Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


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

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.'"
This discussion has been archived.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 @09:14AM (#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.

  • by GeneralTurgidson ( 2464452 ) on Wednesday November 09, 2011 @09:26AM (#37998176)
    ACTA is a Trojan horse for anti net neutrality.
  • Re:Wow (Score:5, Interesting)

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

  • Re:Wow (Score:4, Interesting)

    by sribe ( 304414 ) on Wednesday November 09, 2011 @09:42AM (#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:4, Interesting)

    by SuperCharlie ( 1068072 ) on Wednesday November 09, 2011 @10:24AM (#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.
  • Re:IT'S A TRAP! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gfxguy ( 98788 ) on Wednesday November 09, 2011 @10:31AM (#37998898)

    I used to think that net-neutrality was anti-free market, and I'm generally against new regulations (and many old ones) that violate free market principles. Then I thought about it for a while, and came to an interesting conclusion... Netflix is not Comcast's customer, I am. I pay for the bandwidth, I have an agreement with Comcast, and I want that bandwidth used for downloading content from Netflix.

    So the question occurs to me: by what right would Comcast have in charging Netflix a premium, or throttling content from Netflix, when it's Comcast's own customers that are requesting that content using the bandwidth they've already paid for by agreement with Comcast?

    Imagine a city that wants to charge Walmart extra because so many people are using the roads to get there instead of charging the people actually using the roads... it makes no sense.

    Now if I'm being a bandwidth hog, then Comcast needs to talk to me... not the entity I'm requesting the bandwidth from. It's certainly anti-consumer to sell unlimited bandwidth at certain speeds and then throttle or charge extra for it. It's anti-consumer to sell certain speeds even with a bandwidth limit and throttle content when I haven't hit that limit yet.

    On top of all that, charging content providers that compete against your own content is definitely anti-free market. I don't like a lot of regulations, it's true, but the ones that keep the free market free are fine by me; anti-monopoly, anti-lockout, anti-price fixing, anti-collusion... and when you're talking about an entity that was allowed right of way (and even monopoly status way back when they started to create their infrastructure - and in many cases maintains that broadband monopoly), it makes it even more compelling that they remain neutral w.r.t. content providers.

  • Re:Wow (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Hatta ( 162192 ) on Wednesday November 09, 2011 @10:38AM (#37999016) Journal

    What republicans complained? The only person willing to actually do anything about the President's criminal war was Dennis Kucinich. He actually introduced a bill calling for the President to obey the War Powers Act. Republicans killed the bill [opencongress.org] when it appeared it might pass. Republicans wanted the war as much as they want every other war, they just don't want to support Obama publicly.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 09, 2011 @10:43AM (#37999070)

    Obama is faced with reversing eight full years of extensive Bush/Republican wreckage!

    My theory is that Obama wants to help America go in a sane and good direction, but that he knows that only four years as president would not be enough time to accomplish his goals, and that being followed by a Republican president would totally sabotage whatever progress Obama had made.

    So, Obama does what he can to accomplish positive results for America, but cannot risk losing a second term.

    I'm hoping that Obama gets a second term and then feels more comfortable advocating changes to government to improve circumstances for the average citizen.

    But perhaps Obama really is beholden to big businesses (e.g., copyright and intellectual property holders), bankers, and government itself (e.g., protecting fellow politicians and bureaucrats from the citizens, instead of the other way around; and caring more about supporting government powers instead of supporting the rights of citizens).

  • Re:IT'S A TRAP! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mcgrew ( 92797 ) * on Wednesday November 09, 2011 @10:49AM (#37999142) Homepage Journal

    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.

    I can choose Comcast or AT&T. Not much of a choice. I don't want either one of them regulating the internet -- regulation is government's job. If I don't like the FCC's regulations I can vote against the curent Chief Executive. If I don't like AT&T's or Comcast's "regulations" I have no recourse whaever.

    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

    That makes no sense to me whatever. How do FCC regs prevent me from switching to Comcast from AT&T (again, my only two choices)?

    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.

    How in the hell did your comment get modded up? "At the state or local level" means state and local GOVERNMENTS. And the feds do have constitutional authority to ban incandescents under the Commerce Clause. And your inflamatory rhetoric shows either your ignorance or your dishonesty; Far from being "full of mercury", CFLs have less mercury than is released by a coal-fired generator providing the extra power needed for the incandescant.

    Net Neutrality, in most cases, is a code-word for 'regulation of the Internet'.

    Wrong again, son. Net Neutrality says that ISPs must pass any data you request from any data provider you request it from. It's so Comcast can't restrict you from going to Hulu or CBS.COM or YouTube, which they would gladly do to get you to sign up for cable. Net Neutrality doesn't regulate YOU, it regulates your ISP. It prevents your ISP from fucking you over.

    I'll bet you were all for California deregulating the power companies (like them blackouts and brownouts?) and the Feds deregulating the banking industry (how's your 401k? Hows the value of your home?).

  • Re:Wow (Score:5, Interesting)

    by hedwards ( 940851 ) on Wednesday November 09, 2011 @12:36PM (#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.

"Mach was the greatest intellectual fraud in the last ten years." "What about X?" "I said `intellectual'." ;login, 9/1990