Obama To Veto Anti-Net-Neutrality Legislation 355
An anonymous reader writes "In a statement of policy on Tuesday, the White House announced that President Obama will veto upcoming legislation that would undermine the FCC's net neutrality rules. According to the statement (PDF), the rules 'reflected a constructive effort to build a consensus around what safeguards and protections were reasonable and necessary to ensure that the Internet continues to attract investment and to spur innovation.' The statement continued, 'It would be ill-advised to threaten the very foundations of innovation in the Internet economy and the democratic spirit that has made the Internet a force for social progress around the world.'"
Re:Wow (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:Wow (Score:2, Insightful)
What I want to know is who paid for THIS decision?
And hope they're still there when 2012 comes around.
Re:Wow (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm impressed. The first time in 3 years I've been impressed, so the bar is pretty low. But good going Obama.
First time? Really? OK, so Obama (just to pick an example) pushed to end military discrimination against homosexuals, and that didn't impress you, but now that comcast can't charge you a little extra to view google, THAT impresses you? Come on, man...get your priorities straight. Are you only impressed when there's something in it for you?
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
You do realize that the President isn't the one wasting his time writing legislation like this. Nor was he the one wasting time voting to reaffirm that "In God we Trust" is our national motto or that the mint should print Baseball Hall of Fame coins.
Right now he's the only one making any attempt at fixing anything with the limited powers he has. Even if you don't agree with what he is doing at least he is DOING something.
IT'S A TRAP! (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm sorry to announce this is a trap. Net Neutrality rules the FCC have passed are not about being neutral, they're about picking sides (or rather, the government picking sides for you).
Think about it: who regulates the Internet right now? The ISPs. You may have your complaints about the ISPs, but you can switch to another one if you don't like the one you're on.
But now, the FCC is trying to usurp the power to regulate the Internet from the ISPs, thus restricting the freedom of the consumer to choose the ISP he likes best- which would almost inevitably be the one with the least restrictions.
It's similar to situation with lightbulbs; pretty soon we're going to have to buy $7 mecury-filled lightbulbs- supposedly to combat global warming. See, this decision could have been made at the state or local level (local= ISPs, see the relation?), but now the government has made the decision FOR YOU.
Net Neutrality, in most cases, is a code-word for 'regulation of the Internet'. BE WARY, do your homework, don't let the government defile the greatest tool of free speech man has ever held.
Re:Yay Obama! (Score:5, Insightful)
He got a 1206 on his SAT's. That doesn't make him bright but pretty much average - even I scored higher. He went to Yale and Harvard because of who his father was and we have no evidence of how much work he really did while there.
Of course, it is possible that he intentionally played dumb to be more attractive to his illiterate constituency. Some say the same thing about Sarah Palin. If you want dumb people to vote for you then you have to relate to them on their level.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you joking? How many voters do you think even know what Net Neutrality means?
I've heard people, educated people, who think it's like a Fairness Doctrine for the Internet.
Do you think Obama cares about his popularity among open source geeks?
Let's face it. As hard as it is to swallow he may have just gotten this one right.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm impressed. The first time in 3 years I've been impressed, so the bar is pretty low. But good going Obama.
Really? Getting rid of Ghadafi at very minimal cost and with 0 US lives lost didn't impress you?
No, hiring thugs and orchestrating a PR campaign to overthrow a government because it was making deals with the wrong country (China) doesn't impress me at all. Especially given that the new government looks to be even more brutal than the one that was replaced (but at least they are making deals with OUR corporations and Frances' instead of Chiner's - that's all the counts, right?)
Re:And if the OP wasn't impressed by that? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just don't let anyone know your sexual preferences.
So what you're saying is that the guy who goes on and on about his wife and kids is ok, but the guy who lets something slip about his husband and kids...
Oh, nevermind. There's no talking sense into you people. "Family values" is a sham, and it makes me sick. Real family values might mean including your child who turns out to be homosexual or transgendered in your family instead of throwing him out with your trash.
Not like I care. Turns out I didn't need my family after all, just a shame they missed out on their child buying his/her first new car and buying a home because "family values" says that someone who isn't cisgendered and heterosexual can't be part of a family. It's also why when I want canned soup or chili, I buy Campbell's exclusively, even when something else is on sale. At least Campbell's soup thinks I deserve to have a family despite being LGBTQOMGWTFBBQ and has the balls to advertise to people who aren't heterosexual and to go tell "family values" to screw off.
Re:IT'S A TRAP! (Score:5, Insightful)
How ironic, you've fallen for the trap.
Net Neutrality IS about being neutral. The only choice it makes for you is that it forces you to choose a neutral ISP, because it doesn't allow for non-neutral ones. I hope this demonstrates what a silly word game you're playing.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
What ever happened to human decency and respect for your fellow man?
What part of heading off to foreign countries to kill people you've never met because a guy in a suit told you to counts as "human decency and respect for your fellow man"?
Re:IT'S A TRAP! (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is... we can't choose ISP's in the US. I don't know where you live but I have a choice between 10/1 cable (which behaves like 8/512k) and if I'm lucky 1/128k (DSL). Verizon FiOS said they were coming for the last couple of years and we even had a petition to urge them to come but they never did.
My parents have a choice between 5/128k cable and... that's it. They can't even get cell phone reception at their house so 4G is out too.
Why do you hate the internet? (Score:2, Insightful)
Applying regulation to the internet is the gateway to further government control. A LOT of control. Oh well, we didn't care about freedom anyway I guess.
Anytime someone in the thrall of Hollywood votes on something that pertains to an open network, be afraid... be very afraid.
Re:Wow (Score:3, Insightful)
Just goes to show you that lawyers don't know everything then. Either way it is a highly debatable topic. If you get away from the opinions on legality, though, you can't argue against the morality of it. It is ironic, though, that Republicans of all people would complain about getting involved in a war.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not so sure about that. When I listen to the people who know about presidential history, they invariable say that Obama has been an exceptionally active president. Some of the accomplishments aren't amazing, for example, while he order the closure of Guantanamo, the actual closure hasn't been completed. But the list credits him for ordering the closure, not accomplishing it.
I think many Americans are upset over the economy, ideology, or skin color and refuse to give Obama credit for what he's actually done with possibly the most obstructionist congress the U.S. has ever seen. Obama has literally taken plans that the Republican party approved of and offered it as legislation, only to have them turn on it and declare it's now socialist because it has Obama-cooties.
There may some truth to the charge that Obama is a bad negotiator, that he isn't a ruthless, cold-hearted, and dangerous as his opponents. I think he's caved a few times because he feared the consequences to the American people if he stood his ground, mind you, I'm not talking about his political career but literally what would happen to the people of the United States. He may have sacrificed political victory for what he believes is the greater good on the Bush tax cuts and Debt limit. So I agree he should definitely be punished for that.
Re:Why do you hate the internet? (Score:2, Insightful)
You fell for the trap the telecoms want you to believe. Government control over the Internet is infinitely better than Big Telecom. If the government *wants* to control the Internet, they *will* do it one way or another. So, let's abandon that argument and note that the government is a lot more likely to give us freedoms than Big Business which wants to rape us of everything. What's the worst the government could do? I still have hope for this administration.
Re:IT'S A TRAP! (Score:5, Insightful)
Let Obama know of your support (Score:5, Insightful)
We need to let Obama know of our support for this action. You can kevetch and criticize other things or the timeing or the lateness, but you need to show your support (as in email to the White House) for things done right and that emboldens him to do more and take more postitive steps because he knows he is working from a supported position.
Re:Why do you hate the internet? (Score:5, Insightful)
Applying regulation to the internet is the gateway to further government control. A LOT of control.
The Internet was started by the US Department of Defense. The telecoms who currently make up most of the backbone have always had lots of regulation about what they can and can't do, and have also typically operated with subsidies to build capacity. Unix, which has formed the software basis of a huge number of Internet nodes, was created by the heavily regulated AT&T. The FCC has always had some authority to regulate Internet traffic.
Saying "Keep your government hands off my Internet!" makes about as much sense as "Keep your government hands off my Medicare!".
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean as opposed to when he had the DoJ stand down over DOMA and got DADT repealed or used a tremendous amount of political capital to get healthcare reform?
He's cared up until this point, it's just surprising hard to fight with bat shit insane.
Re:Irrelevant! Uncontructive! Let's get dangerous. (Score:4, Insightful)
>In early 2011, the operation became controversial when it was revealed that Operation Fast and Furious and other probes under Project Gunrunner had allowed guns to "walk" into the hands of Mexican drug cartels since as early as 2006.[2][3]
Emphasis mine.
So Obama was President in 2006?
--
BMO
Re:Wow (Score:2, Insightful)
Because that's the only reason, right? It had nothing to do with the revolution that sprung up by LIBYA'S OWN PEOPLE that wanted him gone. Nope, we just marched right in there and overthrew the government. Except Obama found some sinister way to make it seem as if no troops actually went into the country!
You are bat-shit crazy. Nothing you've said regarding this topic is remotely true. Go back under your rock.
Re:And if the OP wasn't impressed by that? (Score:3, Insightful)
How did you get self-loathing out his 3rd paragraph? Sounded more like bitterness against his parents b/c they kicked him out when he came out to them. "Child rejected by parents feels bitterness" might qualify for some counseling, but I don't see how self-loathing comes into it.
Neither Campbell's advertising campaign nor the change of military's position on gays ACTUALLY changed anything outside of your head
The Campbells advertising didn't change anything, but it did signal their support/acceptance/desire to profit from his lifestyle, so he returns the favor by supporting them. Seems reasonable. And revoking DADT certainly did ACTUALLY change the military. It is no longer illegal to be gay in the military. If your CO finds out you are gay (however that may occur) there are no longer official consequences. I'm not sure how that doesn't qualify as a significant difference.
People just don't give a fuck, your self loathing makes you think others care
Again with the self-loathing as a motivation for what already has very clear motivations. People just don't give a fuck? Then why did a whole organization of them (the AFA) criticize Campbells for trying to sell gay people soup? B/c they don't give a fuck about sexual orientation? Why did his parent kick him out for being gay? B/c they don't give a fuck about his sexual orientation?
You know, you try to sound like a caring person with your "You ARE an acceptable human being" line but if you really are trying to be nice, you failed. You are trying to convince this guy that nobody in society judges gay people for their sexuality, but rather all that perceived animosity is really just delusional externalizing of his own self-loathing. That is so mind-bogglingly delusional in and of itself (really, there are no anti-gay sentiments from segments of society???) that if you truly believe it, you need a 24/7 caretaker to make sure you don't hurt yourself. More likely, you're a giant asshole that wanted to see just exactly how much extra evil you could pour into the world by attacking someone you perceived as vulnerable.