Obama pledges Net neutrality laws if elected president

[Ichingcarpenter]

If elected president, Barack Obama plans to prioritize, well, barring broadband providers like AT&T and Comcast from prioritizing Internet content.

Affixing his signature to federal Net neutrality rules would be high on the list during his first year in the Oval Office, the junior senator from Illinois said during an interactive forum Monday afternoon with the popular contender put on by MTV and MySpace at Coe College in Iowa.


Sen. Barack Obama
Net neutrality, of course, is the idea that broadband operators shouldn't be allowed to block or degrade Internet content and services--or charge content providers an extra fee for speedier delivery or more favorable placement.

The question, selected through an online video contest, was posed via video by small-business owner and former AT&T engineer Joe Niederberger, a member of the liberal advocacy group MoveOn.org. He asked Obama: "Would you make it a priority in your first year of office to reinstate Net neutrality as the law of the land? And would you pledge to only appoint FCC commissioners that support open Internet principles like Net neutrality?"

"The answer is yes," Obama replied. "I am a strong supporter of Net neutrality."

He went on to explain the issue briefly: "What you've been seeing is some lobbying that says that the servers and the various portals through which you're getting information over the Internet should be able to be gatekeepers and to charge different rates to different Web sites...so you could get much better quality from the Fox News site and you'd be getting rotten service from the mom and pop sites," he went on. "And that I think destroys one of the best things about the Internet--which is that there is this incredible equality there."

Obama added that companies like Google may not have gotten started without a "level playing field" and pledged to make sure Net neutrality "is the principle that my FCC commissioners are applying as we move forward."


http://www.cnet.com/news/obama-pledges-net-neutrality-laws-if-elected-president/



FCC proposal would destroy net neutrality




The Federal Communication Commission's proposal for new net neutrality rules will allow internet service providers to charge companies for preferential treatment, effectively undermining the concept of net neutrality, according to The Wall Street Journal. The rules will allow providers to charge companies for preferential treatment so long as they offer that treatment to all interested parties on "commercially reasonable" terms, with the FCC deciding whether the terms are reasonable on a case-by-case basis. Providers will reportedly not be able to block individual websites, however.

The goal of net neutrality rules is to prevent service providers from discriminating between different content, allowing all types of data and all companies' data to be treated equally. While it appears that outright blocking of individual services won't be allowed, the Journal reports that some forms of discrimination will be allowed, though that will apparently not include slowing down websites. In response, FCC chairman Tom Wheeler issued a statement that reports of net neutrality's demise are "flat out wrong." Nonetheless, allowing some websites to pay for preferentially treatment would inherently favor larger, more successful companies.

A MAJOR CHANGE TO THE MEANING OF "OPEN INTERNET"

The actual draft of the proposed rules has not yet been released, but the FCC did release a framework of the rules back in February. An FCC spokesperson confirmed to The Verge that the proposal does include the ability for service providers to negotiate with individual companies, so long as all content is delivered at a baseline level of service. "Exactly what the baseline level of service would be, the construction of a 'commercially reasonable' standard, and the manner in which disputes would be resolved, are all among the topics on which the FCC will be seeking comment," the spokesperson said.



http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/23/5644246/fcc-new-net-neutrality-rules-draft-coming-in-may


In Policy Shift, F.C.C. Will Allow a Web Fast Lane



WASHINGTON — The principle that all Internet content should be treated equally as it flows through cables and pipes to consumers looks all but dead.

The Federal Communications Commission said on Wednesday that it would propose new rules that allow companies like Disney, Google or Netflix to pay Internet service providers like Comcast and Verizon for special, faster lanes to send video and other content to their customers.

The proposed changes would affect what is known as net neutrality — the idea that no providers of legal Internet content should face discrimination in providing offerings to consumers, and that users should have equal access to see any legal content they choose.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/technology/fcc-new-net-neutrality-rules.html

[Prophet 451]

1. We techies have been screaming about this for years

And even liberals have yawned and called us Chicken Littles. Yes, I'm bitter.

[Ichingcarpenter]

2. Regulatory capture by the Oligarths

Today, the CTIA wireless association (Cellular industry lobby group) announced that Meredith Baker will be taking over as CEO. You may remember her as the Comcast executive/FCC Commissioner. She's replacing Steve Largent, a former Congress member, who replaced Tom Wheeler.


Tom Wheeler, the current chairman of the FCC, is not only the ex-CEO of the CTIA, he's also the ex-president of the NCTA (National Cable & Telecommunications Association, i.e. Cable Lobby). The NCTA is currently chaired by ex-FCC Chairman Michael Powell.


Baker went from an employee in the CTIA, to the government (Commerce Dept.), as a stepping stone to the FCC. After approving the Comcast/NBC merger, she gets a job as an executive at the newly merged Comcast. She does that for three years, and heads back to CTIA as the CEO.

But don't worry, to prevent her from having an undue influence on all her lifelong friends at the FCC, she can't lobby them for 2 whole years! Members of Congress are fair game though.

With such an incestuous relationship among the FCC and the top lobbyists among the companies they regulate, is there any doubt about regulatory capture?

[Prophet 451]

4. I don't doubt it

I'm nearly at the point of calling the US a fascist (i.e. corporatist) state.

[Ichingcarpenter]

7. One chart describes it all

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/news/comcast-twc-chart

[msongs]

3. campaign as a democrat,then when you get elected.... nt

[Ichingcarpenter]

5. Well that's a ''compasionist conservate'' way of putting it

I would call it something else.....
LOL...

[jberryhill]

14. So...

What do you call it when the FCC enacts net neutrality rules which are then thrown out in a court challenge to them?

It only "counts" as keeping a pledge if the court agrees to keep the rules the administration had imposed?

Why does your OP omit the actual story of what happened to those rules?

[NC_Nurse]

6. Yep. I'm furious about this.

[Ichingcarpenter]

8. Pretty soon We might not be able to find

stories like this that shows and documents the hypocrisy.

Even DU might be affected with slow down and higher costs to the owners.

[jberryhill]

15. Where is your comment from January?

Can you provide a link to your comment in January when the DC federal court of appeals overturned the Obama administration's net neutrality regulations?

[Ichingcarpenter]

18. OBAMA’S BAD PICK: A FORMER LOBBYIST AT THE F.C.C.

Memo to a President who said, in November, 2007, “I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists in Washington that their days of setting the agenda are over”: If you are going to name a former lobbyist for big cable and wireless companies as head of the federal agency that regulates the cable and wireless industries, you had better find a public-interest-group advocate to say something positive about him (or her) before you make the announcement.

Job done.

By Wednesday, when the White House confirmed that it was nominating Tom Wheeler, a veteran Washington insider who has headed not one powerful industry association but two, as the next chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, the nomination had already secured the support of Public Knowledge, an advocacy group that promotes open and unlimited access to the Internet. “Certainly we will have disagreements with the new Chairman (assuming Wheeler is confirmed), but we expect that Wheeler will actively work to promote competition and protect consumers,” Harold Feld, a senior vice-president at Public Knowledge, wrote in a blog post.

That’s a relief—or is it? The closer you look at Wheeler’s selection, the more questionable it appears. After being poorly led for more than a decade—particularly under the disastrous tenure of Michael Powell, son of Colin—a strong argument can be made that the last thing the F.C.C. needs is an industry insider with close ties to many of the companies it oversees. In recent years, the cable and telecom industries have consolidated into a handful of quasi-monopolistic corporations, such as Comcast, Time Warner Cable, A.T. & T., and Verizon, which, all too often, are busy trying to gouge their customers while asking Washington for covert favors. Perhaps what is really wanted is another Elizabeth Warren—a vigorous consumer advocate and proponent of competition who’s willing to stand up to these corporate giants. Even with the best will in the world, it’s hard to see Wheeler as this type of crusading figure.


http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2013/05/tom--wheeler-federal-communications-commission.html

[jberryhill]

22. Nonetheless how do you explain the NN rules which were enacted?

So, your point is that the NN rules which the FCC enacted, and which were then struck down in court, was some kind of deliberate sabotage?

How do you believe those rules, struck down in January, should have been structured to avoid that?

Alternatively, can you explain what Wheeler did in order to have the DC Court Of Appeals do his bidding?

[Ichingcarpenter]

25. Obama won't put up with this. We need to elect him.

so he can appoint good guys and not corporate hacks.

[jberryhill]

28. It wasn't his appointee who struck down the rules

Do you have a substantive reply to the observation that the FCC enacted net neutrality rules as promised, and that these rules were struck down in court? Or is it just snark from here on out?

Are you trying to make a point about net neutrality rules, or are you trying to make some point about personalities?

[Enthusiast]

9. K&R! This post should have hundreds of recommendations!

[Scuba]

10. Damn, I wish that guy had been elected.

[L0oniX]

41. ^^^this^^^

[n2doc]

11. Another promise kept

oh wait….


I'm sure someone will come along and show us how he really didn't mean all that. We got exactly who we thought we were voting for, and anyone who says anything to the contrary is a hater.

[jberryhill]

24. Where were you when the previous rules were made?

So let me be sure if I understand you:

1. Candidate promises to do X

2. After being elected, candidate does exactly X

3. Court overturns X

4. In response to court overturning X, candidate does Y in order to minimize damage from court throwing out X

In your view, the fact that the candidate did exactly what they promised to do is negated if a court overturns them doing it. Do I understand you correctly?

[Prophet 451]

30. So, where's teh Y?

I'm not seeing any attempt to minimize the damage here, I'm seeing total capitulation.

[jberryhill]

36. It is between teh W and teh Z

[Prophet 451]

37. So you don't actually have a response

Apart from taking the piss out of my lack of typing skills, that is.

[Dragonfli]

45. The FCC can at any time choose to reclassify broadband as a public utility

As Reported by Mother Jones

....The FCC's proposal would allow some forms of discrimination while preventing companies from slowing down or blocking specific websites, which likely won't satisfy all proponents of net neutrality, the concept that all Internet traffic should be treated equally. The Commission has also decided for now against reclassifying broadband as a public utility, which would subject ISPs to much greater regulation. However, the Commission has left the reclassification option on the table at present.

So Google and Microsoft and Netflix and other large, well-capitalized incumbents will pay for speedy service. Smaller companies that can't—or that ISPs just aren't interested in dealing with—will get whatever plodding service is left for everyone else. ISPs won't be allowed to deliberately slow down traffic from specific sites, but that's about all that's left of net neutrality. Once you've approved the notion of two-tier service, it hardly matters whether you're speeding up some of the sites or slowing down others.

They of course did not reclassify broadband as a public utility specifically to place net neutrality on shaky legal ground. They can still do it and "left it on the table" but CHOSE to not use the solution they all know would work, it's just that the goal is to make money, not to preserve net neutrality.


Transparent as hell really.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/04/net-neutrality-finally-dies-ripe-old-age-of-45

[treestar]

44. It's just another lame "Obama bad" meme

They refuse to recognize reality when it comes to their ODS

[KG]

12. you never loved him anyway...

[jberryhill]

13. Federal Appeal Court Strikes Net Neutrality Rule

I like the way the OP leaves out the inconvenient fact that the administration DID put in place net neutrality regulations which were determined in litigation to have exceeded the scope of the FCC's authority:

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBREA0D11420140114?irpc=932

[Ichingcarpenter]

16. I guess he had good lawyers

that wrote the regulations and defended it.

[jberryhill]

20. Yes, that's how a case gets to an appeals court

You ignore the fact that the FCC did enact net neutrality rules and lost in court.

After that, the FCC had three choices:

1. Write a new set of rules to mininize the harm of tiered service, of which this is the result.

2. Go to the Supreme Court, which does not have to take the case, and which has a majority inclined to agree with the appellate court.

3. Wait for Congress.

I see you favor option 2. Under option 2, there would be NO relevant regulations at all, the case would not be heard until the next term - if at all - and a decision would not be until next summer.

If your point is about the campaign pledge, why did you leave out the actual history of the fulfillment of that pledge when the FCC issued the regulations. Can you provide a link to your post noting that the pledge was fulfilled?

[Prophet 451]

31. Again, where is the attempt to minimise harm?

Because from where I'm sitting, this looks like complete surrender.

[jberryhill]

33. What is the subject of this thread?

You seem to have mistaken this thread for a substantive policy discussion instead of a rhetorical device.

[Prophet 451]

38. Um, maybe

Look, I'm seeing an FCC that has just totally surrendered on net neutrality. Not tried to minimise the damage done by that damn court (mis)ruling, not tried to make some new rules, just completely bent over and begged the corporations to be gentle. You say there's some attempt at minimising the damage. Great, I'd love to see that. So where is it?

[JoePhilly]

17. Such facts don't help spread the outrage. So they tend to get overlooked.

[Ichingcarpenter]

19. So was his pick of Wheeler

which you overlook.

[jberryhill]

23. Ah, Wheeler made the court do it

Is that your argument?

[jberryhill]

21. It's kind of hard to overlook...

...since the new set of regulations was in response to the previous ones being struck down.

It is a deliberate play to ignorance of how we got to this point.

[dotymed]

27. Here is a quote from your link....

President Barack Obama, whose 2008 campaign platform included net neutrality, will continue to work with the FCC, Congress and the private sector "to preserve a free and open Internet," the White House said on Tuesday

Here is a quote from a different OP today which comes from a NY Times story....

Source: nyt

The Federal Communications Commission will propose new rules that allow Internet service providers to offer a faster lane through which to send video and other content to consumers, as long as a content company is willing to pay for it, according to people briefed on the proposals.

The proposed rules are a complete turnaround for the F.C.C. on the subject of so-called net neutrality, the principle that Internet users should have equal ability to see any content they choose, and that no content providers should be discriminated against in providing their offerings to consumers.

Quite a disconnect and turn-around, don't you think? I mean even though an appeals court ruled in favor of Verizon$ Net Neutrality
objections, that certainly does not mean that the FCC (appointed by Obama) should do a 180 degree turn-around and propose the opposite of what they supposedly supported. Follow the money in "the best government money can buy."

[jberryhill]

32. Once again...

So you prefer nothing at all to regulate tiered access? Is that correct?

It is indeed a "turnaround", since the courts ruled the FCC couldn't require net neutrality under their current authorizing statute.

I see that you have been working hard to get Congress to authorize the FCC to re-enact the rules which were struck down.

It's clear that neither you nor the OP understand either the history of these regulations or how we got to this point.

Let's say that someone wants to dump a load of shit in your yard. You say "you can't dump a load of shit in my yard". Fine. But then a court orders that, no, you can't stop them from dumping a load of shit in your yard. Faced with that situation, you might then say, "dump the load of shit over at the edge of my yard, and not in front of my door." Then, along comes someone and says, "Hey, I thought you didn't want them dumping shit in your yard, and now you are telling them how to do it."

Unfortunately, given the fact that, yes the FCC enacted NN rules and, yes, a court struck them down, the option of "I'll hold my breath till I turn blue" is not one often considered rational.

The OP however is not actually about net neutrality. The OP is about keeping a campaign pledge. The net neutrality rules are a subsidiary fact to the OP's thesis, which is to make a point about Obama and, by extension, his supporters.

So, taking the OP for what it is, do you agree it is honest to leave out the fact that the FCC did indeed promulgate NN rules which would be in place had a court not struck them down?

[JoePhilly]

34. Outstanding response ... and it applies in situations beyond this situation.

[dotymed]

39. First of all

I do not agree with "tiered access," that is what Net Neutrality is about.
Secondly, these genius FCC appointees (IMO) knew that (or should have, that is what lawyers are for and after they "failed" they began an exodus to the corporate media/communication companies....really?)

But sure that is all a coincidence and sure since in "the best government that money can buy," money "regulates everything else with money, then of course...it should regulate this unavoidable "tiered access" with money....

[Chathamization]

42. I'm sure the OP will be edited to include the missing information anytime now...

"Obama didn't do X!"
"Yes he did, here's the evidence."
"Eh...well, that doesn't matter because he didn't do Y!"
"Yes he did, here's the evidence."
"Which is meaningless, because he didn't do..."
"Hold on a sec, do you actually care about whether he did any of these things, or are you just on a fishing expedition?"

[Demsrule86]

26. Net Neutrality

It is pretty clear, the GOP will do nothing period...I don't know why folks expect Obama to do it on his own...you want net neutrality than those of us with GOP elected must lobby them until they decide it is in their best interest...only way.

[jberryhill]

35. This thread is not about net neutrality

This thread is about how stupid we were for voting for Obama.

[Ichingcarpenter]

29. The FCC — under the leadership of former Chairman Julius Genachowski

appointed by Obama made a grave mistake when it failed to ground its open Internet rules on solid legal footing. Internet users will pay dearly for the previous chairman’s lack of political will. That’s why we need to fix the problems the agency could have avoided in the first place.

Media watchdog and advocacy agency Free Press released the following statement about the decision via President and CEO Craig Aaron, condemning it while also acknowledging that the Open Internet Order probably wasn’t the best possible solution for enforcing net neutrality:



http://techcrunch.com/2014/01/14/fcc-open-internet-order-struck-down/


So this guy just retired and now he's going to work for

The Carlyle Group


On January 6, 2014, it was announced that Genachowski returned to the corporate world to take a post at The Carlyle Group. There he will reportedly concentrate on global technology, media, and telecommunications investments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Genachowski


Nothing to see here folks move along.

[KoKo]

40. Exactly.... Recommend this post.

[warrprayer]

43. ...

[lumberjack_jeff]

46. "Change that we can believe in" vs the change that we can see.

At some point, it's reasonable to start believing what you're lying eyes are telling you.

[1000words]

47. Too bad we didn't elect that guy as President ...