General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhite House press secretary statement on net neutrality (updated)
Office of the Press Secretary
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 15, 2014
Statement by the Press Secretary on Net Neutrality
The President has made clear since he was a candidate that he strongly supports net neutrality and an open Internet. As he has said, the Internets incredible equality of data, content, and access to the consumer is what has powered extraordinary economic growth and made it possible for once-tiny sites like eBay or Amazon to compete with brick and mortar behemoths.
The FCC is an independent agency, and we will carefully review their proposal. The FCCs efforts were dealt a real challenge by the Court of Appeals in January, but Chairman Wheeler has said his goal is to preserve an open Internet, and we are pleased to see that he is keeping all options on the table. We will be watching closely as the process moves forward in hopes that the final rule stays true to the spirit of net neutrality.
The President is looking at every way to protect a free and open Internet, and will consider any option that might make sense.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/15/1299631/-White-House-press-secretary-statement-on-net-neutrality
Updated to add:
By Jim Puzzanghera
Wheeler made some changes to his proposal this week to secure the votes of Clyburn and Jessica Rosenworcel, the commissions other two Democrats...both publicly thanked him for the changes, which included asking whether pay-for-priority deals should be banned outright and if the FCC should subject broadband providers to stricter utility-like regulations.
Still, Rosenworcel criticized the process as too rushed.
She had called last week for a one-month delay in Wednesdays vote in response to the sharp public outcry in recent weeks to Wheelers proposal, which critics have said would allow broadband providers to create paid fast lanes on the Internet.
<...>
In response to the backlash, Wheeler revised his proposal this week, specifically asking for public feedback on whether pay-for-priority deals should be banned and if the FCC should reclassify broadband providers for sticter regulation under Title 2 of the nations telecommunications law.
- more -
http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-mo-net-neutrality-fcc-protestors-wheeler-20140515-story.html
Call to action:
Use this form to submit a comment to the FCC. Learn more about the FCC rulemaking process.
Dear FCC,
<...>
It's our Internet. We made it, and it has re-made us, changing the way we communicate, learn, share and create.
We want the Internet to continue to live up to its promise, fostering innovation, creativity and freedom. We don't want regulations that will turn our ISPs into gatekeepers, making special deals with the few companies that can "pay to play" and inhibiting new competition, innovation and expression.
Start your letter to the FCC:
- more -
https://www.dearfcc.org/
WASHINGTON The Federal Communications Commission voted today to open a new rule for how Internet Service Providers treat the data they carry for public comment. The proposal follows a January decision by the D.C. Circuit Appeals Court that stuck down key provisions of the FCCs existing net neutrality rules.
Gabe Rottman, legislative counsel and policy advisor with the American Civil Liberties Union, had this reaction to todays vote and proposed rule:
This proposed rule leaves the individual at the mercy of an increasingly concentrated broadband market, in which the big players will be able to act as gatekeepers for online speech, deciding what gets seen and when. Fortunately, the FCC left the door open to fix this problem by reclassifying broadband internet service as what it really is: a public utility, or in legal terms, a common carrier, which we will continue to vigorously advocate for. This is a First Amendment issue because if broadband service providers are allowed to slow or block some content at will, they will be able to stifle the speech of internet users. The FCC must ensure that it has the tools necessary to prevent such blocking or discrimination against certain types of content.
https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/proposed-fcc-rules-dont-do-enough-protect-net-neutrality
villager
(26,001 posts)...of the legislation, rules, codes, et al...
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)stays true to the spirit of net neutrality." That says that the WH is "hoping" "the final rule stays true to the spirit of net neutrality." There are three DEmocrats on the panel, and the chair was appointed by the President and yet they have "hope". So if it doesnt turn out, it's not the WH's fault. They watched closely and hoped and hoped and hoped.
villager
(26,001 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Fiscal policy, no. The People pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. Then die.
villager
(26,001 posts)How much more of this "change" can our "Republic" withstand?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)She will run with Goldman-Sachs as her VP. If corps are people, why cant they run for office?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)I'm wondering why this thread is getting attention, and not this one: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024958257
G_j
(40,367 posts)I've signed already..
"I lost track of how many petitions and letters I've signed already.."
...more not worth it given that this is part of the proposal:
I mean, a lot of the comments today are out of frustration, but many seem to be why bother. I guess each person will have to figure that out for him/herself.
G_j
(40,367 posts)but, yes it does feel rather futile.
djean111
(14,255 posts)his hands are tied.
Words are absolutely pointless. Let's see what actually happens, eh?
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)They don't give a rat's ass about it. Otherwise someone otehr than Wheeler would be heading the FCC.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Big outcry and public demands to kill the proposal?
Well, just extend the period so people get worn down. Then sneak it though.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)I'm sure the other side will flood the FCC with comments.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Many other have....But people can't keep beating the same drum over and over again. Especially when the politicians and hacks are unresponsive....The only ones who can do that on a continual full-time basis are the bastards who have a financial interest in purchasing the entire internet.
"I've aleady flooded them with my own comments
Many other have....But people can't keep beating the same drum over and over again. Especially when the politicians and hacks are unresponsive....The only ones who can do that on a continual full-time basis are the bastards who have a financial interest in purchasing the entire internet."
...fight has been ongoing for more than a decade (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024876742). Persistence is typical when pushing for policies.
As I stated above, is one more comment not worth it given that this is part of the proposal:
I mean, a lot of the comments today are out of frustration, but many seem to be why bother. I guess each person will have to figure that out for him/herself.
See the EFF piece in comment 13.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)But why are we having to fight this again with a Democratic President who claimed to be a staunch supporter of Net Neutrality, and could have chosen an FCC chair who actually IS a supporter of Net Neutrality, instead of a Comcast Bedmate?
It's one thing to have to persistently be up against the GOPosition. It's another to get screwed by the politicians who claim to be on our side.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)..."if Mitt were President," you'd have nothing to talk about.
Heres the question and Romneys response:
9. The Internet. The Internet plays a central role in both our economy and our society. What role, if any, should the federal government play in managing the Internet to ensure its robust social, scientific, and economic role?
Governor Romneys response: It is not the role of any government to manage the Internet. The Internet has flourished precisely because government has so far refrained from regulating this dynamic and essential cornerstone of our economy. I would rely primarily on innovation and market forces, not bureaucrats, to shape the Internet and maximize its economic, social and scientific value.
Thanks to the non-governmental multi-stakeholder model, the Internet is and always has been open to all ideas and lawful commerce as well as bountiful private investment. Unfortunately, President Obama has chosen to impose government as a central gatekeeper in the broadband economy. His policies interfere with the basic operation of the Internet, create uncertainty, and undermine investors and job creators.
Specifically, the FCCs Net Neutrality regulation represents an Obama campaign promise fulfilled on behalf of certain special interests, but ultimately a solution in search of a problem. The government has now interjected itself in how networks will be constructed and managed, picked winners and losers in the marketplace, and determined how consumers will receive access to tomorrows new applications and services. The Obama Administrations overreaching has replaced innovators and investors with Washington bureaucrats.
In addition to these domestic intrusions, there are also calls for increased international regulation of the Internet through the United Nations. I will oppose any effort to subject the Internet to an unaccountable, innovation-stifling international regulatory regime. Instead, I will clear away barriers to private investment and innovation and curtail needless regulation of the digital economy.
President Obamas response:
A free and open Internet is essential component of American society and of the modern economy. I support legislation to protect intellectual property online, but any effort to combat online piracy must not reduce freedom of expression, increase cybersecurity risk, or undermine the dynamic, innovative global Internet. I also believe it is essential that we take steps to strengthen our cybersecurity and ensure that we are guarding against threats to our vital information systems and critical infrastructure, all while preserving Americans privacy, data confidentiality, and civil liberties and recognizing the civilian nature of cyberspace.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/09/21/obama-romney-ne-neutrality/
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Like many people, I stopped thinking much about the issue of Net Neutrality a couple of years ago when it appeared to be settled. And, taking Obama at his word, I figured there was nothing to worry bout -- at least not while he was in office.
Yes it was the courts that brought it back into the realm of issues.
But the fact that Obama appointed an industry insider who obviously wants to scuttle the whole concept of Net Neutrality and turn it over to Comcast -- and the fact that Obama's response has been empty lip service at best, unfortunately is a topic of "conversation."
I hate that. As I said above, at least with the GOP you see the knife in their hands. They don't place it behind their backs as they reassure you with nice words.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Like many people, I stopped thinking much about the issue of Net Neutrality a couple of years ago when it appeared to be settled. And, taking Obama at his word, I figured there was nothing to worry bout -- at least not while he was in office.
Yes it was the courts that brought it back into the realm of issues.
But the fact that Obama appointed an industry insider who obviously wants to scuttle the whole concept of Net Neutrality and turn it over to Comcast -- and the fact that Obama's response has been empty lip service at best, unfortunately is a topic of "conversation."
Here's what you just admitted: Obama tried to resolve the issue in a way that made you feel comfortable enough to "stopped thinking much about." Then the courts "brought it back into the realm" of discussion.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)and who is in bed with a corporation that is seeking a basic Monopoly over broadband and cable service.
I guess interesting is a good word.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"And Obama appointed an Industry insider who is dedicated to undermining it. and who is in bed with a corporation that is seeking a basic Monopoly over broadband and cable service."
...I pointed out, it's not over. Pushback worked, and it's time to increase the pressure.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)Yes, all those old folks now dead because of Obama. Same with net neutrality - he's already sold us all out! The crystal ball insists on it.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)The people wouldnt have had to become outraged. This is simply a game. The President appoints Wheeler and then says that the FCC is independent and they, the WH, will have to watch closely and HOPE for a good outcome. So Wheeler sends up a trial balloon and people dont like it. So he backs off a bit. A variation of the "lesser of evils" trick.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"If the Pres had made a better choice, there wouldnt have had to be an updated proposal. The people wouldnt have had to become outraged. This is simply a game."
...hadn't elected Obama...
Seriously, if you believe this is what Obama really wants, why do you think he would have "made a better choice"?
People are always going to be "outraged." The goal is to save the Internet. People need to keep pushing back. The right course is clear, which is why the language was altered to leave the door open.
Just think: If enough people demand that "pay-for-priority deals should be banned" and "the FCC should reclassify broadband providers for sticter regulation," then people can take credit for thwarting Obama's plan.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)That wasn't a "rationalization." It was a fact: The goal is to save the Internet.
You can't undo Obama's appointment. The only thing you can do is harp on it. Then there is the issue at hand.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)We are. Why are you individually chastising posters for expressing the same ideas? Is it a hardwired response?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)myrna minx
(22,772 posts)"I can't promise that'll try, but I'll try to try." - Bart Simpson
pa28
(6,145 posts)Bad news: Clearly the administration is not going to put pressure on the FCC and likely has the rule makeup they wanted in the first place.
Good news: Public pressure and an unexpected degree of awareness is working. Let's ignore this worthless bunch and keep the ball rolling for telecom re-classification.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Theres good news: the nationwide outcry against the Federal Communications Commissions troublesome proposal for new Open Internet rules is clearly having an impact. At a public meeting this morning, commissioners were factoring in questions thataccording to previous accountswerent on the table only days ago. The bad news: the FCC still is considering a set of rules that will allow Internet providers to discriminate how we access websites with only vague and uncertain limits, endangering network neutrality and threatening the vibrant growth of the Internet.
Were still waiting for the full proposal. But according to FCC Chairman Tom Wheelers statements at the open meeting, the FCC didn't take pay-to-play "fast lanes" off the table. Paid fast lane access fees threaten the engine of innovation that has allowed hackers, startup companies, and kids in their college dorm rooms to make the Internet that we know and love today. We want the Internet to continue to thrive as a platform for innovation and expression; vague rules that bless "pay to play," with ill-defined limits, are not compatible with our vision of an open Internet.
We are encouraged that the FCC is continuing to push for greater transparency. Internet users and innovators cannot protect themselves if they can't scrutinize how their ISP handles their traffic. Without knowledge of how ISPs are operating and maintaining their network architecture, enforcement of any network neutrality rules will be hollow. New forms of discrimination may surface to circumvent regulatory or public responsibility, unbeknownst to users and the FCC alike.
Today was an important day in the fight for net neutrality, but this battle is far from won. The FCC announced plans to open an extended four-month public comment window to solicit the stories from people across the country about the agencys proposed open Internet rules. Internet users must take this opportunity to speak up, early, and often.
Weve created a tool to help. Visit www.DearFCC.org to raise your voice and make sure the FCC is clear on this point: we dont want regulations that will turn ISPs into gatekeepers to their subscribers. Its time to protect our Internet.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/05/fcc-hears-public-outcry-continues-consider-pay-play-rules
williesgirl
(4,033 posts)It's turning off Dem voters big time. President Obama put him there knowing this would happen. He now owns the problem.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)"We will be watching closely as the process moves forward..." So the WH will watch closely and review carefully. And that's it.
Oh yeah, ".. in hopes that the final rule stays true to the spirit of net neutrality." They are also "hoping".
It's like turning a bull loose in a china shop and saying "He is independent (code for we have no control of him), but we will watch him very closely and hope everything turns out ok."
And if everything doesnt turn out ok, then blame the left for having unreasonable expectations.
Efilroft Sul
(3,579 posts)Who the fuck do you think you are fooling?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)spanone
(135,846 posts)Cha
(297,323 posts)hopeful.. I know the President wants it and I trust him.