Obama says FCC should reclassify internet as a utility

[Nemo1024]

http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/10/7185933/fcc-should-reclassify-internet-as-utility-obama-says

President Obama has come out in support of reclassifying internet service as a utility, a move that would allow the Federal Communications Commission to enforce more robust regulations and protect net neutrality. "To put these protections in place, I'm asking the FCC to reclassifying internet service under Title II of a law known as the Telecommunications Act," Obama says in a statement this morning. "In plain English, I'm asking [the FCC] to recognize that for most Americans, the internet has become an essential part of everyday communication and everyday life."

Might be a good move if it really protects net neutrality and is not a move to enforce more regulations.

[Wilikon]

http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/10/7185933/fcc-should-reclassify-internet-as-utility-obama-says

President Obama has come out in support of reclassifying internet service as a utility, a move that would allow the Federal Communications Commission to enforce more robust regulations and protect net neutrality. "To put these protections in place, I'm asking the FCC to reclassifying internet service under Title II of a law known as the Telecommunications Act," Obama says in a statement this morning. "In plain English, I'm asking [the FCC] to recognize that for most Americans, the internet has become an essential part of everyday communication and everyday life."

Might be a good move if it really protects net neutrality and is not a move to enforce more regulations.

I am not sure how laws created in the 1930's for US telecoms can be applied to the internet and the WWW in 2014 and forward.

By the way can you pay your utility bills anonymously? VPN would be illegal to use if your internet connection has to be tied with your real ID, just like it is impossible to be connected to ConED or AT&T anonymously...

[Lethn]

Why don't they just create new bloody regulations for new technologies? This is just like what's been happening with Bitcoin except I seem to remember the internet was created first, politicians and bureaucrats really know nothing about technology do they?

[Wilikon]

Why don't they just create new bloody regulations for new technologies? This is just like what's been happening with Bitcoin except I seem to remember the internet was created first, politicians and bureaucrats really know nothing about technology do they?

Regulations for a decentralized technology would need a world wide unique set of rules or it would not make much sense, just as a New York bitlicense does not make sense to bitcoiners in Sidney Australia.
Right now Facebook and Google are planning to put 24hr flying drones all over the planet to have everyone connected to the internet through their service, from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe. Should the Afghans pay US taxes for that utility bill? What about Europeans?  
I want to have the choice of using Google, or Facebook, or my current ISP, or another ISP, or that free WiFi from Starbucks or McDonald's... 1930's laws are not flexible enough for that new paradigm.
The thing is you do not have to believe me. Believe the Democratic, Barack 0bama-appointed FCC chair  instead. If he believes that is a non starter that tells you how bad and moronic that demand is.
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/11/12/fcc-chair-distances-himself-from-obama-on-net-neutrality/

I remember downloading one playmate image of 2 megs took ages to get. Napster was still only for people with dual plexing 56Kbs modems together for maximum speed. You would set the thing up, then go to bed to have a full album the next day, Maybe, with full 64k quality MP3's. Hollywood was laughing at the record industry back then. It was slow thanks to all those regulations on telecoms or telecoms refusing to upgrade their network as they were zero competition against them. Phone calls were really crappy. They still are. Compare your voice through skype versus a phone call.

There is a lack of vision from all those politicians, especially in the case of 0bama of what the future will look like. He got womped in the midterms and needed to pivot to something else for his cult believers, to give them some hope. So he gave them that stupid ugly so bad it is not funny fake graphic from the 90's of an internet buffering connection before his statement. His internet connection is soooo bad the green progress bar goes back and forth, un-progressing, not knowing what the definition of "progress bar" means...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKcjQPVwfDk

[Nemo1024]

I knew there were some pitfalls, this coming from Obama. Nice chew-down, Wilikon.

[RodeoX]

I knew there were some pitfalls, this coming from Obama. Nice chew-down, Wilikon.

I don't think you understand what is at stake. You have net-neutrality now and it is about to go away. Don't worry, your new media nanny will tell you what to watch. Just like you are told by the republicans what to think.

[Wilikon]

I knew there were some pitfalls, this coming from Obama. Nice chew-down, Wilikon.

Be aware I am in no way a fan of google or facebook or verizon pushing and controling and punishing internet users. Politicians cannot imagine what bit torrent 2.0, 3.0 or 10.0 will look like. I can't either. But no way a humiliated pissed off politician can make rational decisions about what the internet should be for generations.
Yes I am not a fan of 0bama but I would trust tech people and hackers to make internet freer and faster and impossible to stop, bringing better solutions for all of us more than any politicians, D or R or whatever.

The internet will be like the air in the future I hope.

[jaysabi]

Why don't they just create new bloody regulations for new technologies? This is just like what's been happening with Bitcoin except I seem to remember the internet was created first, politicians and bureaucrats really know nothing about technology do they?

Part of the reason is the legal precedent. When they were trying to create regulations for the internet the first time around, they essentially said that the internet functions differently than the phone lines, which is why it's governed differently. Essentially, the problem is they did create new regulations for the new technology, and the result is it makes charging for faster service permissible, which makes possible all manner of predatory abuses now that ISPs are part of major conglomerates with wide-ranging business interests. The uproar is that people now want them to treat ISPs like phone utility companies instead of treating the internet differently, to take away the power of ISPs to discriminate internet traffic and stifle competitors.

[Wilikon]

Why don't they just create new bloody regulations for new technologies? This is just like what's been happening with Bitcoin except I seem to remember the internet was created first, politicians and bureaucrats really know nothing about technology do they?

Part of the reason is the legal precedent. When they were trying to create regulations for the internet the first time around, they essentially said that the internet functions differently than the phone lines, which is why it's governed differently. Essentially, the problem is they did create new regulations for the new technology, and the result is it makes charging for faster service permissible, which makes possible all manner of predatory abuses now that ISPs are part of major conglomerates with wide-ranging business interests. The uproar is that people now want them to treat ISPs like phone utility companies instead of treating the internet differently, to take away the power of ISPs to discriminate internet traffic and stifle competitors.

The uproar is that people now want them to treat ISPs like phone utility companies instead of treating the internet differently

People wanted to believe what 0bamacare was supposed to be. Now and after 40000 pages of regulations we uncover everyday it was a charade. We the people should take the time to frame what the internet should be and not be lazy and let those clowns breaking this amazing tool. Again streaming whole movies was an insane concept not even 8 years ago. We forgot what youtube videos used to look like? . Do you believe a politician will let you surf the web as freely as you can after being a "utility", even if all your every moves are targeted by the NSA now?

This is a technical problem that needs a technical solution not a political one or the internet will look the same from now on until 2116...

[jaysabi]

This is a technical problem that needs a technical solution not a political one or the internet will look the same from now on until 2116...

That's rhetoric that in no way helps solve the question of how the ISPs should be treated. The fundamental question of what is an ISP needs to be settled before you can do anything else.

The FCC regulates phone companies in such a way that it doesn't matter who built the phone lines. The owner of a phone line is required to rent out their lines to a competitor if the competitor wishes to offer service over those lines. This is not the case with ISPs. The FCC made the conscious decision to allow ISPs to completely own the lines they build. Their reasoning was that if the companies could build and own their own lines, and weren't required to let a competitor use the lines, the profit motive would be high enough to incentivize a lot of competition, and speed would increase and prices would drop as a result. We now see that this has not been the case. It's very expensive to build and maintain the lines, and so very few ISPs are available in most markets. They are able to use their lines exclusively for themselves, which means there is no competition on price or innovation because few firms can raise the capital required to break into the market, either locally or at large. Now that ISPs have become part of large conglomerates with wide-ranging business interests, they can profit by snuffing out traffic to competitors, which makes the internet a very un-free place, only open to the deepest pockets willing to pay to have their sites accessible by the public. The point in reclassifying ISPs to be like phone lines would be to create the competition that did not arise out of a more laissez-faire approach, as is done with phone companies and is commonly regarded as the best practice. England, for example, has ISPs that are regulated like phone companies, and they have no problem with competition in their markets. There are plenty of ISPs to choose from everywhere.

The bottom line for the FCC is answering the question what is an ISP? If the ISP is a series of 'pipes' that are property owned by private companies, they can be operated for profit in the manner that so many people are objecting to. (This is the current FCC decision of what an ISP is.) If the ISP is a utility analogous to a phone company, they cannot discriminate against customers based on how they use it and must allow competitors use their lines like phone companies, which would eliminate the ability for any ISP to shake down a competitor to guarantee access to the web through competition.

I would just ask that you listen to this podcast on the subject before responding: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/04/04/299060527/episode-529-the-last-mile

It does a good job of explaining the history of the FCC decisions, and why they're considering changing it now. Its the best source I've found for explaining the issue without political bias. If anything, they let the FCC off the hook by failing to explain how the guy who was running the FCC when it decided not to regulate ISPs like phone companies was an industry insider who then left the FCC after this decision and went to work for the very cable companies his decision so beneficially impacted. It's that initial decision advocates for a free and open internet want reversed.

[axxo]

The efforts by some to end net neutrality has far reaching implications. First, it would create a whole new revenue stream that benefits ISPs, their executives and shareholders, fully at the expense of the consumer. Second, it would implement backdoor censorship, where economic sanctions could be used as a means for the government to block or censor internet content from web sites that may expose inconvenient truths; content will be blocked unless a fee is paid, but proactive sanctions will prevent the fee to be paid no matter how big or small.

[dontCAREhair]

Why don't they just create new bloody regulations for new technologies? This is just like what's been happening with Bitcoin except I seem to remember the internet was created first, politicians and bureaucrats really know nothing about technology do they?

They cannot create new regulations without the legislative authority to do so embedded in the law.

The reason bitcoin related regulations can be created is because AML/KYC laws are already on the books and the regulations already apply to similar situations.

[Wilikon]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/november_2014/61_oppose_federal_regulation_of_the_internet

[jaysabi]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/november_2014/61_oppose_federal_regulation_of_the_internet

That's nice, but rather irrelevant.

See: 59% of Americans Oppose NSA Program
Or: 52% of Americans feel taxes are too high

Being in the majority of public opinion doesn't make it good policy. Further, it doesn't even suggest they understand the issue in the slightest. If you asked these same people if they wanted Comcast or Cox to have the power to slow down internet traffic to certain websites, you would not get 61% saying yes. It's all about the framing of the question, this one used the buzz word "government regulation." They sampled 1,000 people who may or may not be knowledgeable about the topic, framed the question as one about government regulation, and got this result. Meanwhile, the FCC site has over 4,000,000 comments asking the FCC to reclassify ISPs from people who are interested enough in the situation to educate themselves on the topic and then leave a comment on the FCC website on the matter. To me, the latter anecdote is far more significant than 1000 people who may not even understand the situation and are responding to the way the question is framed.

[Wilikon]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/november_2014/61_oppose_federal_regulation_of_the_internet

That's nice, but rather irrelevant.

See: 59% of Americans Oppose NSA Program
Or: 52% of Americans feel taxes are too high

Being in the majority of public opinion doesn't make it good policy. Further, it doesn't even suggest they understand the issue in the slightest. If you asked these same people if they wanted Comcast or Cox to have the power to slow down internet traffic to certain websites, you would not get 61% saying yes. It's all about the framing of the question, this one used the buzz word "government regulation." They sampled 1,000 people who may or may not be knowledgeable about the topic, framed the question as one about government regulation, and got this result. Meanwhile, the FCC site has over 4,000,000 comments asking the FCC to reclassify ISPs from people who are interested enough in the situation to educate themselves on the topic and then leave a comment on the FCC website on the matter. To me, the latter anecdote is far more significant than 1000 people who may not even understand the situation and are responding to the way the question is framed.

So the people should trust this government now, more than ever based on its great trusted track record?

[RodeoX]

This should be an easy one for anyone who wants a free internet. It's not a government takeover of the internet. The legislation seeks to KEEP net-neutrality. The other choice is to let ISPs decide what you will see on the net and restrict your viewing to what is most profitable for them. Is that what you want? What if your ISP does not like bitcoin? Unlike now, it would be easy to cut you off from BTC sites and block ports related to wallets. If you are savvy you may be able to get around some restrictions, but you will always be in a struggle to see what you want. Do you really think big media has your interest at heart? I do not.

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

This should be an easy one for anyone who wants a free internet. It's not a government takeover of the internet. The legislation seeks to KEEP net-neutrality. The other choice is to let ISPs decide what you will see on the net and restrict your viewing to what is most profitable for them. Is that what you want? What if your ISP does not like bitcoin? Unlike now, it would be easy to cut you off from BTC sites and block ports related to wallets. If you are savvy you may be able to get around some restrictions, but you will always be in a struggle to see what you want. Do you really think big media has your interest at heart? I do not.

You are a fool:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=854407.msg9534852#msg9534852

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=854407.msg9514682#msg9514682

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=854407.msg9515162#msg9515162

[cutesakura]

they should be grateful for the internet for the countries of Europe and America today have a capable speed, compared to the speed of the Internet in developing countries are still below average, for Internet users is still very little used in developing countries, there are still many people who are not familiar with the Internet, it is due to inadequate infrastructure, so if there are some vendors who want to develop internet network up to the reach of the FO cable, then it really can help to the development of society ... 

[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.

[newflesh]

You fucking Communists and Socialists.......

lol do people honestly consider Obama to be a socialist? Yeah I'm really sure the 'free'market will have our interests at heart....ISP's censoring the internet sounds like a great idea.