
Obama mandates FCC to support Network Neutrality - Anon84
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/The-Open-Internet-Preserving-the-Freedom-to-Innovate/
======
phatboyslim
I despise arguing politics, religion, or money matters. That being said, I
have no hesitation telling people this is the chief reason I voted for Obama
in the most recent election.

~~~
simonsarris
Why is it you despise arguing politics?

I know its a difficult topic to broach with civility, but I think that the
United States would be a little better if more people openly discussed
politics and policy, instead of just militantly sticking to their views (or
their parent's views, and so on)

~~~
phatboyslim
Let's just say my parents are staunch Republicans and it hasn't been easy at
family dinners when politics is the subject of discussion.

~~~
jsz0
Americans need to learn the art of agreeing to disagree. It's a shame it
always goes back to EVIL vs. GOOD in most political debates. This is exactly
why partisans try to promote childish political discourse because the idea of
a bunch of people with different opinions figuring out a reasonable compromise
makes them obsolete.

------
JCThoughtscream
You know, this might be the first time in a few years that I've appreciated an
FCC policy.

~~~
DenisM
So you didn't like number portability very much then? Or shared access to DSL
lines?

~~~
antipaganda
Number portability! Bastards.

------
jrwoodruff
Any speculations on if/how this affects wireless providers, particularly in
regards to the recent iPhone/Google Voice/ATT hullabaloo?

If you read the full speeech (<http://www.openinternet.gov/read-speech.html>)
it's clear that this policy states that consumers should pick the winners and
losers, not providers, and networks must allow 'non-harmful' devices to
connect to the network...

~~~
wmf
Note that they aren't talking about regulating non-ISPs like Apple. Apple
won't sell iPhones to T-Mobile? Nothing to do with net neutrality. Apple
rejects (er, not accepts) Google Voice? Ditto.

When it comes to 3G, this part worries me a little: "there may be benefits to
innovation and investment of broadband providers offering managed services in
limited circumstances. ... I believe such services can supplement -- but must
not supplant -- free and open Internet access..."

I can see it now: Crippled 3G? $50/month. Neutral 3G? $200/month (because
"that's what it costs us to provide it").

~~~
jrwoodruff
I noticed that too. I'm also interested in what the definition of 'non-
harmful' devices is. This seems like a possible loop hole to argue for
restricted devices, as in "allowing live streaming video from 3G devices will
harm the network."

I'm not positive, but I'd be willing to bet this is how cable providers are
allowed to disable some functionality of set-top boxes...?

Overall I think it's a very good thing, but it will be interesting to see how
it plays out as case law defines these guidelines.

~~~
wmf
I think the device issue can be solved with a little trickery as well. AT&T
could allow you to use any unlocked GSM phone on their network but just not
advertise it so that virtually no one takes advantage of it.

As for cable STBs, they don't even connect to the Internet and thus are exempt
from net neutrality. And if you don't like your crippled Cisco/Moto cable box
you can always buy a Moxi... for $800... that will be obsolete in a year.

~~~
jrockway
_AT &T could allow you to use any unlocked GSM phone on their network but just
not advertise it so that virtually no one takes advantage of it._

Untrue. Nobody takes advantage of it because it costs $100/year extra. (You
pay the $200 subsidy on your "free phone" every 2 years as part of your
monthly bill. If you bring your own phone, you pay for that "free phone"
anyway.)

Since most people don't like throwing away $200, most people use a subsidized
phone.

------
mgrouchy
I'm really glad that the American government has taken some leadership in
this. Hopefully other governments will follow suit and make similar
mandates/suggestions to their regulatory bodies.

------
sachinag
I love the example of "one provider blocking access to political content" -
that was Verizon Wireless blocking text messages from Naral PCA. That moronic
decision, more than anything, is why the wireless carriers are subject to NN.

<nelson voice>Ha ha.</nelson voice>

~~~
DenisM
Link for the curious <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/us/27verizon.html>

~~~
nfriedly
and if that link gives you an annoying login screen, try the coral cache
[http://www10.nytimes.com.nyud.net:8080/2007/09/27/us/27veriz...](http://www10.nytimes.com.nyud.net:8080/2007/09/27/us/27verizon.html?_r=5)

------
kirubakaran
"... and make sure that the garage, the basement, and the dorm room remain
places where inventors can not only dream, but bring their ideas to life."

Fuck yeah!!!

~~~
sp332
Unfortunately, the FCC will still fine you a lot of money for saying that on
TV or radio. :-(

~~~
maukdaddy
Or showing your breasts.

~~~
whye
if you are female.

------
kgrin
Technically it's not Obama, but an Obama appointee who's doing the mandating
(and wrote the linked blog post): Julius Genachowski (FCC Chairman). Obviously
the proverbial buck stops with Obama, and it's fair for him to be credited,
but it's important to recognize the distinction.

~~~
sachinag
Julius wouldn't have the job if Obama wasn't certain this was the outcome.

------
gojomo
Lest this thread become an echo-chamber of cheerleading for new FCC
regulations, I should point out:

\- each such new rule on broadband providers brings closer the day the FCC
adds content-censorship rules to internet communications, as the FCC already
applies to broadcast TV, and as other nations -- even those we don't think of
as especially prone to censorship, like Australia -- have started to apply to
the internet

\- this closes off potential business models for upstart bandwidth and content
providers. Oh, incumbents will be sure to have their preferred models
interpreted as being in compliance. Disney's ESPN360 will still be able to
negotiate ISP-by-ISP video access [1]; Google will still be able to pay ISPs
to install its edge caches so Google's traffic is the fastest on the internet
[2]. But if an upstart wanted to offer "free" broadband subsidized by
sponsoring sites -- for example, a service offering 6Mbps to paying sponsor
websites, 128Kbps to everyone else -- that'd be unfair discrimination, until
sufficient lobbying/donations occur to get a favorable FCC ruling.

The only good thing I see in the rules is Genachowski's second rule,
"broadband providers must be transparent about their network management
practices." Transparency can help consumer activism and competitive choice
control abuses better than any agency rulemaking.

[1] [http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/06/cable-isps-see-net-
ne...](http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/06/cable-isps-see-net-neutrality-
foul-in-espn-online-video-charges/)

[2] [http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2008/12/net-
neutralit...](http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2008/12/net-neutrality-
and-benefits-of-caching.html)

~~~
roc
Why would network neutrality and transparency laws bring us closer to
censorship laws?

If you're arguing that increasing the scope of the FCC's authority leaves it
open to _future_ abuse by people we may not agree with, I think it's pretty
clear that keeping the FCC out of it wasn't working either. Sad as it is, I
believe I have more say in how the FCC operates than I do in AT&T and Comcast.
Particularly given the realities of local telecom monopolies in the US.

And the entire point of the ruling is to emphatically state that subverting
standards and protocols is _not_ a business opportunity. Ad-supported
broadband that relies on manipulating the IP stream is a _danger_ , not a
_victim_.

~~~
CWuestefeld
_I believe I have more say in how the FCC operates than I do in AT &T and
Comcast._

Perhaps that's the problem. Other people, who may have very different values
than you, also have say in how the FCC operates. Since we've long ago crossed
a line limiting the federal government to enumerated powers, and that
protecting our physical safety is now _at least_ as important as protecting
our freedoms, it's easy to imagine a regime where some majority elects to
silence some minority of [porn readers | gay supporters | militia supporters |
whatever unpopular minority].

~~~
jorgeortiz85
As someone in a thread below points out, unaccountable commercial carriers
were already restricting speech on their networks:
<http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/us/27verizon.html?_r=1>

~~~
CWuestefeld
In what way are the commercial carriers "unaccountable"? I can always vote
with my pocketbook, as the saying goes. But when it's the FCC ensuring that
one-size-fits-all, I can't do that.

And in the past, when the FCC has issued regulations or fines that you
disagree with, how have you made them account for their actions? What,
exactly, is the process for a citizen to exert influence over specific
regulatory policy? Granted that, as a parent post argued, you can exert some
influence in general by way of your legislators, but how can you ever say
"that was the straw that broke the camel's back, I want out."?

In the case of the commercial carriers, though, restricted speech may in some
specific situations be a _good_ thing. While I disagree with it myself, should
people with specific sets of values be allowed to purchase a net connection
that's pre-filtered for ideas the find offensive (say, hate speech, or gay
content)? That's their right, isn't it?

Today in the television arena, we argue because what's broadcast goes out to
everyone, and some people don't want some shows to be seen. With broadcast,
they don't have the option of blocking it from their own home, so the get the
FCC to block it from _everyone_ 's home. If ISPs are allowed to filter, then
those ISPs can do the filtering for those with "delicate sensibilities" can
have the bland world they want, and the rest of us can revel in free speech
unhindered.

------
jsz0
As someone who works for an ISP I fully support the President on this. I don't
feel like it's a major problem today but looking ahead to the future it seems
plausible that there will be consolidation of Internet content just like so
many other industries experience after a few decades of maturity. If we were
to reach a point were a few powerful companies were controlling the vast
majority of online content/services wouldn't it basically be a mirror of the
mass media today? Fixing the problem now is the right thing to do.

------
profgubler
Not an Obama fan, but this is a great move. Good one Mr. President.

------
jhancock
Here is an interesting narrative on how the FCC used to operate:
[http://books.google.com/books?id=GOvTxS-txFMC&pg=PA214&#...</a>

------
pmorici
"preventing Comcast from throttling the bandwidth on Youtube because they'd
rather you buy the cable package."

YouTube isn't a TV replacement, Hulu is. I've read that in the future Hulu
might go to a model requiring you to have a cable subscription to have access
to Hulu. The logic was that cable providers pay large fees to carry various
channels and those fees was what was financing productions of tv. Content owns
don't want to jeopardize those fees.

------
jsz0
As someone who works for an ISP I fully support the President on this. I don't
feel like it's a major problem today but looking ahead to the future it seems
plausible that there will be consolidation of Internet content just like so
many other industries experience after a few decades of maturity. If we were
to reach a point were a few powerful companies were controlling the vast
majority of online content/services wouldn't it basically be a mirror of the
mass media today? Fixing the problem now is the right thing to do.

------
skwiddor
That's "President Obama".

