
Obama: My Plan for a Free and Open Internet - zvanness
https://medium.com/@PresidentObama/my-plan-for-a-free-and-open-internet-c45e2f4ab1e4
======
higherpurpose
I'm curious, does classifying the Internet as an utility make it easier or
harder for the government to spy on it?

On one hand it should be easier since they'd have much more control over it,
on the other, it's already pretty damn easy to get all the ISP data through a
firehose directly to NSA's data-centers. Plus, there's the Post Office, which
actually has much more privacy protections than the Internet right now. So I
guess it's still totally dependent on the laws we make, and whether we let
them spy on it or not?

~~~
maxsilver
I don't think this would impact government spying in any way -- it wouldn't be
any easier or any harder.

Just as placing these similar regulations on telephone companies years ago,
didn't make tapping phone lines any easier / harder.

~~~
xnull2guest
How certain are you of this. My understanding is that regulating the
telecommunications industry did make it easier to order both tap-and-traces
and pen registers and that it helped to hold open the legislative door for
CALEA, the Stored Information Act and others. Furthermore, much of the Bush-
era expansion of internet surveillance apparatus was done by legislating
internet communications under telecommunication law.

~~~
themoonbus
Net neutrality isn't a blanket term for "anything the government does relating
to the Internet", it's focused on a specific issue.

I guess you could argue that net neutrality would make it easier to pass pro-
surveillance laws, but I'm having a difficult time connecting the two.

~~~
xnull
> Net neutrality isn't a blanket term for "anything the government does
> relating to the Internet", it's focused on a specific issue.

Of course.

> I guess you could argue that net neutrality would make it easier to pass
> pro-surveillance laws, but I'm having a difficult time connecting the two.

The argument wouldn't be that net neutrality itself would make it easier. The
argument would be that the regulation - especially if the folds ISPs under
telecommunication laws or equivalents - could result in the import of large
portions of legislation pertaining to communications access programs.

Much of this has actually already been done at the ISP level and the
(surveillance) struggle seems mostly focused on the application layer.

So I guess I might agree that it may not bolster surveillance capabilities -
if only for the fact that ISPs have already been mostly captured.

------
hodgesmr
Useful: "What is reclassification and why are net neutrality supporters
pushing for it?" [http://www.vox.com/cards/network-neutrality/why-did-the-
cour...](http://www.vox.com/cards/network-neutrality/why-did-the-court-rule-
the-fccs-network-neutrality-rules-illegal#E6950020)

------
mindcrime
This makes as much sense as a post titled "OJ Simpson: My Plan To Find The
Real Killers".

Obama doesn't want a "free and open Internet", he wants a massive,
distributed, ubiquitous platform for government surveillance.

~~~
themoonbus
Not only is surveillance a different issue, this is extremely hyperbolic.

------
okbake
In regards to this point:

"If a consumer requests access to a website or service, and the content is
legal, your ISP should not be permitted to block it."

Are ISPs permitted to block illegal content currently? It would seem that this
distinction shouldn't be left up to the ISP. Does this mean that my isp would
be able to block me from visiting The Pirate Bay? Or could my ISP have blocked
me from reddit when "The Fappening" was going down?

The way its been worded its implied that ISPs are permitted to block illegal
content but not legal content. I'm just curious if its been that way all along
or if this is something new.

------
couchand
To me the most interesting part is this line: _...while at the same time
forbearing from rate regulation and other provisions less relevant to
broadband services._

As I understood it the rate regulation is a critical component of what Mr
Obama describes as an _obligation not to exploit the monopoly they enjoy over
access in and out of your home or business._ If most broadband providers are
still monopolies, how can the FCC effectively prevent them from abusing that
monopoly without some form of rate regulation?

------
thatmiddleway
Hopefully, this has some real impact. This issue isn't going to be subject to
a vote by congress, so this is a place where the president can have some
actual clout.

~~~
twoodfin
_This issue isn 't going to be subject to a vote by congress, so this is a
place where the president can have some actual clout._

That's never certain: The FCC regulates by way of Congress' authority, and
Congress can change that authority any time it likes (and the President
concurs) through the normal legislative process. They can also make trouble
for future FCC appointments, call FCC members in for hearings, and otherwise
make the FCC's life miserable.

It's absolutely one of the things that limits the FCC's freedom of action.

IMHO, this is simultaneously a political move (nobody loves Comcast), an
ideological move (President Obama almost certainly believes that additional
regulation in this area will be good for consumers) and a negotiation tactic
(the more the broadband providers are worried about Title II, the more willing
they'll be to support FCC neutrality regulation short of that).

