Obama's Net Neutrality Statement: What it Really Means

[Aterna]

This Chinese bot just blew my god damn mind. Obama hasn't taken our guns and lots of people are still smoking weed in their state without going to prison. Of course there is an outlier here and there. But for the most part I don't think Obama specifically is out to fuck us.

[1714947786]

1714947786

[1714947786]

1714947786

[1714947786]

1714947786

[stevegreer]

This Chinese bot just blew my god damn mind. Obama hasn't taken our guns and lots of people are still smoking weed in their state without going to prison. Of course there is an outlier here and there. But for the most part I don't think Obama specifically is out to fuck us.

Maybe not, but he is the tool being used to fuck us.

[BitMos]

Maybe not, but he is the tool being used to fuck us.

your compression rate is excellent.  in fear of throttling  ? or for speedier encryption  .

[stevegreer]

Maybe not, but he is the tool being used to fuck us.

your compression rate is excellent.  in fear of throttling  ? or for speedier encryption  .

Nope. In fear of getting a headache from reading your annoying, pointless posts.

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

Those who want Obama's 'net neutrality' bullshit, will end up with this:

http://www.coindesk.com/day-reckoning-dark-markets-hundreds-illicit-domains/

^^^ Thanks for posting that. That is exactly what I have been saying about it all along. This net neutrality is not and never has been about protecting the average user's rights. It is simply about the government gaining control so that it can monitor and censor (and prosecute) what we say and do on what used to be a free internet.

I don't know where you are getting your information. Net-neutrality is exactly the opposite of what you are saying.

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

Bullshit! You don't have a fucking clue.

... probably while you were still shitting your diapers.  It was essentially built into the protocols at the base level.  You really have no clue what you're talking about.

Get off my lawn kiddie. I was coding the world's first WYSIWYG full featured, commercial graphical word processor (Neocept's Word Up) in the mid-1980s.

There was never an overlord requiring net neutrality. The interoperability of the net exists because it is in every providers incentive to join the larger scale of the homogeneous internet. The internet killed America Online's proprietary walled garden model without any fucking regulation you clueless wannabe. The internet continues to power past walled garden promulgators such as Apple Computer.

What this political bullshit "Net Neutrality" means is telling you that we need regulation to accomplish what the free market has already done. And this is a political lie used to sucker you into getting exactly opposite of what the free market has been providing you.

You fucking Communists and Socialists are God Damn fucking plague on this earth.

Be Gone!

Net neutrality is how the Internet functioned [for] long...

Correct.

[darkmule]

[Farrago of non sequiturs and gibberish]

If you think Obama somehow invented the concept, you're literally too fucking retarded to talk to.  If you think he gives a shit about it, you're even more retarded.

[RodeoX]

You fucking Communists and Socialists are God Damn fucking plague on this earth.

Don't be so mad comrade. You need us commies, apparently we are the last defenders of your digital rights. Come now, ve drink some wadka.  

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

[Farrago of non sequiturs and gibberish]

If you think Obama somehow invented the concept, you're literally too fucking retarded to talk to.  If you think he gives a shit about it, you're even more retarded.

You are apparently too retarded to understand that "net neutrality" existed as a natural result of the free market and Obama is preaching that we need government to sustain or implement (regulate) the concept, which is a fucking lie and how they will actually destroy the concept.

Those who are bitching about not having net access in their communities are either wanting some subsidy from the government to drive service to their uneconomic rural location or their community is already suffering from lack of competition due to over regulation and regulatory capture by the vested interests. The free market did not fail to provide "net neutrality". Adding more government regulation only makes it worse!

You pontificate about shit which you don't know about, because ... well let the progenitor of the term "open source" explain it to you:

Those who can’t build, talk

Those who can’t build, talk
Posted on 2011-07-28 by Eric Raymond   

One of the side-effects of using Google+ is that I’m getting exposed to a kind of writing I usually avoid – ponderous divagations on how the Internet should be and the meaning of it all written by people who’ve never gotten their hands dirty actually making it work. No, I’m not talking about users – I don’t mind listening to those. I’m talking about punditry about the Internet, especially the kind full of grand prescriptive visions. The more I see of this, the more it irritates the crap out of me. But I’m not in the habit of writing in public about merely personal complaints; there’s a broader cultural problem here that needs to be aired.

Eric like myself was actually active in building the internet:

• Eminent Domains: The First Time I Changed History
• World Without Web
• A world without “ESR”
• Eric's GIF code in nearly every open source software in the world. He reminisced about it.
• He also did work on libpng that nearly every open source software uses
• Android development pulls hot chicks. Who knew?
• Emacs git conversion is done at one month from his 57th birthday.
• An Open Letter to Chris Dodd
  
  

  I’m talking about the actual engineers who built the Internet and keep it running, who write the software you rely on every day of your life in the 21st century.
  
  I’m one of those engineers – you rely on my code every time you use a browser or a smartphone or a game console. I’m not exactly a leader among them as you would understand the term, because we don’t have those and don’t want them. But I am a well-known philosopher/elder of the tribe (I’ll name two others later in this letter), and also one of our few public spokespersons. In the late 1990s I helped found the open-source software movement.

Btw, Eric apparently idols Donald Knuth (I also owned and skimmed some of his books):

Shameless name-dropping
Double Vision

You fucking Communists and Socialists are God Damn fucking plague on this earth.

Don't be so mad comrade. You need us commies, apparently we are the last defenders of your digital rights. Come now, ve drink some wadka.  

I am an expert and highly accomplished programmer, so I don't need you to protect my digital rights, because I protect them with my own code. The protections have never come from the government—they (and you complicit socialists) only steal and destroy. The protections have always come from technological innovations, of which I am working now on making the government intervention impotent.

Get off my fucking lawn.

[stevegreer]

^^^ Thanks for posting that. That is exactly what I have been saying about it all along. This net neutrality is not and never has been about protecting the average user's rights. It is simply about the government gaining control so that it can monitor and censor (and prosecute) what we say and do on what used to be a free internet.

I don't know where you are getting your information. Net-neutrality is exactly the opposite of what you are saying.

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

That's great that you posted a link to the most unreliable source of information on the internet to try to argue your point. However, even with that nice long page about what net-neutrality is SUPPOSED to be, I am referring to the fact that our dear leader Obama wants to use the term "net-neutrality" to justify, in his own words, treating the internet as a "utility." That to me simply screams regulation. And any time the government regulates something, it is for the best interest of the government, not the people.

[jaysabi]

If he fails on this the internet as you know it is dead. This is the freedom fight of our lives and hardly anyone understands why.

Wait, so are you saying that if he does not get his way that the internet as we know it will die and our freedoms will be gone? You think that having the government regulate (control) the internet is going to save us? Kinda like how the Chinese, Iranian and North Korean governments are ensuring a protected internet for its citizens by controlling their access? All this will do is open the door for the government to be able to collect private data on citizens without having to get a search warrant first. Of course Obama is talking this up like he is doing us all a favor and that it's a good thing. And all the blind sheep are eating this deception up like Halloween candy.
Obama: "All of your internets are belong to us!"

It's not the gov controlling the internet, it's keeping business from controlling it.
It would mean the loss of net neutrality. What you see on the internet could be whatever your ISP decides. Let's say your ISP is Charter.com. They have a service called charter on demand. Well, they won't want you watching free videos or using some other service so they could throttle back your bandwith except for their movie service. They could also make it very hard to visit a site that does not make them money. Search for how to fix your car and you are directed to a car dealership that has paid charter to get you.

Loss of net neutrality is probably the greatest threat to bitcoin as well. It really would be possible and maybe even profitable to block access to bitcoin. The days of going where you want on the net would be over you will see what is most profitable for your ISP. And the dark web? Why would your ISP let you see that? In fact if your ISP was religiously oriented why would they allow you to see anything that is not Godly? It is really up to them not you.  

Good on you for keying in on the most important point, which I bolded in your comment. Everyone who is against it is spinning this as government regulating the internet. It's more accurate to say that it's government regulating the companies that give you internet access. The government will not be regulating the internet for users any more that it's regulating your phone calls. The regulations apply to the companies that supply your phone calls. The reclassification for ISPs would essentially do to them what the government already does to phone companies. Curiously enough, you don't hear people complaining about how unfree and terrible the phone system is, but they make those arguments for the internet because they don't actually understand how it works now, how it will work if nothing is done, and how it will work if the FCC reclassifies ISPs. Anyone claiming the government is going to ruin the internet by regulating it is spreading FUD, either intentionally because they hate Obama or unintentionally because they just don't understand what is actually happening. I'd say that education is key, but reading some of these posts, it's becoming more and more clear people don't care about the situation, they're just looking for a reason to hate Obama. Not that he doesn't deserve it, just not for this.

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

My Lord, #1 cause of collapse is the people are dumb socialists!

It befuddles me how at least 40% of the people think the problem is the solution.

Read several my posts upthread from that one as well... Sigh...

I see no solution except to crash and burn the global economy. Megadeath is always the end game of snowballing Socialism.

If he fails on this the internet as you know it is dead. This is the freedom fight of our lives and hardly anyone understands why.

Wait, so are you saying that if he does not get his way that the internet as we know it will die and our freedoms will be gone? You think that having the government regulate (control) the internet is going to save us? Kinda like how the Chinese, Iranian and North Korean governments are ensuring a protected internet for its citizens by controlling their access?...

It's not the gov controlling the internet, it's keeping business from controlling it.
It would mean the loss of net neutrality. What you see on the internet could be whatever your ISP decides. Let's say your ISP is Charter.com...

Good on you for keying in on the most important point, which I bolded in your comment. Everyone who is against it is spinning this as government regulating the internet. It's more accurate to say that it's government regulating the companies that give you internet access.

Hey you fucking dumbass dolt,

Why do you think Charter has a monopoly in some jurisdictions?

Hint: regulatory capture (where the corporations are in cahoots with the government and the regulation is used to enforce profits for both the corrupt politicians and the oligarchs). Note this corruption is the normal mode of government and can never be prevented, c.f. Some Iron Laws of Political Economics (which will surely exceed your intelligence quotient).

All you are doing is handing the hen house to the fox, you retarded socialist pig.

The internet is actually fostering and pushing competition along quite well because the government hasn't been able to regulate all of it yet.

Here is an example for you of competition in the USA (Red Pocket Mobile with $20 unlimited monthly plan) in an email I just sent one of my family members in the USA. I live in the Philippines (thank God!) with its tiny 10% government share of the GDP (growing rapidly though!) compared to 50 - 75% government share of the GDP in the USA.

Here is the dual-simm Samsung I bought (for P9800 = $220) and it is
available in the USA for $240 (big screen, long-life big battery, etc):

http://www.samsung.com/in/consumer/mobile-phone/mobile-phone/smartphone/SM-G530HZADINU?subsubtype=android-mobiles

http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/301388591917 (also on Amazon.com)

http://www.cmkcellphones.com/Samsung/Samsung%20Galaxy%20Grand%20Prime.html


The USA is really backward since we had dual-simm and UNLOCK all phones in
the Philippines for the past 3 - 4 years, but finally the USA is starting
to catch up with the Philippines:

http://www.cnet.com/news/why-you-want-a-dual-sim-phone/

http://www.computerworld.com/article/2474428/mobile-wireless/dual-sim-phones-not-coming-to-the-u-s---sims-are-too-tiny-for-one-thing--.html


Here is a prepaid plan for $20 monthly with unlimited talk and texting and
1GB per month in 3G speed data usage[1]:

http://goredpocket.com/plans#cdmav


The coverage map indicates nearly ubiquitous coverage all over the USA:

http://goredpocket.com/skin/frontend/gorp_interface/default/images/plans/coverage-cdmav.png


It allows you to use any UNLOCKED phone and they charge you $10 for the
simm to get started:

http://goredpocket.com/sim/cdmas-micro-sim.html



[1] Remember to set your Android to use WiFi when you are near a free WiFi
connection such as at home, so you don't access data over the paid network
unnecessarily so you can stay under the 1GB monthly limit. There is a
Settings in Android and I think the Network settings has an option to use
only WiFi for data. Remember WiFi is much faster any way.

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

If you are young and idealistic little socialist fuck, you need to wakeup!

Obama’s Regulation of the Internet – Got a License to Say That? (listen to the audio interview and learn something)

Do you have any clue how sneaky the fox (Obama et al) is?

Obamacare Deliberately Written with 33,000 Pages of Regulations To Hide the Truth

[darkmule]

Not that he doesn't deserve it, just not for this.

Obama attaching his name to net neutrality was guaranteed to have this result.  First, I seriously doubt his commitment to the issue, or even understanding of it, and second, it just brings the nutjobs out of the woodwork.

Net neutrality is at its fundamental level simply about treating similar traffic similarly.  The idea of metered access with fees for various types of services and degradation of quality of services based on type of traffic is the problem.  Sort of like if you got charged more for electricity based on some arbitrary criterion, or if you only were ALLOWED to have rationed electricity, unless you were a business partner with the electric company.

Now, you might say there's no real problem with metered access and charging differently and making deals, but remember, if you look at this on the protocol level, to have this kind of differentiation, you need to be able to identify both the source of data and its destination, as well as what kind of data it is, in order to differentiate between types of traffic.

By definition, any kind of anonymous traffic is going to obscure this data, and any non-neutral scheme of access is going to assign that kind of traffic the lowest possible priority.

In other words, either kiss your anonymity goodbye or get used to it being slow as fuck, because ISPs if allowed to do so will either simply drop such traffic on the floor or shunt it off the highway onto an ungraded dirt road.  Only packets that can "show their papers" will get enough bandwidth to be functional, and you can expect service to be deliberately degraded even when the infrastructure is entirely sufficient to carry it, simply to extort more fees out of you.

Needless to say, the protocol-level changes that would make it easy to meter traffic like this would also substantially help the government spy on us even more than it is already doing.

I almost wish Obama had denounced net neutrality as a right-wing scheme of some sort, then the same gibbering wackos currently attacking it would love it.

[jaysabi]

My Lord, #1 cause of collapse is the people are dumb socialists!

It befuddles me how at least 40% of the people think the problem is the solution.

Read several my posts upthread from that one as well... Sigh...

I see no solution except to crash and burn the global economy. Megadeath is always the end game of snowballing Socialism.

If he fails on this the internet as you know it is dead. This is the freedom fight of our lives and hardly anyone understands why.

Wait, so are you saying that if he does not get his way that the internet as we know it will die and our freedoms will be gone? You think that having the government regulate (control) the internet is going to save us? Kinda like how the Chinese, Iranian and North Korean governments are ensuring a protected internet for its citizens by controlling their access?...

It's not the gov controlling the internet, it's keeping business from controlling it.
It would mean the loss of net neutrality. What you see on the internet could be whatever your ISP decides. Let's say your ISP is Charter.com...

Good on you for keying in on the most important point, which I bolded in your comment. Everyone who is against it is spinning this as government regulating the internet. It's more accurate to say that it's government regulating the companies that give you internet access.

Hey you fucking dumbass dolt,

Here's a free tip on how to get someone to read your post: Don't start it with "Hey you fucking dumbass dolt."

When you learn how to make a point without being a douche nozzle, come back and have a debate with the adults. As it is, I can't stomach to read past a few words you type because you're the type of person who can't read a response without getting so pissed off everyone isn't bowing down to your 'superior' internet debate skills that you immediately begin with attacks. Welcome to my ignore list. Not a single word you write is worth reading. You're so typical, I sure hope you'll be able to afford the fast lanes when net neutrality fails so you can keep up your crusade, Oh Mighty Keyboard Warrior.  

[jaysabi]

Not that he doesn't deserve it, just not for this.

Obama attaching his name to net neutrality was guaranteed to have this result.  First, I seriously doubt his commitment to the issue, or even understanding of it, and second, it just brings the nutjobs out of the woodwork.

Net neutrality is at its fundamental level simply about treating similar traffic similarly.  The idea of metered access with fees for various types of services and degradation of quality of services based on type of traffic is the problem.  Sort of like if you got charged more for electricity based on some arbitrary criterion, or if you only were ALLOWED to have rationed electricity, unless you were a business partner with the electric company.

Now, you might say there's no real problem with metered access and charging differently and making deals, but remember, if you look at this on the protocol level, to have this kind of differentiation, you need to be able to identify both the source of data and its destination, as well as what kind of data it is, in order to differentiate between types of traffic.

By definition, any kind of anonymous traffic is going to obscure this data, and any non-neutral scheme of access is going to assign that kind of traffic the lowest possible priority.

In other words, either kiss your anonymity goodbye or get used to it being slow as fuck, because ISPs if allowed to do so will either simply drop such traffic on the floor or shunt it off the highway onto an ungraded dirt road.  Only packets that can "show their papers" will get enough bandwidth to be functional, and you can expect service to be deliberately degraded even when the infrastructure is entirely sufficient to carry it, simply to extort more fees out of you.

Needless to say, the protocol-level changes that would make it easy to meter traffic like this would also substantially help the government spy on us even more than it is already doing.

I almost wish Obama had denounced net neutrality as a right-wing scheme of some sort, then the same gibbering wackos currently attacking it would love it.

Exactly, and I think you pick up an interesting point. I don't think Obama is embracing net neutrality out of principal or because it's the right thing to do, but out of political considerations. Kind of the same way he did with gay marriage: even though it was clear what is right and what his liberal leanings would dictate would be obvious, he waited several years before he started to really talk about it, once it began gaining critical mass with the people. Both times, his actions are cowardly. He's afraid of the political ramifications if he embraces something that might be unpopular, even if they're the right course of actions, so he waits until the widespread public support is apparent, then comes in like a hero.     If you want credit for embracing things because they're the right thing to do, do it before it's obvious the public is with you. Do it because it's right.

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

...Net neutrality is at its fundamental level simply about treating similar traffic similarly.  The idea of metered access with fees for various types of services and degradation of quality of services based on type of traffic is the problem.  Sort of like if you got charged more for electricity based on some arbitrary criterion, or if you only were ALLOWED to have rationed electricity, unless you were a business partner with the electric company.

Now, you might say there's no real problem with metered access and charging differently and making deals, but remember, if you look at this on the protocol level, to have this kind of differentiation, you need to be able to identify both the source of data and its destination, as well as what kind of data it is, in order to differentiate between types of traffic.

By definition, any kind of anonymous traffic is going to obscure this data, and any non-neutral scheme of access is going to assign that kind of traffic the lowest possible priority...

There is no such whitelisting nor blacklisting at the BGP routing protocol level (which is decentralized) taking place at this time.

The free market has worked.

Do you even have a point? (of course you don't)

My point stands that as soon as the government gets into regulating the internet, that is when you will see the free market fail and the loss of net neutrality begin. If this point is "nutjob" to you, then you provide evidence that sanity appears insane to the insane or too-retarded-to-be-rational.

I understand your delusional fantasy that "you think" you are an intelligent person.

My Lord, #1 cause of collapse is the people are dumb socialists!

It befuddles me how at least 40% of the people think the problem is the solution.

...

Hey you fucking dumbass dolt,

Here's a free tip on how to get someone to read your post: Don't start it with "Hey you fucking dumbass dolt."

When you learn how to make a point without being a douche nozzle...

When you learn to not be so retarded to claim that megadeath is "right", then I can speak factually that you are not a dolt.

That you still don't understand how embracing the problem as the solution in socialism leads to megadeath, just reinforces my factual statement, "Hey you fucking dumbass dolt".

Do you know what happens (throughout the recorded history of man) to retarded sheep like you as the police state horrifies? Answer: slaughtered by the government or war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...#The_text

    First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Socialist.

    Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

I know you won't listen. Remember I told you, when you face the outcome. But of course you won't, you will blame your horrible fate on some other fabrication to avoid having to discern the generative essence that I have laid out.

There is one lesson I have learned today. Never argue with an idiot. Nothing good can come from it, because an idiot can not learn. At best, it just wastes my time. At worst, I get dragged into the fabricated blame game psychosis.

[MelodyRowell]

Those who want Obama's 'net neutrality' bullshit, will end up with this:

http://www.coindesk.com/day-reckoning-dark-markets-hundreds-illicit-domains/

You are probably right. Or at least it will be much easier for the government to seize domains in the future. From what I have read in news reports, the legal justification that the onion sites were seized were dubious at best

[darkmule]

You are probably right. Or at least it will be much easier for the government to seize domains in the future. From what I have read in news reports, the legal justification that the onion sites were seized were dubious at best

It is already trivial for them to seize domains.  It requires little more than them simply ordering the registrar to hand it over.  Clearly, this is legally wrong and unconstitutional, since domains are a form of intangible property, but in actual practice, they're doing it on an almost daily basis.

(Seizing .onion pseudo-domains requires actually compromising the system, though.)

This has literally next to nothing to do with net neutrality, though.

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

You are probably right. Or at least it will be much easier for the government to seize domains in the future. From what I have read in news reports, the legal justification that the onion sites were seized were dubious at best

It is already trivial for them to seize domains.  It requires little more than them simply ordering the registrar to hand it over.  Clearly, this is legally wrong and unconstitutional, since domains are a form of intangible property, but in actual practice, they're doing it on an almost daily basis.

(Seizing .onion pseudo-domains requires actually compromising the system, though.)

This has literally next to nothing to do with net neutrality, though.

Blocking a domain does not block a P2P application such as Bitcoin.

It has everything to do with this proposed plan to regulate the internet as a utility, because as you admitted that in order to actually enforce it they need to be able to identify at the protocol layer, which means they can then technically block stuff like Bitcoin and more specifically they can technically put actual content filters on the internet to block certain speech.

The reason they are attempting to implement this now, is because they want to be able to control what the public can see as they ramp up the GLOBAL POLICE STATE to Orwellian ideals (think Obama's czars).

Ministry of Peace

The Ministry of Peace supports Oceania's perpetual war.

Ministry of Plenty

The Ministry of Plenty rations and controls food, goods, and domestic production; every fiscal quarter, the Miniplenty publishes false claims of having raised the standard of living, when it has, in fact, reduced rations, availability, and production. The Minitrue substantiates the Miniplenty claims by revising historical records to report numbers supporting the current, "increased rations".

Ministry of Truth

The Ministry of Truth controls information: news, entertainment, education, and the arts. Winston Smith works in the Minitrue RecDep (Records Department), "rectifying" historical records to concord with Big Brother's current pronouncements, thus everything the Party says is true.

Ministry of Love

The Ministry of Love identifies, monitors, arrests, and converts real and imagined dissidents. In Winston's experience, the dissident is beaten and tortured, then, when near-broken, is sent to Room 101 to face "the worst thing in the world" — until love for Big Brother and the Party replaces dissension.

You aren't the sharpest tool in the shed.

[oprahwindfury]

The idea of net neutrality has been adopted positively by a good number of EU countries already. The EU parliament have already come out in support of it. Hell, even Brazil has taken a good stance on it (not saying Brazil is a bad country or anything, they are just corrupt as hell). If this is JUST making news then it's really a sad day.