the authority.

Just so long as the oldsters get their bennies these statists can do anything, or cop-out on anything, and they're guaranteed their positions of power. The AARP base is bought and paid for with whatever printed, borrowed or taxed monies are demanded.

Re:Are they saying the FCC isn't in the executive (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46282659)

Just wait until Hilary gets elected. Jesus, what a monster she is.

But sadly, still better than anything the Republicans have. And the third parties have no chance.

Re:Are they saying the FCC isn't in the executive (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46282039)

-nch?

Now there are indeed laws by which the FCC must operate. There is for example a law or are laws that define what a common carrier is.

So how about hurling metric boatloads of attorneys, engineers, sociologists or what have you, at the FCC, to convince them that ISPs are really common carriers?
 

Or, much simpler- How about if when Obama gets a petition like this from 100K+ people, instead of just passing the buck *entirely*, he picks up the phone. If he were doing a better job as president he would have used his stature to get an on-the-record answer from the FCC Chairman that *he appointed*, as to *why* he hasn't classified ISPs as common carriers. The answer he gets might be totally obvious B.S., or it might be educationally insightful. Then quote that answer as his answer to the petition, instead of just passing the buck and effectively saying 'no comment' with a lot of words. Oh wait, maybe he did, the answer was total B.S. and Obama realizes that by passing along the information to the public, it would make him look really bad for appointing the guy in the first place.

Independend my foot (2)

WCMI92 (592436) | about 5 months ago | (#46281501)

The FCC is no more "independent" than the IRS.

Note the recent scheme the FCC was going to try, putting bureaucrats in the newsrooms of broadcasters to "study" the reporting of news. Which got quickly withdrawn soon as word got out.

That would have been putting a Regime "political officer" into newsrooms to threaten the LICENSES of broadcasters who don't "praise and worship" Pharaoh.

Re: Independend my foot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46281621)

You sure it got killed? Last I read they pushed it back, but the interviews were scheduled to start this spring.

Re:Independend my foot (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46281623)

As many lies and fucked up stories as the media reports, just shooting half the broadcasters for incompetence would have a salutary effect.

Re:Independend my foot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46282673)

wow. I had not heard of that.

links please.

the reply is a non reply (0)

nobuddy (952985) | about 5 months ago | (#46281511)

They chose to blow smoke up our ass instead of respond.

Re:the reply is a non reply (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46281557)

But blowing smoke up America's collective ass *is* a response...

Re:the reply is a non reply (1)

bogaboga (793279) | about 5 months ago | (#46281723)

No, it's referred to as a non-answer [urbandictionary.com]

I am disappointed to say the least!

Fuck you Beta (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46281531)

I'm moving on to SoylentNews.
 
Oh, and fuck that liar Obama. He has more lobby money in his pocket then every other president combined.

Re:Fuck you Beta (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46281851)

I'm surprised how well SoylentNews has taken off...

The red is a little hard on my eyes, but with a little more work, there's no more reason to stick around here and wait for BETA to ruin the site.

Re:Fuck you Beta (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46282329)

I'm surprised how well SoylentNews has taken off...

The red is a little hard on my eyes, but with a little more work, there's no more reason to stick around here and wait for BETA to ruin the site.

I agree. However, I've still modded you down as this is off-topic. Let's be civil about this. Dice management is driving /. into the ground. But we don't have to make others suffer for the sins of Dice.

Translation... (5, Insightful)

stox (131684) | about 5 months ago | (#46281549)

Comcast sent us more campaign donations than you did.

YDUO FAIL IT?! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46281663)

Volume of NetBSD paalid bodies wand that *BSD is

Why do people do this?!? (0)

Virtucon (127420) | about 5 months ago | (#46281681)

Has one of these petitions done anything other than get a watered down, neutered response from the WH? I mean people really, the current resident at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave doesn't give a shit about petitions. He does care about giving you the impression that he cares, but he really doesn't. If he did he'd already be directing his Cronies in Congress to put legislation through and ask for it on his desk in 30 days. But no, "The FCC is an independent..." bullshit. The FCC is an appointed group mostly made of of Industry insiders who don't have your interests at heart, but the monopolistic practices that keep their customers, the Carriers and Broadcasters, firmly entrenched in this country. Independent my ass, just look at Tom Wheeler's resume [fcc.gov] and tell us he's impartial. Yeah, just what we need at the FCC, somebody up to his ass with industry connections and a vulture capitalist too. I wonder how much money he'll make while at the FCC or afterwards when he's rewarded with a posh do-nothing job at Comcast or Verizon?

Re:Why do people do this?!? (4, Funny)

Ecuador (740021) | about 5 months ago | (#46281873)

We don't really know that petitions don't get attention from the WH, but it is an interesting question. I suggest we start a petition for the WH tell us whether they take petitions under serious consideration or not.

Re:Why do people do this?!? (4, Insightful)

jxander (2605655) | about 5 months ago | (#46282109)

I don't think there has ever been a drastic and/or immediate shift in policy based on a "We the People" petition ... no (I could be wrong, so fee free to correct me here if needed)

However by simply answering the petition, the White House has helped to illuminate the problem for the less tech savvy folks who still follow politics. You'd be astonished (or maybe you wouldn't) to realize how many people have absolutely zero idea what "Net Neutrality" actually means. This response, no matter how neutered, will cause at least a small percentage of people to say "Hold on a second. What's this 'free and open Internet' concept?"

Couple that with the real or perceived repercussions and non-techs may actually start putting the pieces together "Why is my netflix so slow today? And what is the white house babbling about now? hey!" light bulb

Re:Why do people do this?!? (1)

swb (14022) | about 5 months ago | (#46282541)

Anyone whose opinion matters knows exactly what net neutrality means.

The doublespeak and equivocation from the Obama administration on these issues is pretty appalling. I'm sure he's carefully balancing saying that he wants to keep the campaign contributions rolling in but in a way that doesn't immediately alienate half the Democratic base.

I kind of hope that he realizes sooner rather than later that this is his last term and that he doesn't have to worry about getting re-elected in 2016 so he can finally quit trying to simultaneously take three sides of an issue that has two constituencies.

Hillary has been out of the administration long enough and has her own checkbook so taking a stand on something shouldn't burn the Democrats' best hope for 2016.

The irony of Obama is that the shafting he's done to progressive Democrats exceeds the worst nightmares right wingers had about him.

Block Comcast/TWC Merger Petition (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46281721)

Block the proposed buyout and merger of Time Warner Cable by Comcast.
Created: Feb 13, 2014
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/block-proposed-buyout-and-merger-time-warner-cable-comcast/KHvv2Rfm

Will Comcast and Verizon crush Netflix?
By Benzinga Feb 24, 2012 6:01PM
http://money.msn.com/top-stocks/post.aspx?post=1852e69e-b124-402e-a8b2-ada5c6ec853d

Re:Block Comcast/TWC Merger Petition (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46281915)

They already issued a response: "LOL We can't do that!! But don't forget that it's almost 2014 Congressional Fundraising season, and President Obama will be at a $50k/plate event to support a Democrat who receives hundreds of thousands of campaign donation dollars to support legislation NOT in your best interest!"

Although they probably won't be as blunt.

If You Like Your Internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46281763)

"If You Like Your Internet, You Can Keep It"

All your internets are belong to Fort Meade, anyway...

Whitehouse responds (2)

nurb432 (527695) | about 5 months ago | (#46281785)

"uh, how much money do you have to contribute for us to listen to you?"

That is ALL they care about. ( well, that and destroying the country as fast as possible before time runs out )

Just that same old song and dance. (1)

retech (1228598) | about 5 months ago | (#46281827)

I've lost count the number of times this administration has promised that the "intent" of what they want is vastly different than the law they just passed. I have double plus confidence in the future admins carrying the torch of the spirit of these laws.

Re:Just that same old song and dance. (1)

rts008 (812749) | about 5 months ago | (#46282355)

Not just this administration, it has been happening quite awhile now.

Last administration gave us the 'war on terror', the PATRIOT Act(with the DHS and TSA), and two wars that have cost us over a trillion US dollars; the list goes back a ways, and is a long list of tomfoolery.

The 'playlist for the dance' will remain the same as long as there are effectively only two parties to choose from at voting time.

It is currently close to impossible for any candidate to get support enough to pose a threat to the Democrats or Republicans, and I don't think they(D and R) will allow that to change willingly.

We've coasted on our laurels too long, and to regain lost liberties and freedoms that(allegedly) were associated by the USA is going to get messy, I'm afraid.

Freedom and Liberty are not free, or perpetual.
.

Re:Just that same old song and dance. (4, Interesting)

clonehappy (655530) | about 5 months ago | (#46282735)

The 'playlist for the dance' will remain the same as long as there are effectively only two parties to choose from at voting time.

And this is why you should support every Tea Party candidate that you can. Now, wait, hear me out. You may not agree with their politics, but you have to admit they're really stirring people up, both on the left and the right. Now, I know, what you're going to say: "They'll ruin our entire system, set the rights of $GROUP back 100 years, make the middle class poor, make the rich richer, and leave us all out to hang and dry!"

And you'd probably be right. And I support that. Yes, I support my quality of life dropping, at least temporarily, if it means we can reboot this entire thing and start over again. There are millions of sane, level-headed liberal folks out there who realize the mess of shit we're in. Just as there are millions of sane, level-headed conservatives out there who realize the same. You see, the average, middle class working person, which whether we admit it on Slashdot or not, most of us are, aren't in support of socialism, no more than we are in support of capitalism. It's a balance. It's not black and white, we're for a decent world to live in. One we can hand down to the next generation and say "See, we tried not to fuck it up so bad, made a few things better, made a few things worse. Give it a shot and see how you do."

But we need to get back to basics. We need a government that builds and maintains infrastructure. Roads, schools, sanitation, water, energy systems. At least at the basic level. We can still have toll roads, we can still have private schools, for those who want them. But government needs to get out of the business of micromanaging people's lives. Now, why should you support the Tea Party? Because if you're so sure they're going to fuck everything up beyond recognition, bring the whole system crashing down to the ground, LET THEM! Then you can rebuild it with your input as you see fit.

As it stands, it's the only real option we have left. No one wants violence or any of that kind of thing here in America. Call it exceptionalism, call it whatever denigrating term you want, I think we're above it. We're not stupid enough to end up shedding the blood of our own people, are we? Over such bullshit as Obamacare, or welfare, or abortion? We can agree to disagree. We can find a compromise that works for everyone, if we stop letting the power structure call all the shots and control every debate with the black and white all or nothing rhetoric. We're not all so different. Not as different as you'd think we are if you watch cable news or read every political blog on the web. We really can fucking get along without secession or violence or this radical idea or that radical idea. But we need to reboot, and the only way to do that is by electing someone who's not a D or an R.

Put the partisan, emotionally charged rhetoric down just long enough to get our country (world?) back. Then we can get right on back to debating about minutia and Justin Bieber. But the hole in the ship isn't getting any smaller, and the guys with the blue and red hammers and nails are only using them to beat us about the head. We can get back to that once we use them to fix the hole and pump out the water. Anyone but the incumbent. That's my vote.

Great, at least we got them on the record... (1)

fsterman (519061) | about 5 months ago | (#46282081)

...saying something they had already put on the record. He has a great issue that the public is passionate about but Obama folds every hand he is dealt.

We knew this would happen (1)

rabbin (2700077) | about 5 months ago | (#46282263)

Anyone who signed this petition knew we'd get the typical PR response that's devoid of any content--that's not what we were seeking in the first place. The benefit from these petitions is that (1) it may draw public attention to this issue and get a mention in the mainstream media and (2) they cost each individual about 5 seconds of time and a mouse click. And that's what we may get, so there may be at least some measure of victory in this.

If the vast majority of Americans knew how badly they were getting fleeced by the telecoms compared to other first world countries, they would be more concerned. Unfortunately the media has no incentive to cover such issues because (1) real journalism isn't as profitable as entertainment and news outlets are no longer required to cover issues of public importance (see e.g. the Fairness Doctrine) or (2) it conflicts with the propaganda.

so...what now (1)

ComputersKai (3499237) | about 5 months ago | (#46282631)

So Obama made a few comments

What now? Is there going to be any change?

Whining diatribes by do-nothing people (5, Interesting)

whistlingtony (691548) | about 5 months ago | (#46282901)

This thread is going to be full of whining. Lots of blame. Lots of arguing. Lots of links to sources.... but no action.

Wolf-PAC.com. Go. sign up. DO SOMETHING. I drove an hour today to get to my state capitol, visited my state rep, and asked him to sponsor legislation to call for an article V convention to FIX the problem. The problem isn't and R or a D next to someone's name. It's that money buys influence. It's that our reps are elected almost completely based on who raises the most money. And that isn't their fault. It's YOURS.

You vote based on partisan hackery and don't bother to educate yourselves. You're all fired up to argue on the internet, but can't be bother to call your damn rep and tell them what's on your mind. And to boot, you vote based on made up knee jerk reactions. They're playing you like a fiddle. Ok, mostly the Right here, I really do have to show my bias. :D Really, a Muslim? A secret Muslim? F'ing stupid... but the laziness crosses party lines.

Fix your brain, get off your ass, and go FIX IT. Stop whining on the internet. Stop arguing uselessly with random strangers on the internet. It wasn't even that hard to call my rep, get a meeting, and start working on a solution.

Sorry, I'm a little frustrated by all the stupid arguing. Also, the stupidity. Go. wolf-pac.com. Sign up. Work with the people in your state (many of whom are in the OTHER party, and you'll hang out with them and discover they're actually quite intelligent and put a lot of thought into their beliefs).

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...