Obama hails FCC on net neutrality vote

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: Reuters

Dec 21 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama said on Tuesday a vote by U.S. communications regulators to prevent Internet providers from blocking lawful content will help present the free and open nature of the Internet.

"As technology and the market continue to evolve at a rapid pace, my administration will remain vigilant and see to it that innovation is allowed to flourish, that consumers are protected from abuse, and that the democratic spirit of the Internet remains intact," he said in a statement.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSWEN476020101221

[The Northerner]

1. I'm confused. Didn't a court prohibit the FCC from enacting net neutrality or

does the FCC have the authority to enact it?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

2. That is a very valid question and I believe without legislation, even these limited rules will be

tossed out. I support net neutrality but we are not going to get it without legislation.

[roguevalley]

7. it will be challenged in court and lose because what they base it

on is not in their pervue. Of course Obama loves it. It sucks.

[EFerrari]

8. I heard someone say that on Laura's show.

It will be challenged in court.

This begins to look like a pattern, doesn't it.

[roguevalley]

9. yeah. they had an expert on Keith last night and they explained it.

the expert HATED the bill.

[TBF]

18. Obama loves anything big business is in favor of - he knows where his donations are. nt

[TomCADem]

30. Under Then Existing Regs, Thus The FCC Adopted New Regs

[robinlynne]

3. Actually, I just read that the OPPOSITE just happened on huffington post.

Obama's guy permitted the big corporations to create a fast and slow internet, a pay to play where some websites will become harder to access...

[Recursion]

10. Well, "websites" have almost nothing to do with this

Any carrier is already free to block any site it feels like blocking.

This is "really" about VOIP and multimedia.

[No Elephants]

24. You seem to have misunderstood Reply # 3.

[bonnieS]

11. I have been receiving one e-mail after another,

including from Al Franken and Bold Progressives, on how bad this is and how free speech on the Internet will be censored, and how it does nothing but kowtow to Verizon and other companies. Bold Progressives gives a link to a detailed explanation.

I am shocked, just shocked, I tell you.

[boppers]

28. Fast internet has existed since 1998.

Almost nobody wants to pay extra for it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differentiated_services

[robinlynne]

4. link to PCC petition: FCC breaks Obama's promise on Net Neutrality: 3 things you need to know

http://act.boldprogressives.org/sign/sign_netneutrality_3things/?source=auto-e&referring_akid=3035.760730.hHjZYA

[dennis4868]

6. Remember the "Long Game"

The fact is, these rules are already on very shaky legal ground, given that a federal appeals court decision from 2008 found that the commission has no legal standing for regulating internet service providers. That court said that there was no federal law that gave the FCC authority over the internet.

So with that legal hurdle to overcome, on top of the determination of Republicans in Congress to pass new legislation prohibiting the FCC from enacting these new regulations, it should be obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense why Genachowski went with a slate of rules that granted businesses a little more slack than progressives think is desirable.

[No Elephants]

25. Are you saying that the FCC enacted rules it has no legal authority to enact

and therefore it had to make the rules friendly to ATT, Comcast, etc?

If so, that makes no legal, ethical or practical sense. If the rules are invalid, they WILL be challenged.

[boppers]

31. The three bullet points in that link.

1: Corporate censorship is allowed on your phone

...as it is today. If they don't like a site, they can filter some, or all, of that content. If they want to remove every website that mentions "herbal viagra", they can. If they want to block every website that can infect your phone with a virus, they can.

2: Online tollbooths are allowed, destroying innovation

...as it is today. If you want guaranteed, high-speed, delivery, you pay vendors extra (since 1998, when DiffServ started rolling out). Everything else is "best effort". If an ISP wants to create a pay-wall, they can.

3: The rules allow corporations to create "public" and "private" Internets, destroying the one Internet as we know it

... The multiple networks already exist. Internet2 went live in 2007, and the IPV6 network has been rolling out since 1996. Even before that, multiple networks were created to service the needs of organizations that didn't want to make all all of their servers, websites, etc. "public".

When advocacy organizations ignore an issue for 12-14 years, and then suddenly freak out about how "things might change in the future" (when it actually changed a decade ago), well, it's hard to find them credible.

[egoclothes]

32. Thanks

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[progressoid]

12. Sweet Jesus, it just gets better and betterer.

.
.
.
.
.
.:sarcasm:

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bitchkitty]

14. He would. n/t

[Nuclear Unicorn]

15. Was there a compelling public interest for this?

Last I heard access is increasing and so is content.

Why take action where none is needed?

[dflprincess]

21. $$$$$$

That's why.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

22. Don't get me started.

:pals:

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[davidthegnome]

19. All I have to say is

Fuck you, Mr. President.

[populistdriven]

20. Full Of Shit nt

[mdmc]

23. Rovian!

[KillCapitalism]

26. Our internet will resemble China's now.

Very heavily filtered/censored, only difference is in China it's the government, here it will be big corporations.

[boppers]

29. The rules basically mirror the current internet status quo.

Not quite China here, because any filtering/censorship is met by other organizations offering (or declining), to interact with parties they do, or don't, want to.

Hence, organizations like spamhaus, who can give me up-to-the-minute results on who it's in my best interests to filter.

[DeadEyeDyck]

27. Leave the Internet Alone!!!!