Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Government Networking The Internet United States Your Rights Online

Obama To Veto Anti-Net-Neutrality Legislation 355

Posted by Soulskill
from the you-can't-not-stop-that dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Obama To Veto Anti-Net-Neutrality Legislation

Comments Filter:
  • Wow (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Hatta (162192) on Wednesday November 09, 2011 @08:14AM (#37998070) Journal

    I'm impressed. The first time in 3 years I've been impressed, so the bar is pretty low. But good going Obama.

    • Re:Wow (Score:5, Interesting)

      by migla (1099771) on Wednesday November 09, 2011 @08:31AM (#37998236)

      I'm impressed. The first time in 3 years I've been impressed, so the bar is pretty low. But good going Obama.

      It does read like unexpectedly good news. Maybe a bit too good, even?

      Is there any way this could hold up? Is it even remotely possible that white house policy would side with the interests of common people against those of whichever are the industries that have opposing interests? I'm afraid I can't believe that. I'd love to be proven overly cynical.

      If this is real, a more likely reason would be that there happens to be big enough players whose interests by chance happen to line with the common good in this particular case, at this point in history, right?

      • by elrous0 (869638) *

        Is it even remotely possible that white house policy would side with the interests of common people

        No, it's just that with the election a year away, he's decided that it's time for him to pretend to give a shit about his base.

        • Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)

          by hedwards (940851) on Wednesday November 09, 2011 @11:33AM (#38000486)

          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:Wow (Score:4, Interesting)

        by SuperCharlie (1068072) on Wednesday November 09, 2011 @09:24AM (#37998830)
        It may be that Google and Facebook, who gladly turn over any and all data and most likely are active participants in govt monitoring, trumped the 'IAA's on this one.
        • by s73v3r (963317)

          When it comes to the internet at least, I believe that Google and Facebook have my interests more at heart than the **IA's. Or at least our interests line up more than the **IA's.

      • by bjdevil66 (583941)

        Is there any way this could hold up?

        It should, at least until Jan. 2013, when a GOP president is likely to be sitting in the White House (thanks to the economy not turning around), starting to actually act upon their own "regulations are killing us," campaign rhetoric.

        • Re:Wow (Score:5, Interesting)

          by hedwards (940851) on Wednesday November 09, 2011 @11:36AM (#38000530)

          GOP isn't going to win.Obama is up in the polls and the GOP is still retreating to the right. It's shocking that Obama is presently ahead in the polls given how poorly the economy is doing. But, he did take down Osama bin Ladin, get health care reform passed and likely staved off another great depression like the Great Depression or the depression of the 1890s.

          At this point, it's mostly just the hardcore conservatives and mentally enfeebled that are still touting a GOP candidate as the winner next election. There is still quite a bit of time left before the election, but it would require a whiplash inducing flip flop for any of the current GOP candidates to win over the moderates necessary to win the election.

          • by HungWeiLo (250320)

            Very true. The current crop of GOP contenders:

            - One dealt with a state drought emergency by doing a rain dance and prayer.

            - One was found hiding behind the bushes of a gay-rights rally.

            - One actually implemented a universal health care system, before he flip flopped against it.

            - One was the CEO of a company that made pizzas that suck even by chain standards (and that's the least of his faults, as it turned out earlier this week).

            So yeah, unless Obama devours a live baby on live national TV, he'll most likel

      • I'm impressed. The first time in 3 years I've been impressed, so the bar is pretty low. But good going Obama.

        It does read like unexpectedly good news. Maybe a bit too good, even?

        ...

        If this is real, a more likely reason would be that there happens to be big enough players whose interests by chance happen to line with the common good in this particular case, at this point in history, right?

        The cynic in me keeps hoping that someday, the majority of the people will be treated like a "big player" and the "big players" will realize that screwing the majority of the people is not really good for the "big players" in the end.

    • Re:Wow (Score:4, Interesting)

      by sribe (304414) on Wednesday November 09, 2011 @08:42AM (#37998342)

      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?

      • Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Curunir_wolf (588405) on Wednesday November 09, 2011 @08:57AM (#37998490) Homepage Journal

        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?)

        • 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?)

          Right...who cares about getting a country to overthrow it's dictatorship without using our troops to force it....

          • 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?)

            Right...who cares about getting a country to overthrow it's dictatorship without using our troops to force it....

            People that don't think it's okay to kill brown people with drones and carpet bombs just to have access to oil?

      • by digitig (1056110)

        Really? Getting rid of Ghadafi at very minimal cost and with 0 US lives lost didn't impress you?

        Actually it was the French who did that, but I won't tell if you don't.

      • 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?

        He was certainly cheaper than Osama or Saddam.

      • by RoLi (141856)

        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?

        Well, yes it does impress me, but not in a good way [in-other-news.com]

    • by elrous0 (869638) *

      Don't worry. I'm sure he'll work out a compromise where the the Republicans get this bill and several other major concessions and he gets a lovely gift basket.

    • I'm impressed. The first time in 3 years I've been impressed, so the bar is pretty low. But good going Obama.

      You've got to admit his administration is doing a lousy job of PR, but please... In addition to removing insurability/wealth as a prerequisite to medical care, he's managed to do quite a bit with a (post-2010) hostile congress.

      Take a look at this list [blogspot.com] (or one of the others turned up in a quick Googling).

      • by Hatta (162192)

        That's a long list of mostly disingenuous accomplishments.

        He's even listed "Ordered the closure of the prison at Guantanamo Bay and a review of our detention and interrogation policy, and prohibited the use of torture". And yet Guantanamo is still open, and no torturer was held accountable for his crimes.

        You're really going to give Obama credit for prohibiting torture, when it was already illegal under the law? How exactly is failing to prosecute people prohibiting torture?

        The list is too long to dismant

        • Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)

          by tbannist (230135) on Wednesday November 09, 2011 @09:50AM (#37999162)

          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.

    • 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: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        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.

      • by dkleinsc (563838) on Wednesday November 09, 2011 @10:28AM (#37999640) Homepage

        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!".

    • I'd like to give him credit, but I see this more as a move to keep power in the executive branch. Obama has been as ferocious as Bush/Cheney to move authorities over to the executive and has challenged pretty much any legislation that would take power away from him. (ex: war power in Libya, Patriot Act extensions, civil liberties)
  • by GeneralTurgidson (2464452) on Wednesday November 09, 2011 @08:26AM (#37998176)
    ACTA is a Trojan horse for anti net neutrality.
    • by Lunatrik (1136121)
      I'm not sure the ACTA is exactly a Trojan horse. More a tank, with trumpets, that ALSO has anti net-neutrality hidden inside it.
  • by TheGratefulNet (143330) on Wednesday November 09, 2011 @08:27AM (#37998182)

    quoting: protections were reasonable and necessary to ensure that the Internet continues to attract investment

    I do not want it to 'attract investment'. that usually means money and business people and those are the very ones who have ruined what was an excellent and freedom-based comms medium.

    investment means 'I own this!' from some big daddy's point of view.

    that's always going to be bad.

    the more you throw those insane business-minded folks at what we have, the more they ruin it. its like farting in a pool. we don't want those guys around; they ruin everything they touch.

    when the internet was run by techies, it worked. now its well on its way to beign a segmented totally-ruined system. ALL because the money folks came in and polluted what we had. bascially they hijacked our internet as a 'sales tool' when it was SO MUCH more than that and so much more elevated in what it was accomplishing.

    10 years from now, the internet is going to be like what TV (broadcast) is now. no one intelligent will be able to stand the bullsht that it will grow to become. I cannot stand to sit in front of a tv anymore; even 1 commecial turns me off and the 'programming' is insulting at best. give the internet 10 more years at the direction its going and it will be worthless to anyone with half a brain cell.

    hope there's a new thing that we can jump to before the knuckledraggers come and ruin THAT, too.

  • I don't care your position on the matter, one way or the other. If there's a complicated rule that wasn't clearly given as a task for a regulatory body, the rule should come from Congress.

    I would rather be ruled by a democratic, if incompetent, body than a bureaucracy that has aggregated powers to itself.

    • This is a law originating from Congress... Even if the President vetoes it they can still override it with a large enough majority.

  • You mean something may actually pass both houses?
  • by StillNeedMoreCoffee (123989) on Wednesday November 09, 2011 @10:17AM (#37999492)

    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.

  • Net-Neutrality

    That's good

    Net-Neutrality Legislation

    That's... also good I guess. I forget if we want laws on this or not.

    Anti Net-Neutrality Legislation

    That's bad

    Veto Anti-Net-Neutrality Legislation

    That's... let's see. It's anti-anti-net-neutrality. The anti's cancel each other out so we're just left with... ok that's good.

    Obama To Veto Anti-Net-Neutrality Legislation

    That's also good although... wait, has Slashdot ever run a favorable Obama headline since he took office? Maybe the stem cells thing...

  • by Amigan (25469) on Wednesday November 09, 2011 @11:17AM (#38000244) Homepage
    OK, I'm confused.

    The FCC chose to re-implement rules that were already struck down by federal courts. By re-implementing something that the courts have viewed as outside the power of the FCC, it could be argued that this is a power grab. The proposed law, promised to be vetoed, is Congress' attempt to define the role that the FCC has - and codify what was already ruled upon by the courts.

    Why should the FCC have the power?

  • by neonKow (1239288) on Wednesday November 09, 2011 @12:49PM (#38001602) Journal

    Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel like title (of both the original article and the slashdot post) is misleading as the article uses very precise wording.

    The Senate measure, which mirrors the House resolution, says Congress “disapproves” of the FCC’s net neutrality rules, which “shall have no force or effect.”

    Congress, and the EFF as well, disapprove of the FCC having this sort of power over content restrictions on the internet. This power to determine what can and can't go through internet pipes (and what can't be restricted) should be restricted to the legislative branch of the government, not an agency headed by appointed members.

    This legislation is not anti-net neutrality; it is keeping the FCC's power in check, which I am all for.

    Besides the fact that the FCC doesn't have to listen to voters as much as Congress does, the net neutrality rules that the FCC wants to put into place are far from perfect, and (at some point at least; I am not up to date on the detail) it even included an exception to net neutrality rules in order to aid compliance with copyright enforcement.

    Sources:
    https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/09/net-neutrality-fcc-perils-and-promise [eff.org] (Oct 2009) - regarding FCC's drafting net neutrality rules
    https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/05/net-neutrality-fcc-trojan-horse-redux [eff.org] (May 2010) - issue revisited
    https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/01/14 [eff.org] (Jan 2010) - EFF comments on net neutrality loophole regarding blocking copyright infringement.

Thufir's a Harkonnen now.

Working...