President Obama Has Asked FCC to Implement 'Strongest Possible Rules' to Protect Net Neutrality
Last edited Mon Nov 10, 2014, 11:52 AM - Edit history (2)
Source: Reuters
@BreakingNews: RT @breakingbytes: President Obama has asked the FCC to implement 'strongest possible rules' to protect net neutrality - @Reuters http://t.co/gAPs13D1To/s/gPcJ
Obama urged the FCC to prohibit 'paid prioritization' deals in which content providers pay to ensure smooth delivery of their traffic - @Reuters
Obama Urges FCC To Set 'Strongest Possible Rules' To Protect Net Neutrality
Reuters
Posted: 11/10/2014 9:48 am EST Updated: 50 minutes ago
WASHINGTON, Nov 10 (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama asked the Federal Communications Commissionon Monday to set the 'strongest possible rules' to protect net neutrality as agency writes new Internet traffic regulations.
Obama urged the FCC to prohibit so-called paid prioritization, deals in which content providers would pay Internet companies to ensure smooth delivery of traffic.
He said the FCC should reclassify consumer broadband service to be regulated more like a public utility. (Reporting Alina Selyukh; Editing by Doina Chiacu)
Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/10/obama-net-neutrality_n_6132814.html
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)President Obama's Statement on Keeping the Internet Open and Free
Published on Nov 10, 2014
The White House
President Obama today urged the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to take up the strongest possible rules to protect net neutrality, the principle that says Internet service providers (ISPs) should treat all internet traffic equally.
SOURCE: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017225835
Huge uproar on cable business channels.
vi5
(13,305 posts)Probably good that he waited until after the election to do this. Might have energized the youth vote who really care about this issue.
Really dodged a bullet with that one.
I was thinking the same thing.
OffWithTheirHeads
(10,337 posts)All other forms of communication have been co-opted by our corporate masters.
RKP5637
(67,111 posts)BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)jwirr
(39,215 posts)BlueJazz
(25,348 posts)riqster
(13,986 posts)Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)just WHERE can this request go??? I'm sorry to confess that I'm NOT optimistic on this issue - and I DO consider it the last bullhorn we (the people) have. When this is gone, it's time to grab our guns. And I'm NOT an advocate of guns!
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)MORNING AGENDA
By SYDNEY EMBER NOVEMBER 10, 2014 7:45 AM
<>
CABLE MERGER PUTS INVESTORS ON EDGE | The debate over net neutrality and cable company concentration has been rattling Wall Street, Jeff Sommer writes in the Strategies column. The markets discomfort is evident in the unusual moves in the share prices of Comcast and Time Warner Cable, the two cable giants that announced in February that they intended to merge in a $45 billion all-stock deal. Their adjusted prices should be converging ‒ assuming the merger will eventually be completed without major problems ‒ but the spread has actually widened strikingly since early September. As regulatory issues crucial to cable companies and the Internet have heated up, the stock market has reacted with varying degrees of concern.
Investor concerns focus mainly on the Internet side of cable operations. For one, there are questions about whether the Federal Communications Commission will act to ensure an open Internet, known as net neutrality, and whether the commissions decision will impair the profitability of cable companies. Federal agencies could also block the merger outright. As always, the market is converting the collective intelligence of its participants into prices, and there is evidence that investors are worried, Mr. Sommer writes.
Net neutrality and the merger are political issues. After last weeks election, they could become a flash point in relations between a Republican Congress and the Democratic administration. Strong action by the F.C.C., the Federal Trade Commission or the Justice Department could result in Republican pushback aimed at limiting the F.C.C.s authority, Mr. Sommer adds. Where all of this is heading isnt clear, which means theres good reason for the market to be jumpy.
...One market flurry occurred after remarks by President Obama at an Oct. 9 town hall meeting in Santa Monica, Calif., in which he said he was unequivocally committed to net neutrality and against paid prioritization, or Internet fast lanes, in which some companies could pay cable companies for faster access to consumers. He called for tough rule-making by the F.C.C. which could potentially limit the profitability of the cable companies.
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)And I guess I'm to assume he got the ONLY qualified individual he could find for the job.
Ampersand Unicode
(503 posts)Geez, I'd feel better if he appointed Kim Dotcom to the position. Arrested on a warrant for pissing Hollywood off.
He's a lot better than the REAL criminals running amok in Washington right now.
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)Rhetorical question.
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)vi5
(13,305 posts)You know the one of all his "accomplishments"?
You know the ones where he "Pledged to...." do something?
Or "Committed to....." doing something?
This will fit nicely on there.
ANOTHER VICTORY LAP!!!!
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)Drop your socks and grab your...mouse; we're poised for a tiered internet experience in America!
ballyhoo
(2,060 posts)memorized by faux sincere speeches about net neutrality while TPP becomes a done deal is unleashed by Dear Leader. How many times can this man get away with the same routine?
Scuba
(53,475 posts)riqster
(13,986 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Dopers_Greed
(2,640 posts)Part of his "rope-a-dope" strategy I guess...
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)What the hell is this about? And why the silence during a recent election?? Oh yeah, we can't give young people anything they care about! This is such a strange move, it is rather suspicious. If he means it, then I'm all for it. But if he's rope-a-doping us again...
pa28
(6,145 posts)A better solution might have been to appoint a chair with a history of supporting net neutrality but hey. At least he's finally responding to the FCC's proposal.
Ampersand Unicode
(503 posts)alp227
(32,037 posts)Why the frick did Obama wait until AFTER the election to weigh in on this? Because Democrats needed the donations from the internet companies?
Ampersand Unicode
(503 posts)This is considered a fringe issue for young people (unimportant demographic) because it's new media and tech. The party mainstream can't make a political issue about the Internet (aka "things we don't understand and don't have to" and risk scaring the olds who struggle to find YouTube on the UHF dial.
Only young people (and nerds) care about things like net neutrality and copyright wars. The rest are more than content to just keep on truckin' to the same half-dozen or so 8-track tapes they BOUGHT LEGITIMATELY FOR A WHOLE GODDAMN NICKEL AT JOE'S VARIETY STORE!!!
Most people don't care as long as they can still watch Monday Night Football and stalk their grandkids on "Bookface." The digital natives do care, but they don't have the pocket change to make any significant political inroads. All they (we, I'm a member of that generation even though I avoid social media like the plague) can do is make protest memes and hack things with an Anonymous logo. So long as the entrenched interests can rely on the ignorance of the mainstream populace who don't care about innovation and fairness (because they don't use the Internet or don't care as much as the young do), net neutrality is dead. After all, why should the olds care about "equal content delivery" when they did just fine with three TV networks and AM radio?
alp227
(32,037 posts)Learning from the Obama 2008 digital outreach strategy, the Tea Party movement aggressively used the Internet to spread their message. That's why you see right wing memes on Facebook a lot. And see http://myrightwingdad.blogspot.com/
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)???????
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)NordicLeft
(36 posts)'"Net Neutrality' is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government," Cruz wrote on Twitter.
Cruz's spokeswoman, Amanda Carpenter, added that net neutrality would place the government "in charge of determining pricing, terms of service, and what products can be delivered. Sound like Obamacare much?"
snip
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)I doubt that this moron have any idea about the origins of the net. Primarily the U.S Government.
"The US Department of Defense awarded contracts as early as the 1960s for packet network systems, including the development of the ARPANET (which would become the first network to use the Internet Protocol.)"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet
6000eliot
(5,643 posts)myrna minx
(22,772 posts)PSPS
(13,603 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)that Tom doesn't believe in that. The President appoints a fox to guard the hen house then tells the fox he should treat the chickens nicely.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)BadGimp
(4,015 posts)Most of information and content wil be transmitted via IP or Internet Protocol = online.
If the Telcos and the Cable Cos take control of internet content distribution by establishing pricing for content distributors while also charging you and I to access content, we will be SO FUCKING SCREWED. It will make the present main stream media take down look like a sleepover.
Since humor sells and explains much better at times than real narrative, I give you The Oatmeal's letter to Ted Cruz: "Dear Senator Ted Cruz"
http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality
Make no mistake about it people, this is a major fight we can not afford to loose.