
President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet - jordanmessina
http://www.whitehouse.gov/net-neutrality
======
AndrewHampton
Here's the thing that bothers me the most about a lot of the talk about net
neutrality by government officials:

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

Specifically "and the content is legal" is what raises a flag for me. I've
seen similar phrases in nearly everything I've read coming from any government
official regarding net neutrality.

If this phrasing makes it into eventual laws regarding net neutrality, it
seems to me that it could easily require inspection of all traffic by ISPs to
ensure the legality of traffic.

~~~
couchand
It's a pretty massive stretch to go from "ISPs are permitted to block illegal
traffic" to "ISPs are required to perform deep-packet inspection to ensure the
legality of all traffic they carry".

~~~
emcrazyone
Agree. ISP owner here. Not all web sites or IP addresses contain 100% illegal
material. Virtual hosting (hosting more than one web site from same IP
address) poses problems as does content among sub-domains. I don't have the
resources to monitor and track such things and if I were forced into it, I
would either go out of business or try to become a search engine.

~~~
arthurcolle
I've actually wondered how do you go about providing access to internet? I
write a lot of code and spent a good amount of time on the internet and it's
always made me wonder how exactly one goes about providing internet to
customers. Really curious for any resources to read about this if you have any
resources to read or just your personal experience!

~~~
corobo
Basically it's a reselling system no matter which way you go. You buy access
into a bigger ISP's network and then provide services on top of it.

If you've got a huge wallet you could run your own physical infrastructure but
it would be hugely expensive for anything more than a small userbase [1]. If
you went that way you'd make peering agreements with your closest internet
backbone providers to hook into the rest of the internet (backbone providers
being even bigger ISPs than those mentioned earlier, the ISP's ISP if you
like)

[1] It has been done in the past: [http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/how-
to-start-your-own...](http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/how-to-start-
your-own-isp-699959)

------
kyro
Because TC doesn't bother with the editing process anymore, here's a direct
link to the letter: [https://medium.com/@PresidentObama/my-plan-for-a-free-
and-op...](https://medium.com/@PresidentObama/my-plan-for-a-free-and-open-
internet-c45e2f4ab1e4)

~~~
jordanmessina
Thanks kyro. Also, here's the link to whitehouse.gov page:
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/net-neutrality](http://www.whitehouse.gov/net-
neutrality)

~~~
shawabawa3
I'm 99% sure when I first clicked this link it was the whitehouse.gov one. Why
did it get changed to techcrunch?

~~~
dang
I took a quick look at the logs and it seems to always have been
techcrunch.com until we changed it a minute ago.

------
padobson
I hope no one is getting excited about this.

President Obama is a lame duck. His party just got tossed out of the Senate,
relegating his political capital to basically 0. In the wake of this, he's
decided to take maybe the most important economic issue of the next 20 years
and politicize it.

Neither the red team nor the blue team could say they owned this issue, but
one of the most divisive voices in politics just stuck the blue flag in it -
at a time when he has less influence over policy than any other time in his
presidency.

I would have preferred him to just keep his mouth shut.

~~~
forgotpasswd3x
Sure would be fucking nice if they (democrats and republicans) could _not_
have to take opposing sides on fucking everything, but you're right. Since
he's for it, they're going to rally against it. Really disappointing.

~~~
dasmithii
> Sure would be fucking nice if they (democrats and republicans) could not
> have to take opposing sides on fucking everything

There is a selection bias in the issues you speak of. Non-polarizing topics
are handled swiftly, without much attention from the public spotlight. There
is no point in discussing what's already agreed upon, and that's one of the
more reasonable justifications of political polarization.

That said, the polarization is greater than would be optimal, so I do agree -
it would be nice.

------
DigitalSea
As per usual with all politicians, these are just words. Nice words, but until
a bill is passed and there is movement in the senate to make something like
this closer to a reality, words are meaningless.

My question to Obama is: why now? This whole net neutrality debate has been
going on long before Obama started his first term of presidency, why wait
until you are almost out of the White House to act upon something as important
as this? He has had six years to act on this. Could it perhaps have anything
to do with the fact the Democrats took a heavy blow recently with Republicans
being popular with the voters in the recent election? Is Obama merely trying
to save some face with the voters for his party to mitigate risk at the next
presidential election?

Maybe, maybe not. It probably is not fair of me to try and make connections to
speculative thoughts like that. I am passionate about net neutrality and it
just feels weird Obama is going public on a subject like this not long after
votes were casted.

But you know what? Either way, if Obama can get a bill deeming internet to be
classified as a utility within the next two years, maybe he will leave behind
a legacy that we talk of in the years to come. It might be six years too late,
but if anyone can make something like this happen, it is the president.

I am aware that the FCC can change things without any bills needing to be
passed and while I am speculating here, the FCC is not exactly known for being
honest and transparent. An independent agency with some suspicious ties to
lobbyists and corporations trying to protect their monopolies like Comcast.
The issue here is the FCC can change things and should change things but
ultimately will not change a thing unless the pressure is there from the right
hands. Obama speaking up is great, do not get me wrong, but I think the likes
of the FCC will need more than gentle words to start changing things. Action
needs to be taken.

I simply refuse to believe that an agency can run itself to the point where it
controls what can and cannot happen with something as important as the
internet which in my opinion is a basic human right to have access to.

~~~
roc
> _" My question to Obama is: why now?"_

My guess? The FCC is probably close to deciding and Obama knows which way
they're leaning. So he wants to build some distance between the DNC and the
FCC, before the FCC inevitably announces they're going to let the ISPs do what
they will.

If Obama says nothing, Net Neutrality will continue to be a sub-headline issue
even if/after the FCC allows it to die. Inasmuch as anyone notices, it will
reflect poorly on the DNC in 2016.

If he says something now, the reactionary portion of the GOP will take the
opposite position as a knee-jerk response. It will become a larger news item
and the GOP will have inherited the fallout. Inasmuch as anyone notices, it
will reflect poorly on the GOP in 2016.

That he didn't say anything prior is probably either because the FCC only
recently notified him of their position, or he wanted to avoid any blowback on
those democrats who were already running tough mid-term re-election races in
conservative districts.

~~~
dragonwriter
> The FCC is probably close to deciding

Given that the FCC Chair, who has repeatedly says he agrees with Obama on the
need for neutrality (both before and after the recent statement), and
specifically agreed that paid prioritization should be avoided, just announced
that the final rules may be delayed into 2015 (he earlier said he wanted to
get them out by the end of the year) because of legal work required by the
consideration of the hybrid approach (a partial Title II reclassification
which would go further than the original proposal and prohibit paid
prioritization, which leaked recently as the current preferred approach of the
commission) and the full reclassification approach, I suspect both the "the
FCC is close to deciding" and "the FCC inevitably announces they're going to
let the ISPs do what they will" parts of your prediction are wrong.

~~~
roc
If the ISPs were on-board with an acceptable compromise, they'd presumably not
lobby strongly against it. The decision would likely stay in the land of wonks
and be largely ignored.

So why would Obama turn that -- getting what he wants (or nearly so) -- into a
highly-politicized position, essentially guaranteeing that it's strongly
fought, blocked and/or legislated away in the next session?

There's no up-side for him or the hypothetical acceptable compromise and a
_huge_ down-side risk.

And given how many years the FCC has avoided this issue, and insisted on
preserving the farcical distinction between "communications" and "information"
networks, I see no reason to be optimistic about the terms or lifespan of any
compromise short of Title II, regardless of what has leaked.

Even if something workable were agreed upon, it wouldn't be likely to last any
longer than previous compromises -- such as the FCC's last stab at Net
Neutrality, or the short-lived DSL open-access rules.

------
higherpurpose
Since I have zero trust in Obama these days, I'm waiting for the other shoe to
drop - or to see what's Obama's angle in this. Is he doing it because he
_already knows_ a Republican-backed Congress and FCC have already made up
their minds _against_ net neutrality - and he just wants to be remembered that
"he tried"?

Or is he supporting full net neutrality because that would give the government
much more control over the Internet?

Either way I don't think he's doing this because "he cares". Whatever his
angle/hidden agenda, it's probably a bad one for us.

~~~
mvd366
I don't understand this mentality. If Obama comes out as against Net
Neutrality, it's him being evil. If he comes out in favor of it, he's lying.

I understand politicians often have ulterior motives but from the information
provided, this is exactly what the majority of citizens were asking him (and
the FCC) to do.

~~~
colinramsay
Sometimes people don't want a real discussion, they just want their existing
views reinforced.

~~~
DominikR
Sometimes people lie so often that you will never be able to trust them again.

I'd never trust a guy who signs secret kill lists, even targeting US citizens
without having a trial. He even publicly joked about this, which is sign of
insanity to me.

And then there's the case of a jailed journalist from Jemen (who reported
about a drone bombardment in Jemen), where he personally called the president
of Jemen to prevent him from releasing the journalist.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulelah_Haider_Shaye](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulelah_Haider_Shaye)

------
joezydeco
And it's already getting worse:

[https://twitter.com/SenTedCruz/status/531834493922189313](https://twitter.com/SenTedCruz/status/531834493922189313)

 _" Net Neutrality" is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not
operate at the speed of government._

~~~
smspence
Ted Cruz is an extreme outlier. Everyone else in the Republican party hates
him. Please don't take his dumb remarks as representative of anyone else.

Here is a quote [1] referring to how Mitch McConnell (Republican Senate
Minority Leader, soon to be Majority Leader) handles nut-jobs like Ted Cruz:

"Mitch has very carefully, very methodically, very much under the radar,
isolated Ted Cruz. He's kind of sealed him off like the body puts a sack
around some foreign matter"

I believe that's how most Republicans feel about him. Cruz echoes the idiotic
thoughts of a very very small minority. But, since they sound like such
bizarre nut-jobs, they get media coverage.

[1]
[http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2014/1...](http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2014/11/05/gop-
pledges-to-govern/18534759/)

~~~
joezydeco
_" Please don't take his dumb remarks as representative of anyone else."_

The GOP is _masterfully_ adept at deciding on a set of talking points, getting
them into the hands of key people in politics and the media, and then beating
voters over the head repeatedly with it until the voters start repeating it
back.

The Republicans just won the Senate back on the idea that Obamacare is the
root of all evil. Watch them leverage that idea into every. single. thing.
from now until 2016 (and beyond).

~~~
protomyth
You give more credit than I would, especially about the recent election since
the messaging was anything but coherent from the party leadership. I think the
Scott Walker / Chris Chrissy feud is a pretty nice indicator of where the
breaks lie. The GOP is basically a split party these days under one roof. I
would expect at some point to get back to a single message, much as they did
before.

Yes, Cruz is popular among the rank and file, but he is very unpopular among
the leadership and media. He is a very good speaker and makes a fair number of
good points. He is also very easy to soundbite-attack.

If you look at rhino369's comment
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8585565](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8585565)
you can see what many of the Republicans fear. The boogeyman of "fairness
doctrine" has even been raised. If you are serious about net neutrality and
brush aside the concern then you are not going to advance any issue.

I don't expect anything to advance on this issue. Its to mantra and flags now.

If someone would narrowly define a technical definition of what techs actually
want for net neutrality, then I think you could a fair bit of Republican
support. Particularly if it was phrased as keeping the fairness doctrine out
of the internet. Never mention the poison phrase net neutrality.

------
yc1010
I am not American (feel free to ignore my opinion) but this is just a bad joke
from someone who seems to be an utmost failure.

Especially in light of last week FBI/NSA/DHS undermining TOR and killing its
utility for any dissidents and free speech in authoritarian states. Under his
watch the surveillance state has expanded and has become downright creepy

25 years after the fall of the Berlin wall we should be saying "Ich bin ein
Ost-Berliner" :( The Stasi would be proud of the surveillance state that
western countries have created with Obama at the helm.

edit: Oh i see the cult of personality is still strong in this one, downvoted
in under a minute.

~~~
revscat
Let me explain a few things about the American government.

The most important thing to understand is that the ability of the executive to
influence the direction of the government is limited. The reasons for this are
several, but I will try to elucidate a few here.

First, it is commonly believed that because of the ability to hire/fire people
the President can more or less do whatever he wants in regards to the
direction of various governmental agencies. This true to an extent, but to a
much more limited extent than is commonly believed. The President can nominate
candidates for various positions, but these positions must be approved by
Congress. Since President Obama has had a Congress whose primary tactic is to
oppose everything the president wants, regardless of merits, this has severely
limited his ability to get policies in place that he has otherwise wanted.
This applies both to agencies like the FCC (the current chairman was Obama's
third choice, IIRC; the other two were filibustered), as well as the
judiciary.

Second, the government itself is made up largely of agencies which are outside
of the ability of the democracy to affect. This includes the military, the
intelligence agencies, and the federal law enforcement agencies. (You could
arguably include the Federal Reserve here, as well.) These are what Lofgren[1]
calls the "Deep State". They are almost completely unaffected by elections,
especially of Democratic presidents, and seek ever to increase their power and
funding. Efforts to rein them in are rarely, if ever, successful.

Third, the current state of affairs re: intelligence gathering, etc., began in
earnest with the passage of the National Security Act of 1947.[2]

So while it may be convenient to blame Obama for the current state of
government, it is overly simplistic. It has nothing to do with any cult of
personality, but rather a simple recognition of the current realities of
political power and the various players.

[1] [http://billmoyers.com/2014/02/21/anatomy-of-the-deep-
state/](http://billmoyers.com/2014/02/21/anatomy-of-the-deep-state/)

[2]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Act_of_1947](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Act_of_1947)

~~~
300bps
_The President can nominate candidates for various positions, but these
positions must be approved by Congress._

President Obama was inaugurated January 20, 2009. At that time, his Democratic
party controlled both houses of Congress decisively[1]. It was not until 2011
that his party lost the house. And in fact, his party still retains the Senate
but will lose it in January 2015. But it is only the Senate that approves
appointments and his party has controlled it the entire time he has been
President. And if you look at the make up of his cabinet, you will see that he
has been able to fill it with people that are reviled by the opposing party
[2]. To say that he hasn't gotten his way on the vast majority of cabinet
appointments just isn't true.

 _Second, the government itself is made up largely of agencies which are
outside of the ability of the democracy to affect. This includes the military_

The President is the Commander in Chief of the military. He exercises complete
authority over them. [3] All the heads of the other agencies you listed are
appointed by the President including the Federal Reserve.

Your comment is typical of the current rhetoric surrounding attempting to
"debunk" the thought that the President has substantial power. The fact is the
President does have substantial power and saying otherwise is merely
attempting to excuse the performance of Obama that so many people are
disappointed with.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_State...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses)

[2]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_the_United_States](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_the_United_States)

[3] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander-in-
chief#United_State...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander-in-
chief#United_States)

~~~
king_jester
At no point since 2009 did the Democrats control 60 or more seats in the
Senate, which would be a requriement to beat a filibuster from the opposing
party. So no, the Democratic party did not have a free license for appointee
approvals.

EDIT: Came to my attention that Democrats did have a exactly 60 seats in the
Senate for a brief period before Ted Kennedy passed away and his seat was won
by Scott Brown in 2009. However, the point still stands that there was a very
brief period over a span of 5 years where control of Congress was even
possible for Democrats.

~~~
Shivetya
as they passed the ACA, they simply changed to rules to use the reconciliation
process to pass what they wanted without the Republicans being able to say a
word.

Reid was pro at changing the rules to prevent opposing views, people need to
understand just how much of the problems in th Senate were his doing and his
doing alone. Mister Nuclear just got nuked by the electorate

~~~
cpleppert
>>as they passed the ACA, they simply changed to rules to use the
reconciliation process

No they passed the bill with 60 votes during the only time they actually had a
supermajority. There were no rules changes needed or required. ACA was passed
and signed before changes were made in the reconciliation process.

------
rlpb
It seems to me that introducing net neutrality law is a band-aid over what is
really just monopolistic behaviour because last-mile providers don't have
competition.

Why not fix the root cause? Force last-mile providers to provide transit to
third party ISPs like they do in the UK, or otherwise regulate them
specifically.

I don't see why rules should apply across the board to markets where there is
healthy competition. There is no problem elsewhere, is there?

~~~
atonse
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but Obama is suggesting that we re-classify
ISPs as utilities. That would force them to lease out their lines to
competitors.

~~~
adventured
That's not going to happen. Comcast is one of Obama's - and the Democrats in
general - closest corporate sponsors.

And were the Republicans to win the Presidency, I can't see them pushing for a
formal classification either. They think Comcast is a private company
competing in a market, when it's actually a government protected and
sanctioned monopoly just like AT&T and Verizon.

~~~
rayiner
What substantial government sanctioned monopoly does Comcast have? Can we
point to something concrete rather than hand waving?

It's been illegal to grant monopoly franchises to cable companies since the
mid 1990's. I don't know of a single market where Comcast is the only cable
company because it has a sanctioned monopoly. There are a lot of places where
Comcast has a de-facto monopoly because nobody else is willing to build high-
speed service in a given area. But almost anywhere that's the case, it's
because of telco-unfriendly regulations, not telco-friendly ones.

The people who rant about telcos can't get their story straight. They say
Comcast has a legally protected monopoly, but then attack Verizon for not
building fiber to the huge swath of places where the local governments are
dying to get a competitor to the local telco. Their arguments are based on a
false premise: that building fiber is profitable enough to justify the
investment, and the government and telcos are getting in the way. The falsity
of this premise is amply demonstrated when you look at places like New York,
where the government has shoved the cable companies out of the way, but still
has to drag Verizon kicking and screaming to build all this supposedly
lucrative infrastructure.

~~~
narrowrail
Here is a link to the info regarding a franchise agreement renewal in a small
Colorado town:

[http://www.louisvilleco.gov/SERVICES/CityManagersOffice/Fran...](http://www.louisvilleco.gov/SERVICES/CityManagersOffice/FranchiseAgreements/CableFranchiseInformation/2013ComcastCableFranchiseRenewal/tabid/766/Default.aspx)

There are .pdf's with the official agreement and some attempt at simplifying
the info contained within on the page itself. I haven't read it yet myself,
but I'm curious if it reflects the claims you make.

~~~
rayiner
The franchise agreement you linked, for the city of Louisville, Colorado,
exemplifies the claim I'm making.

Section 2.4 - franchise is non-exclusive.

Section 2.2(B) - non-discriminatory requirements to access rights of way.

Section 2.6 - city reserves right to grant other franchises, so long as if it
does so on more favorable terms than the existing franchise, then the existing
franchise can be modified.

The FAQ on the page you linked has the most interesting information, however:

> Comcast's Franchise with City of Louisville:

> Comcast - the nation's largest cable television provider - is currently the
> primary source of cable television services in Louisville, serving
> approximately 4,500 subscribers. They currently operate in Louisville under
> a _non-exclusive franchise agreement_ [Footnote] effective since April 2006.
> The agreement allows Comcast to use the City's ROW in return for the payment
> of certain rental fees - known as franchise fees - and other benefits for
> Louisville and its residents.

> Footnote: Should another cable provider want to offer cable service in
> Louisville the City would offer that company the same franchise opportunity
> that Comcast now has. _To date, no other service providers have asked for a
> franshise._

------
zoba
I am excited Obama is getting in on this, however, I'm concerned Net
Neutrality may become a partisan issue. Ted Cruz has stated that Net
Neutrality is like Obamacare for the internet
([http://www.businessinsider.com/ted-cruz-net-neutrality-is-
ob...](http://www.businessinsider.com/ted-cruz-net-neutrality-is-obamacare-
for-the-internet-2014-11)) which just enrages me. Please get the message out
to your conservative friends/family before the right has an opportunity to
brain wash them.

~~~
ianburrell
Net neutrality is already a partisan issue. Republicans have always been
opposed to net neutrality as unnecessary regulation of the Internet.

Republicans in Congress threatened to overturn the 2010 net neutrality rules
through legislation. Then the courts decided the FCC did not have the
authority to enforce those rule. Congress could have passed net neutrality
legislation but the Republicans are happy with the current unregulated status
which is why they haven't discussed it.

Since then FCC has been trying to write new rules within their authority.
Which is why the proposed rules are so limited and regulate fast lanes. The
other option for the FCC is to declare ISPs as common carriers and regulate
them like telephone companies. The Republicans will almost certainly try to
block this.

------
philovivero
Huh? Is this the same President Obama that put Tom Wheeler in charge of the
FCC? In case it isn't obvious (and since no-one else has mentioned it yet, I
guess it's not), Tom Wheeler was a huge lobbyist for the very people who are
trying to end net neutrality.

I don't get calling for X then performing actions that negate X.

Edit: there's another front-page story to Bloomberg that actually explicitly
mentions the Tom Wheeler connection:
[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-10/obama-calls-for-
reg...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-10/obama-calls-for-regulating-
internet-like-phone-companies.html)

~~~
tptacek
No, Wheeler was not a "huge lobbyist" for "the very people" working against
NN. He was the president of the NCTA from the late 70s to 1984, before cable
had anything whatsoever to do with the Internet. His status as an anti-
neutrality lobbyist is a powerful Internet meme that does not appear to be
rooted in fact.

~~~
josh2600
Look, I normally agree with almost everything you say, but this is just not
true. Wheeler was at the NCTA until divestiture, then he saw the writing on
the wall and went to CTIA and CWA. After CWA he worked for Core which is a
very industry heavy VC.

Wheeler was a huge lobbyist for over 20 years, talks to Meredith at CTIA on a
first-name basis and knows all of the people who run the telcos and their
lobbying organizations. In some narrative, he's the perfect person to lead the
FCC and in another, he's not.

My opinion is that, YES, he was a lobbyist and YES he is anti-neutrality
because that was the position that made the most sense at the beginning of his
tenure. I'm bullish that he'll come over to the Network Neutrality side (and
gave indications in that direction at CTIA Super Mobility week this year) but
I think there's a chance he'll do title 2 with lots of caveats that will make
this, let's say, complicated.

You are right that memes aren't helpful, but Wheeler was actually the biggest
lobbyist in the history of telecom, IMHO, so that much is quite true. Whether
he is anti-neutrality now is up for debate, but when he took the office, well,
I think there's little evidence to show he was in favor of neutrality then.

~~~
tptacek
I take your point, that Wheeler was a lobbyist _for network operators_ for
most of his career. I think "cable company lobbyist" is still a particularly
dumb way to sum him up, but can see why lobbying for telcos is also scary for
someone arbitrating net neutrality.

------
stephengoodwin
The current Chairman for the FCC is Tom Wheeler. He is a former lobbyist for
two telecommunications associations:

* National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) (from 1976 to 1984, becoming president in 1979)[1]

* Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA) (from 1992 to 2004, serving as CEO)[1]

[1] [http://www.fcc.gov/leadership/tom-
wheeler](http://www.fcc.gov/leadership/tom-wheeler)

~~~
rayiner
And most recently he was an MD at a VC firm that invests in early stage
internet companies: [http://www.core-
capital.com/portfolio.aspx](http://www.core-capital.com/portfolio.aspx).

It's pretty disingenuous to note his lobbying for cable companies in the
1970's and 1980's, before they even entered the Internet service business,
while ignoring that his most recent connections are to Internet companies that
ride on the infrastructure built by the telecoms.

Also, CTIA represents wireless carriers, which are under a different
regulatory umbrella than telcos or cable. To the extent you can infer bias
from Wheeler's work, the strongest inference is in favor of a bias towards
Internet companies, not a bias towards telcos. Of course, I wouldn't
characterize him as biased, but rather as someone with experience with the
"full stack."

------
mbrubeck
This is very similar to Mozilla's proposal to the FCC last spring:
[http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/mozilla-offers-
fc...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/mozilla-offers-fcc-a-net-
neutrality-plan-with-a-twist/)

Mozilla: _" The petition calls on the FCC to designate last-mile delivery of
edge provider communications as “remote delivery” services, and as
telecommunications services under Title II of the Communications Act."_

Obama: _" I believe the FCC should reclassify consumer broadband service under
Title II of the Telecommunications Act."_

------
pvnick
Yes, let's give the government control to dictate how we may use the most
powerful system for free-speech and keeping governments/corporations in check
that has ever existed in all of human history. Despite the US government's
insistence and profound ability to commandeer the internet for military/spying
uses, I'm sure this time they will act in our best interests...

And I know the control Obama's saying he wants the FCC to exert over the
internet does not yet appear directly tied to the NSA, but after the past year
of Snowden revelations I just want the government to keep the hell as far away
from technology as possible. Because the only way this policy becomes
politically feasible is when there's a way net neutrality could somehow be
perverted to weaken the internet's ability to shine light on corruption.

~~~
ep103
is this a joke? net neutrality has nothing to do with the NSA, or government
control of the internet. Its regulation of a utility, to prevent a monopoly.

~~~
pvnick
Effective regulation requires trust. And the federal government has destroyed
that trust with regards to the internet. Completely and irreversibly. My point
stands.

Not to mention that given a little time these problems will work themselves
out anyway (eg google fiber, municipal broadband, etc). The only reason you
have to put your faith in ham-handed federal involvement is an irrational fear
of corporations and a lack of patience.

------
crazy1van
First, let me say that my local ISPs have left a lot to be desired. Comcast
and Verizon have driven me crazy in the past. But making them a utility scares
me. As bad as my ISPs have been, looking back 15 years, I was on a 56k modem.
Now I have 50 mbps broadband. When I look at other utilities like power and
water, I've seen zero innovation and my bill continues to rise.

Something should be done, but I'd rather the focus be on removing barriers to
more local competition by getting rid of ordinances that create a defacto
monopoly by constricting access to utility poles and right-of-ways. When
Verizon offered fios to my area, overnight comcast dropped their prices and
then raised their speeds significantly. I want more of that.

~~~
therealdrag0
What innovation could be done for basic utilities? I understand your concern
and sympathize with it. But it seems like there is a difference. Everyone
wants faster more reliable internet (Personally I'm more concerned about
reliability at peak times at this point; >10mbps is plenty otherwise). But
when is the last time you heard someone complain about the reliability of
their power/water/sewage? Maybe I'm spoiled, but I haven't noticed systemic
negligence with those utilities.

~~~
_greim_
The electrical grid is (supposedly) badly in need of an overhaul. I don't know
if this is correlated to electrical being a utility however.

~~~
crazy1van
Why would power companies upgrade? Their monopoly status has taken away all
financial incentive to improve things. And their monopoly status is given by
the federal government. That makes them far more interested in keeping the
government happy instead of keeping me, the consumer, happy.

------
DominikR
His administration literally started the process that will ultimately be the
end of the open internet in the next few years.

Now everybody is working on a national/regional "Internet", even the EU is
going the first steps into this direction.

Him calling for open and free Internet is absolutely bizarre. Who knows, maybe
he'll call tomorrow for the end of torture and drone executions without trial.

~~~
adventured
I never cease to be amazed at the naivety that exists around giving _this_
government more power. This isn't some fluffy nice friendly government that
has only our best interests at heart - this is a hyper violent, war mongering,
murderous, intrusive, spiteful, extra-legal, Constitution ignoring monster.
The military industrial complex has come home to roost - that is what is
happening with the spying and police militarization - and now people think
it's a great idea to just hand over more power to this government so they can
further control the only widely accessible platform left to criticize them.

------
tjaerv
Because that worked so well with the phone companies.

~~~
netcan
The actual statement read fairly explicit and useful to me. I'm no expert
though. Basically:

    
    
      No blocking.
      No throttling. 
      Increased transparency
      No paid prioritization 
      Same rules apply to mobile internet
    

It's all subject to the caveat that the FCC is independent and they decide how
and what exactly is implemented.

Those sound to me like the basic and less controversial components of net
neutrality. It prevent disadvantaging specific sites, protocols or users if
applied in a reasonable way.

[https://medium.com/@PresidentObama/my-plan-for-a-free-and-
op...](https://medium.com/@PresidentObama/my-plan-for-a-free-and-open-
internet-c45e2f4ab1e4)

~~~
djur
"Same rules for mobile internet" is pretty notable. Google only got on that
bandwagon in September, for instance.

------
gorhill
> "Regulating Internet Like Phone Companies"

There is this other headline which came to my mind when I read the above
headline: "Retroactive Amnesty for Telecoms".

[https://www.eff.org/pages/case-against-retroactive-
amnesty-t...](https://www.eff.org/pages/case-against-retroactive-amnesty-
telecoms)

------
sejje
This headline is in such stark contrast to the other, which reads "President
Obama calls for a free and open internet."

Which reads more like the actual intent?

Edit: The two submissions got merged, so my comment is now outdated.

~~~
mpweiher
They are the same thing: in order to protect net neutrality (the free and open
internet), you need strong regulation, it doesn't happen by itself.

~~~
CWuestefeld
This sounds very George Orwell, like "Freedom is Slavery".

It's going to take a very strong argument to support the idea that freedom is
enhanced by limiting freedom. Not that it's impossible; my glib statement
plays fast-and-loose with "freedom", using the same word in one sentence to
mean both the overall amount of freedom as well as in a microcosm. But even
so, the apparent contradiction should make us think before jumping in.

~~~
nathan_long
Freedom can be enhanced by limiting freedom. In the US, you may not have a
slave or be a slave. It is illegal, even if both parties are willing.

Why can't we decide? Because if we could, it would open the door to trickery
and coercion. The fact that no slavery arrangement is legal keeps a lot of
people from being tricked or coerced into one.

Hence, limiting freedom (of agreements) can enhance freedom generally (no
slavery).

Similarly, you can't sell me a house made of popsicle sticks even if I'm
informed. We want a market where houses below a certain level of quality just
don't exist, because it's better for everyone.

It's possible that net neutrality is like this. "An internet connection where
ComCastMovies.com works great but Netflix is severely throttled" would be a
crappy product that Comcast is incentivized to sell, and consumers may be
tricked (fine print) or coerced (no other options) into buying. It may be in
the public interest to outlaw it.

~~~
CWuestefeld
_We want a market where houses below a certain level of quality just don 't
exist, because it's better for everyone._

But are we sure that's true?

A couple months ago I recall seeing that one of the major wireless providers
was planning a level of service that was (a) very cheap; (b) allowed unlimited
access to Facebook and a couple of other major social apps; and (c) was very
expensive for data usage outside that area. It would be marketed toward poorer
people as a cheaper means of getting that basic connectivity.

One outcome of the arguments for net neutrality, and your argument in
particular, is that there's no means for providing low-cost services designed
for the less-rich. It's not obvious to me that setting a bar this high is a
good thing for the lower economic rung in our society.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
But those are artificial bottom-rung services. We all know that an internet
connection is an internet connections, right? So restricting this bogus
program to certain websites was an attempt to capture the consumer, nothing
more. Its somewhat like offering the poor special-price moldy bread,
deliberately poisoned to make them have to buy your medicine or whatever.
There's no point to it, except evil.

~~~
CWuestefeld
_Its somewhat like offering the poor special-price moldy bread, deliberately
poisoned to make them have to buy your medicine_

No, that's a completely unfair characterization. There's nothing "poisoned"
about the lower level of service being contemplated here, it's just a lot less
capable.

You seem to be putting yourself into the position of deciding for these
hypothetical poor customers that if they can't have the A+ level of service
for top dollars, then they shouldn't have anything at all. It's all or
nothing.

If you think that we _should_ limit things in this way, then let's be up-front
about it. Admit from the beginning that the result will be that we're
preventing low-cost plans, so the industry will be forbidden from selling
plans designed for disadvantaged people.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
I didn't make my self clear then. Its absolutely poisoned. They had to go to
special trouble to disable browsing anything but the services they wanted you
to see. Like putting on blinders. Or to use the food analogy, to destroy the
food value of the bread so as to influence your subsequent behavior.

The lowest rung, the only rung, on the internet ladder is - a connection.
Nothing costs more or less than that. The rest is an attempt to charge rent on
property that isn't theirs. To mix the metaphors. They are a carrier; they
don't provide web sites and its none of their blessed business which ones you
visit using their precious phone.

------
baldfat
Have ZERO understanding how the Republicans are going to hold off on Anti-Net
Neutrality. I am sure this is something that Libertarians will fight tooth and
nail and well I would say over 12% of currently republicans labeled themselves
as such. With 30 congressmen in the House Liberty Caucus things are not so
easy for the G.O.P.

I feel that there is a strong likely hood that G.O.P. will have a switch for
Net Neutrality once they see that this policy has such a strong vocal
majority.

~~~
untog
Why do you assume that Libertarians are pro-net neutrality? It's government
regulation that limits what ISPs can do - hardly a free market philosophy.

~~~
mhluongo
Pro-neutrality libertarian here. I used to think my philosophy precluded net
neutrality, then I looked into how these companies became entrenched- and it
was by government support. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

~~~
fche
two wrongs don't make a right

~~~
mhluongo
Catchy, but inappropriate. If there were a free market way to reset the
playing field, I'd certainly prefer that. But I've yet to hear one, and crony
capitalists are a problem as much as statists.

~~~
randyrand
"Mr. Milton, how much government intervention is required to deal with
monopolies and..."

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdLBzfFGFQU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdLBzfFGFQU)

------
graycat
On 'network neutrality', I'm lost: Someone please clear this up for me, say,
with this 'scenario':

I pay my ISP for 15 Mbps download bandwidth, and some Web site with video
clips pays their ISP for 10 Gbps upload bandwidth. So, I connect to that Web
site and download or 'stream' a video clip.

Then the Web site better get their 1 Gbps upload bandwidth, if they want to
send that much, and if they send me 15 Mbps of video then I better get the
full 15 Mbps I paid for.

So, what's the role of 'fast lane', 'slow lane', the Web site paying my ISP
for 'more', 'slow downs', etc.

Or as far as I can see, if I'm getting my 15 Mbps (from any Web site sending
me that much) and the Web site is getting their 1 Gbps, everything should be
okay. Otherwise, either my ISP or the Web site's ISP is not delivering what
they were paid for, and I have a tough time believing that that would be
common.

I'm failing to see the opportunity for funny business.

Or, yes, if use the Internet as a video phone, then there could be issues of
dropped packets, out of order packets, latency, jitter, etc. -- is that what
the talk is about?

~~~
GeneralMayhem
>either my ISP or the Web site's ISP is not delivering what they were paid
for, and I have a tough time believing that that would be common.

Believe it. It's happening today.

Internet plans are always advertised as "up to" some speed, which is a
logically meaningless statement. 0 is "up to" 15.

------
binarray2000
1\. Net neutrality (NN) is of essential importance for the free Internet, now
and in the future.

2\. Barack Obama (BO) can "call for" many things, but after the latest
elections he cannot do much. Even if he, personally and as a POTUS, would want
to _do_ something to protect NN.

3\. If you hope GOP will do something about it... well, harsh reality is this:
Republicans will do what corporate interest wants them to do. Democrats (along
with BO) were doing the same. Now that GOP has the majority in both the
congress and the senate they MIGHT pay lip service to the issue, but, nothing
will change in essence.

4\. Maybe you think/hope, people will go out on the streets, write petitions,
fight for NN. If recent history teaches us something it's this: Snowden
revelations didn't move much US citizens on to the streets. And, compared to
NN, it was a larger issue.

(Hope for a better world is something to strive for, but after all these
years, I've realized that there is only one reality: Interest. And Big Money
has a lot of it to fight NN)

~~~
unchocked
Four million comments to the FCC is a Big Deal. There's a huge amount of
public support for Net Neutrality, plus all the money in Silicon Valley.

The liberal side of this issue is huge. Whining about how we can't do anything
because big cable and their bought legislators is wrong and counterproductive.

~~~
binarray2000
> Four million comments to the FCC is a Big Deal. Great!

> There's a huge amount of public support for Net Neutrality, plus all the
> money in Silicon Valley. There we have it: Interest. This time _for_ NN.
> Another great thing.

> Whining about how we can't do anything because big cable and their bought
> legislators is wrong and counterproductive. For the sake of keeping this
> discussion sane, let's not use such words as "whining". Now, as a supporter
> of NN, I've described things one has to be aware of as well. I wish and hope
> positive attitude of the people like you will prevail and that NN will be
> protected by law.

------
pconner
This proposition (implementation of some of the regulations required for
telecommunication services under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934)
is taken directly from a notice published by the FCC in 2010

[http://www.fcc.gov/rulemaking/10-127](http://www.fcc.gov/rulemaking/10-127)

It has been argued previously that the FCC lacks the authority to reclassify
Title II common carrier, and that such a reclassification could actually be
damaging

[http://www.mayerbrown.com/files/Publication/b3dde165-879d-41...](http://www.mayerbrown.com/files/Publication/b3dde165-879d-41d4-bd11-22cec4ecc93f/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/f8f8d83f-b025-4a9f-8dbd-394dfcad45e1/10937.PDF)

------
forrestthewoods
"So, as I have before, I am asking for an explicit ban on paid prioritization
and any other restriction that has a similar effect."

Does that work? Is that implementable and/or good? Isn't peering a pretty
reasonable thing to do in a lot of cases?

------
fit2rule
This just provides more impetus for us to get out ahead of the government and
implement the next-generation communication technologies that make it
impossible for anyone to spy on us.. of course, if that happens, there'll be
further battles upstream .. as well as a few submarine battles we probably
don't know we have to fight, already, as advocates of peace and communication
- but nevertheless the time has never been as ripe as it is now for the new
shit to drop.

Question is, how? What? These are the sorts of answers we have to find. A DHT
over a P2P with no central control? It still seems so out of reach ..

~~~
emcrazyone
I tend to agree. As an ISP owner, the problem is fundamentally the point to
point technology involved along with lopsided peering agreements you can't
avoid.

Torrents really expose these issues very well and it's the same sort of thing
you see going on between Netflix and Comcast.

One solution is for consumers to have more choices. I recently read an article
where some town I think in Colorado put in their Internet access by lighting
up dark fiber they had. It use to be something the cable companies fought
citing that municipalities could have a monopoly.

The other game changer is WiMAX and generally speaking, faster mobile data
rates. If I no longer need my buried cable to get fast Internet coupled with
the fact I can take my device with me, is a huge selling point.

But like cable companies, you can have traffic pile up on a cell tower but it
seems easier to add more radios to a cell tower than it is to lay more fiber
and/or coax.

Maybe the solution is to get rid of TCP/IP and use something different such
that traffic can spray out like a torrent and be recollected from different
route paths. For example, if you have Internet from two or more cable
companies, there is no way to dynamically balance traffic between those two
circuits between two parties. You have a default gateway and there isn't much
more you can do with that at the end user level.

------
vegancap
He presided over some of the worst breeches of data privacy in contemporary
political history, how exactly does he expect anyone to trust him? Would he
have made these bold statements, had he not have been found out?

------
daveloyall
What do these statements mean, specifically parts I've marked?

> To do that, I believe the FCC should reclassify consumer broadband service
> under Title II of the Telecommunications Act — while at the same time
> forbearing from rate regulation and _other provisions less relevant to
> broadband services_.

and

> If the FCC appropriately _forbears from the Title II regulations that are
> not needed to implement the principles above_ — principles that most ISPs
> have followed for years — it will help ensure new rules are consistent with
> incentives for further investment in the infrastructure of the Internet.

------
ajcarpy2005
>And then you encounter things like this by Senator Ted Cruz:

The biggest regulatory threat to the Internet is "net neutrality."

In short, net neutrality is Obamacare for the Internet. It puts the government
in charge of determining Internet pricing, terms of service, and what types of
products and services can be delivered, leading to fewer choices, fewer
opportunities, and higher prices for consumers.

The Internet should not operate at the speed of government

>How does one even begin to engage with people that find this in any way
intellectually valid?

>It doesn't even make sense and yet I have family that shares his status.

------
davidholmesnyc
This is a good thing everybody. Lets see what happens going forward.

------
quakershake
Why should we care about what the POTUS has to say about internet freedom?
It's not like the POTUS or politicians in general have a good track record of
trustworthiness.

IMO, anytime officials are talking about it, they are guaranteed to screw it
up.

I am actually surprised that they aren't talking more about having it be $Free
and under government control. Maybe that is step 2.

Either way, the less authority the ISPs and the Government have over your
network traffic the better.

------
diminoten
I'm glad the president is giving a hoot about this issue, because it's an
issue I care deeply about and follow closely.

That said, I'm still not convinced a "no slow lanes" policy is possible.
Peering is a huge part of the Internet, and without it, the Internet doesn't
work. Paid peering is a private network owner's right to ask for, and it's
every other person's right to deny.

~~~
crackalackin
Really? I wish he'd keep his mouth shut. The moment he makes his position
known on anything, the Republican controlled congress makes it their holy
crusade to block. Those guys are now in complete control of the legislative
body that makes these rules.

If he REALLY wanted to help, he'd start supporting the opposite of everything
he wants to do. He should be good at that, re: NSA, Drones, Gitmo, etc. "I
will close down Gitmo! ... lol"

~~~
Cr3w
Great leaders lead. Bad ones complain of opposition.

------
misingnoglic
I know nothing about politics, but my guess is that this is a reaction to the
majority republican house/senate. There's no way in hell a bill like this can
be passed through congress (with all the special interests and whatnot), so by
being at the front of this movement which is important to so many people,
they'll opt to blame the republicans (who are now in charge).

~~~
mikeyouse
The FCC can designate Title-II carriers with absolutely no input from
congress, your theory isn't plausible.

------
bko
I don't think I fully understand the argument for net neutrality. I try to
think about it from a few different perspectives:

Broadband intensive services like Netflix: I think a problem that they face is
that their connection is often slow, not only intentionally, but also because
developing infrastructure is expensive. Why would an ISP bother building out
the infrastructure if they can't extract a higher value from those that it
most benefits (Netflix)? In fact, Netflix thinks it's worth it to pay Comcast
directly. If that was not beneficial, I don't see why Netflix would have done
so. Sure, they would probably prefer to get that service for free, but it must
be mutually beneficial for both parties to go along. If Netflix were not
allowed to make sure a deal with a company like Comcast, would that really
benefit anyone?

Smaller Websites: There is the risk that ISPs try extracting a toll but I
think it may not be worth it a lot of the time for the ISP. I think this fear
is overblown, although I could be wrong.

Consumers that don't use broadband extensive services: Why should those
consumers be subsidizing those that use broadband heavy services?

Consumers using broadband extensive services: Why should Netflix not be
allowed to help subsidize the cost of providing broadband? Why should this
fall solely on the individual?

Government: The obvious concerns of more governmental control of the internet.

I could imagine a scenario where Netflix was not allowed to pay Comcast
directly for increased bandwidth. Instead, Netflix would spend that money to
lobby politicians to force Comcast to build out their infrastructure. I don't
see how that's a better scenario than currently exists.

I think a better solution to very little competition in ISPs would be to
decrease the barriers it takes to compete. Further regulation would only
increase the barriers.

Netflix paying Comcast: [http://arstechnica.com/information-
technology/2014/04/after-...](http://arstechnica.com/information-
technology/2014/04/after-netflix-pays-comcast-speeds-improve-65/)

Starting an ISP is Really Hard: [http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/04/one-
big-reason-we-la...](http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/04/one-big-reason-
we-lack-internet-competition-starting-an-isp-is-really-hard/)

~~~
benmathes
Short Answer: Communications industries are different, and too important. The
information they carry is, like journalism, a 4th estate to democracy. An
econ101 approach to that industry breeds consolidated information empires that
influence policy, society, and public discourse to the point of control.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/12/books/review/Leonhardt-t.h...](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/12/books/review/Leonhardt-t.html?pagewanted=all)

~~~
webXL
_Communications industries are different, and too important._

More important than shelter, food and energy? We draw a line as to what the
government should provide/subsidize/control and what the private sector
provides in those sectors.

 _The information they carry is, like journalism, a 4th estate to democracy._

If the 4th estate is a check on government, why would we want the government
to decide what constituted it? Please don't conflate a first amendment issue
with this conflict between content providers and ISPs.

~~~
benmathes
Yes, similar to shelter, food, and energy in that they are fundamental
infrastructure.

I'm sorry I wasn't more clear. You are right: the analogy breaks down on the
level of mechanism of preservation.

I attempted to be more general. Specifically: Journalism is a check on public
and private coercion, but the mechanism is free speech. Common Carrier
regulation is a check on (largely) private coercion. The mechanism is monopoly
prevention (originally monopoly rejection, via AT&T breakup).

------
doctorshady
This is almost a little sad. Even on HN, a discussion about net neutrality
seems to be devolving into a discussion of partisan politics.

------
mfisher87
Do NOT be fooled. An explicit ban on paid prioritization is the only way to
preserve the system we have today. If you allow paid prioritization, there
will no longer be a "vibrant" tech sector (as we think of it today) in the US.
If you _only_ ban paid prioritization, ISPs will continue to hold monopolies,
price-fix, offer inferior service, not invest in their infrastructure, and
fuck over their customers with fraudulent charges. But, hey, Netflix will stay
in business, so all's well, right?!

The goal with this move is to AVOID common carriers and AVOID competition.
Paid prioritization is a minor symptom of the problem that ISPs are not common
carriers. I say this because without common carriers, _if the only ISP has
paid prioritization, a there is no competitor to switch to_. Banning paid
prioritization will do nothing to address the _actual problems_ with American
ISPs. Our cable lobbyists and therefore our government will do anything to
avoid common carrier legislation being passed.

Common carriers would not be allowed to control the content on their wires at
all -- they would be forced to let ISPs purchase bandwidth and compete on the
same wire. Granting wire ownership and content control to one company is a
natural monopoly: In almost every locale new ISPs cannot use the wires someone
else owns, new ISPs cannot dig trenches for new wires, and new ISPs have no
common wires to offer service on. Therefore, no new ISPs can form under normal
conditions, and competition cannot exist. The only logical conclusion is that
we are being denied a free market, on purpose.

~~~
opendais
Did you read the article?

"No paid prioritization. Simply put: No service should be stuck in a “slow
lane” because it does not pay a fee. That kind of gatekeeping would undermine
the level playing field essential to the Internet’s growth. So, as I have
before, I am asking for an explicit ban on paid prioritization and any other
restriction that has a similar effect."

"To do that, I believe the FCC should reclassify consumer broadband service
under Title II of the Telecommunications Act — while at the same time
forbearing from rate regulation and other provisions less relevant to
broadband services. This is a basic acknowledgment of the services ISPs
provide to American homes and businesses, and the straightforward obligations
necessary to ensure the network works for everyone — not just one or two
companies."

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934)

Title 2 is Common Carrier.

Now whether they actually do anything with a Republican senate/congress in
2015 idk. But they are suggesting what you are asking for.

------
tn13
The usual political propaganda where a politician pretends to be "champion of
freedom" while doing something that is exactly opposite. (In past he had
described Tax Cuts as Tax Subsidies, implying all money belongs to government
by default).

Here is the more relevant part

"In a letter and a video posted on the White House website, President Obama
said he believes "the FCC should reclassify consumer broadband service under
Title II of the Telecommunications Act," ___allowing Internet Service
Providers to be more heavily regulated_ __. According to Obama, the change
would acknowledge that "the Internet has become an essential part of everyday
communication and everyday life."

This basically would mean government will now have a much bigger control over
how new players enter this space and how they operate and how much profit they
can make. When was the last time you heard PG&E doing something innovative ?

The real problem with net-neutrality has not been that the operators are bad.
The real problem is existing government regulation does not facilitate entry
of new players. More government regulation would only mean slowing down of
innovative services like Google Fiber or SpaceX's internet satellites.

This sort of regulation would destroy the internet as we know it and will give
more control to Government as to how we consume internet.

------
em3rgent0rdr
Obama's comment "and the content is legal" comes the same day we hear the
government seizes TOR nodes: [http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/11/law-
enforcement-seiz...](http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/11/law-enforcement-
seized-tor-nodes-and-may-have-run-some-of-its-own/)

------
JediWing
This is huge. The head of the executive branch just telegraphed one of his
appointees that nothing less than Title II would meet his mark, at a time when
the rule making process is in full swing. I think people need to dial back the
cynicism a few notches. Call me overly optimistic,We could have true net
neutrality within the next few years.

------
drawkbox
I hope this isn't just hope and words, Obama needs to make this his legacy
issue.

No segregation or discrimination online. There are no fast lanes, only slow
lanes and tolls roads in our future if this isn't preserved. The internet is
one last place of freedom in the US, don't turn it into a class/caste based
system.

------
SergeyB
Getting rid of 'throttling' and 'extra fees' not a bad idea. However, "Free
and Open" is a way off. "New ISP Regulations for Internet Access" would be
closer to reality. I am sure they will slip in some shady unconstitutional
Section in the new Law as they always do.

------
jflatow
There's a lot of confusion about net neutrality and regulation of the internet
at large.

I'd love to see a poll of the HN community to see the distribution of support,
amongst what should be a relatively knowledgable group of people.
Unfortunately I don't have enough karma to create it myself.

------
BatFastard
This was a positive statement on an issue we all feel strongly about. Don't
listen to all the B.S about the president being a "lame duck", he is still the
most powerful man in the world. So give credit where credit is due. And stop
listening to all the negative B.S.

------
dschiptsov
..while all the major manufacturers of network equipment are trying their best
to implement and even standardize logging, tracking, data collecting and
traffic filtering "features" requested by governments of different countries,
including US.

------
MarkMc
Can a net neutrality advocate please help me understand why the internet is
different to physical roads and bridges?

UPS and FedEx are free to charge a different price when delivering a package
from Amazon.com compared to Walmart.com.

So why should an internet service provide be prevented from charging a
different price for delivering data from Amazon.com compared to Walmart.com?

Is it simply a case of there not being enough competition between internet
service providers? If so, should net neutrality still be required in areas
where there IS competition? For example, where I live in Australia I can get a
4G mobile data plan from any of 3 different providers (Telstra, Optus and
Vodafone). Competition between them seems very effective, so is there really a
need to require net neutrality in this case?

~~~
aidenn0
> Is it simply a case of there not being enough competition between internet
> service providers?

This is a big part of it (2/3) of the US have 2 or fewer options for
broadband.

> UPS and FedEx are free to charge a different price when delivering a package
> from Amazon.com compared to Walmart.com.

This is the wrong analogy. A better one is probably a gated community (which
Wikipedia tells me is rare in Australia, unfortunately, so it may not be a
good one for you).

The cast of this little play is as follows:

Netflix (played by amazon).

L3, Akamai: Played by UPS and FedEx

Comcast: played by the community association

You live in the gated community. You pay the association that runs the gated
community for upkeep of the roads within the gate. Part of this includes a
guard who lets delivery vehicles in.

Delivery vehicles used to be relatively low volume, but Amazon becomes
popular, and all of the sudden UPS trucks are coming in a lot; as in to the
point where the association needs to hire a second guard to let them in. The
association refuses to do it unless UPS pays a monthly fee.

Around this time, the community association starts its own online store which
residents can by from without any shipping delays.

Meanwhile, FedEx (which enters the community via a different gate) is having
no trouble with deliveries. Amazon notices this and starts using FedEx in
addition to UPS to solve the problem. Unfortunately the same pattern as with
UPS happens.

People start complaining to Amazon and UPS, which results in a blog article
from UPS talking about how the Community Association wants them to pay extra
for more gates into the community; this makes no sense for 2 reasons:

1) The CA is there to serve the residents, and the residents are the ones who
ordered from Amazon

2) Traditionally the CA pays for any infrastructure improvements within the
gate, primarily due to #1

So the CA which is supposed to be serving the interests of those living within
it is now abusing its status as gatekeeper to charge Amazon for the privilege
of delivering packages to it.

This finally gets resolved with Amazon, under protest, paying to put a
shipping warehouse within the gate, which is something they had earlier
offered to do without charge.

~~~
MarkMc
Thanks for the detailed reply. In your analogy the 'last mile' is a monopoly -
ie. comcast / community association. I agree that it's fair to regulate such a
monopoly with 'net neutrality' rules.

But what about situations where there are multiple providers of the 'last
mile' connection and effective competition between them? Should net neutrality
rules apply in those cases?

------
NiftyFifty
Now if he can call for free and open travel to Cuba. Maybe we can have an open
dialog about US influence on a country that might be more "open" if we shared
our culture with them. Oh well ...

------
trvz
1) Him having to interfere against the bs of the ISPs makes me sad, as it's
one more sign of the politicisation of the internet.

2) I welcome Obama being well advised, but he remains the spy master of the
world.

~~~
Cuuugi
Not to mention the policing of content, which this legislation permits.
Regulation is the beginning of the end of the open internet.

~~~
JediWing
I'm not sure if you're ill-informed or being willfully ignorant, but making
sure content is not policed is precisely why net neutrality is so necessary.
This is much closer to Carterphone and not at all like FISA.

~~~
Cuuugi
No, it is not. It's about gov't vs. private control. There are provisions for
"lawful content" in this law.

------
sidcool
I am ready to vote for the President for a third term only on this policy
stance. But again, I am from India so can't vote in the US and Presidents
can't have a third term in the US.

------
emjaygee
It's a trap! I want net neutrality as much as the next person but having the
federal government oversee it like it oversees utilities is a cure far worse
than the disease.

------
jaked89
"Free" and "neutral" can't co-exist. "Free" means that the government controls
it. This by itself implies that it's not neutral.

Q.E.D.

------
cranklin
I think this statement is just a disclaimer by the president for what's to
come. Does anybody truly believe that he's in favor of net neutrality?

------
vegancap
So on one hand he calls for state regulation of ISP's, yet on the other he
calls for a "free and open" internet. So which is it to be?

~~~
cynicalkane
The standard economic and policy solution is local anti-monopoly regulation
plus a nationwide free market. Laying fiber and cable is pretty expensive so
it's likely the "local" scope will often include entire states.

This falls into the category of "free markets need to be regulated", which is
the economic field's most important and most repeated caveat.

------
morky
Oh you mean the dude who has been persecuting journalists in a more aggressive
manner than any previous president. Yeah trust him and his opinion.

------
transfire
If the FCC rules against Net Neutrality, there is only one thing to be done:
All the network administrators in the country must band together and bring the
Internet to a screeching halt. Neither the politicians, the lobbyists, nor the
corporate suits have any idea how to keep these systems running. But all the
system admins that do, they know full well what is at stake here. So I have no
doubts about this. As long as all of the admins can organize in action, Net
Neutrality will soon become the law.

------
tn13
He is not calling for a free and open internet. He is essentially bringing it
under government control by painting ISPs as bad guys.

------
mac01021
Is the proposed policy designed to fix problems that real people are having
right now? If so, who is being blocked from what?

------
coupdejarnac
I'm going to see Sen. Cruz speak on Saturday. If I get the chance, I'll ask
him about his net neutrality stance.

~~~
SkyMarshal
Tell him that the de-regulation Republicans want will get us the Enron of the
Internet.

------
Selfcommit
How is Tom Wheeler not mentioned once in this article?

Is there not a direct connection between his appointment by Obama and this
issue?

------
kolanos
Probably shouldn't have appointed a former Comcast exec as the head of the
FCC, Barry.

------
tn13
The usual horror of the phrase

"I am from government and I am here to fix things for you".

Now, the government is in-charge of how we consume internet. This is bad and
very bad. I cant see any scenario where this would be good for us. Expect the
prices to go up and service to go down.

------
whoisthemachine
Obama supports it? Now this is DEFINITELY not going to happen.

------
aidenn0
I feel like he has just guaranteed that Title II won't happen; the Republicans
just got elected on a platform that essentially boiled down to "We aren't
Obama" and now control a majority of the legislature.

------
mickrussom
Yeah, one that he controls and regulates.

------
jjtheblunt
As usual, in the general case, President Obama verbs for a noun phrase. (Not
that it's bad, just routine.)

------
Animats
Unfortunately, he's saying this at the point he has no chance of getting it
through Congress.

------
dang
Url changed from [http://techcrunch.com/2014/11/10/president-obama-calls-
for-a...](http://techcrunch.com/2014/11/10/president-obama-calls-for-a-free-
and-open-internet-wants-it-reclassified-as-a-utility), which points to this.

------
bengrunfeld
Yeah, and then he goes and signs an order expanding the permissions of the NSA
and FBI to bypass constitutional rights and international law in the pursuit
of being able to access and store private and confidential user data.

------
andyl
Should have had support for Net-Neutrality years ago. Nevertheless glad to see
it now. I hope it makes a difference.

------
notastartup
Free and Open Internet Vouched by NSA

------
byEngineer
screwed up medicare. screwed up with russia. screwed up with Iraq. Time to
screw up the internet!

------
antocv
What an asshole.

It was under his Presidency that NSA expanded their programs.

~~~
xnull2guest
Certainly a little. Though most of it was Bush era expansion of Clinton
legacy. Obama has actually made some pretty interesting investments in the
defensive and technological side of geopolitical cyber struggle.

Here, however, the ISP market is what we're talking about. Certainly the two
topics are related. My hope also is that Snowden kickback has informed this
Administration, as it finishes its second half of its final term, how the
world and how Americans think about the internet.

------
aosmith
Hahahah this is laughable...

------
Cr3w
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases:
If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving,
subsidize it." Ronald Reagan

~~~
SergeyB
Well said

------
yc1010
"... Obama asked for no blocking of websites ..."

So no blocking of torrent sites? yeh as if thats going to happen, rolls eyes

