NET NEUTRALITY Supported By President Obama

[Segami]

Lets refresh and remind the promises made.

[Segami]

1. NOVEMBER 14, 2007 MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA ......

"......I will take a back seat to no one in my commitment to Network Neutrality.

Once providers start to privilege some applications or websites over others, then the smaller voices get squeezed out and we all lose...."

Presidential Candidate Barack Obama

[msanthrope]

9. January 14, 2014--Net Neutrality struck by the DC Circuit Court.....

http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/3AF8B4D938CDEEA685257C6000532062/$file/11-1355-1474943.pdf

You know, I've asked quite a few brilliant minds to create a draft rule that addresses that ruling while preserving Net Neutrality....

No one has taken me up on the challenge.

How about you????

[Segami]

13. I'm not a brilliant mind,..

so I will pass on your challenge.

Having said that, do you believe Tom Wheeler ( a former telecom lobbyist mouthpiece) is protecting net neutrality and the future integrity of the free and open internet or is he " preparing a push to pass new rules that would allow the nation's Giant Telecom internet providers to create a two-tiered, two-speed internet by allowing corporations to pay for privileged access to broadband "fast lanes,"? Is this move in the public's best interest or does it serve the corporate interests of the giant Telecoms?

[msanthrope]

16. Well, the problem is that the January ruling allowed just that...a two tiered system. Take a look

at Netflix's response....they paid up. I agree we are getting screwed.

But we aren't getting screwed by President Obama and his pick at the FCC....who are pushing now for more and more municipal broadband to truly combat the telecoms.

Congress could fix this, if we had the votes. But the thing is, a federal agency must follow the law.

[merrily]

26. Allowed is very different from required.

[msanthrope]

27. And your point would be what? nt

[merrily]

28. The comment speaks for itself.

[msanthrope]

29. No--it really doesn't. If you have a citation from the court decision that explains

what you mean, please post it.

[merrily]

31. Court opinion saying allowed is different from required? LOL!

[msanthrope]

33. I still don't understand your point....can you clarify what you are saying? nt

[merrily]

34. It's not esoteric. It means what it says.

I think a fifth grader should be able to understand that comment, so this is my final reply on that matter.

[demwing]

35. you'v now spent as much energy laughing at the question

as you would have just answering

[merrily]

36. Wrong. I laughed at the request for a quote from the court explaining it.

And I answered her quite a few times. Sorry if you and/or misanthrope cannot accept the answer.

She said the court allowed a two tier system. I said Required is different from allowed. What the hell is so hard to grasp?

[demwing]

40. No, you've missed it again.

we all know WHAT you said, all that was requested was an explanation of why?

And even if you think it was self-evident, someone disagreed, and asked for clarification. Will it hurt if you respond?

[merrily]

58. ....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024877886

[merrily]

57. ....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024877886

[merrily]

25. Ummmm

S

TATEMENT BY FCC CHAIRMAN TOM WHEELER ON

THE FCC’S OPEN INTERNET RULES

FEBRUARY 19, 2014
In its Verizon v. FCC decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
invited the Commission to act to preserve a free and open Internet. I intend to accept that invitation by
proposing rules that will meet the court’s test for preventing improper blocking of and discrimination
among Internet traffic, ensuring genuine transparency in how Internet Service Providers manage traffic,
and enhancing competition. Preserving the Internet as an open platform for innovation and expression
while providing certainty and predictability in the marketplace is an important responsibility of this
agency.

The D.C. Circuit ruled that the FCC has the legal authority to issue enforceable rules of the road to
preserve Internet freedom and openness. It affirmed that Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of
1996 gives the FCC authority to encourage broadband deployment by, among other things, removing
barriers to infrastructure deployment, encouraging innovation, and promoting competition. The court
recognized the importance of ensuring that so-called “edge providers,” those that use the network to
deliver goods and services, can reach people who use the Internet. And it upheld the Commission's
judgment that Internet freedom encourages broadband investment and that its absence could ultimately
inhibit broadband deployment.

More at http://www.fcc.gov/document/statement-fcc-chairman-tom-wheeler-fccs-open-internet-rules

[sabrina 1]

43. Intelligent people don't cater to childish games, you should know that by now. What you are doing

is ignoring the 'brilliant minds' who apparently never foresaw any possible attempts to attack net neutrality, believing they could ensure no such thing would happen. See OP.

Fyi, this was ALREADY an issue BEFORE that election, which is why it WAS AN ISSUE during the Campaign.

Have you asked the President for his plans to address the ruling?

And btw, several people have already addressed this, for years. Which is why your 'challenge' is being ignored being that it is clear what you were trying to do, distract from the fact that WE ELECTED DEMS to end this and were promised that they would FIGHT for Net Neutrality.

Here's how that panned out. The same President who made that promise, appointed a Republican Cable Lobbyist to head the FCC who has now WRITTEN NEW RULES regarding the issue.

What btw, are YOU doing to stop it, assuming you DON'T agree with ending Net Neutrality which is hard to tell.

[msanthrope]

46. You seem perturbed. Are you upset about the other thread? nt

[Scuba]

53. That's pathetic. You should be ashamed.

[sabrina 1]

56. I assumed you were very perturbed to post it. No need to be perturbed

at all. The solution is obviously not to appoint people to a Dem Cabinet who have an obvious conflict of interest.

[joshcryer]

49. Reclassifying ISPs as Common Carriers.

Fun times.

There was a huge push for it during the open comment period under" proceeding 14-28": http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment_search/execute?proceeding=14-28

[Autumn]

2. That was then.

recommended.

[warrprayer]

3. ummmm....

doesn't look to me like that is the position of the F.C.C..

[Segami]

4. They stacked the FCC with former Comcast and Verizon Attorneys....

The game is rigged......

http://www.vice.com/read/former-comcast-and-verizon-attorneys-now-manage-the-fcc-and-are-about-to-kill-the-internet

[warrprayer]

5. Yep

[sabrina 1]

44. Yes, Wheeler is a former Cable Lobbyist, now head of the FCC.

[bvar22]

6. That is what he SAYS.

This is what he DOES.

[font size=3]Obama appoints industry insider to head the FCC[/font]
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024521140

[pa28]

15. +1

[sabrina 1]

47. Sssshhhh, you're not supposed to be pointing these out. What you are supposed to do

is come up with your OWN RULES.

It gets more and more ridiculous here on DU every day. Hardly worth the effort to click on to read the childish attempts to defend, to distract, anything that might make people wonder why we elected Democrats only to end up with Corporate tools in almost every part of the Government.

[840high]

48. +2

[Jefferson23]

55. So troubling, and the consequences will not likely be good. n/t

[msanthrope]

7. Indeed---explain how Net Neutraility and this decision are to be reconciled?

http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/3AF8B4D938CDEEA685257C6000532062/$file/11-1355-1474943.pdf

[rhett o rick]

19. First you explain where you stand on this issue. I support net neutrality

and I refuse to believe that "their hands are tied". Maybe, just maybe chairman Wheeler doesnt have his heart in achieving net neutrality. Probably a good job waiting for him at Comcast. Thomas "Mr. Revolving Door" Wheeler.

[msanthrope]

21. I already did, upthread, and in other threads. But I will repeat myself.

I think municipal broadband is the only way to achieve true Net Neutrality. I think Verizon is screwing us all, and I think that at some point, Americans needs to collectively decide that our information services---our tv/cable/phone/Internet should not be subject to the whims of the market. Knowledge is power, and currency in a democracy.

[rhett o rick]

22. I am sorry I missed your up thread post. Thanks for your thoughts.

I agree with this, "I think that at some point, Americans needs to collectively decide that our information services---our tv/cable/phone/Internet should not be subject to the whims of the market. Knowledge is power, and currency in a democracy."

I am very skeptical of Thomas Wheeler and others that are utilizing the revolving door for personal gain.

[msanthrope]

24. Wheeler is actually a pretty decent guy, and very knowledgeable. But the problem we face in all

government agencies is that specialized knowledge is required to fulfill certain jobs....thus creating a revolving door between private industries and public jobs.

This can be advantageous if you are talking about people who are dedicated to public service, but may wish to spend time in other areas--for example, the non-profit worker who provides services to minorities, or is part of an advocacy group for the homeless taking a government job at HHS. Technically....that's an "industry insider" taking a government job.

The revolving door is not the problem....it's the intention of the people we hire.

[Lasher]

52. Municipal broadband is not a viable alternative.

If I were a cable industry lobbyist, I would be encouraging people to spin their wheels on municipal broadband in order to distract them from the real issue at hand. The ISP lobby has already won limits on public broadband in 20 states and similar legislation will continue to proliferate.

[piratefish08]

8. he's evolved on the issue.

[Obnoxious_One]

10. Shhhh we're busy making sure that the Patriot Act is allowed to sunset

and that whistleblowers are provided ample protections so that we can't have the most transparent administration ever.

[whatchamacallit]

11. Hire a subordinate with the desired agenda to tie your hands

More Obama administration kabuki.

[pa28]

12. He called Tom Wheeler "The Bo Jackson of telecommunication"

If he's so versatile you would think he use his power to re-classify broadband and protect net neutrality in the public interest.

Instead, when you hire a lobbyist to run a government agency you get a hall of fame performance for giant telecom companies. Wheeler is going to have a giant payday waiting for him on the other side of the revolving door.

[jtuck004]

14. I read things like this and I am more convinced than ever

that Obama would make a much better replacement for David Letterman than Stephen Colbert. I think he has shown what he could do with such a platform, and I think he deserves it.

And it would be a step up from that palm tree show he did.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. New book: The Audacity of Chang....ing Promises

[Swede Atlanta]

18. We aren't there yet but within 10 years reasonable broadband should be a commodity....

It took nearly 100 years for voice communications by telephone to become commoditized. Perhaps part of what finally drove that was the telecom industry was willing to allow that to become a staple because they could focus on growing revenues for internet and related services.

But at some point, dependable high-speed internet service is going to become as necessary and commonplace as electricity, water, etc.

Then it becomes a commodity and is part of the basic infrastructure of our society.

I have no problem with the idea that the more you use, whether it is bandwidth, etc. the more you pay. That is consistent with how we pay for electricity, water, etc.

[rhett o rick]

20. I think you missed the boat. "I have no problem with the idea that the more you use, whether it is

bandwidth, etc. the more you pay. That is consistent with how we pay for electricity, water, etc." How do you feel if Comcast charges more for low use? Or if they decide to charge possible competitors, like Netflix, more? The worry is that given the power, Comcast will have a very powerful tool to mold the message.

[bvar22]

23. In a Democracy, some things should never be "comoditized" (privatized).

*Education (No Publicly Funded Private *Charter* Schools)

*Prisons

*Voting (no private, secret coded Voting Machines)

*Military (no armed "Private" contractors)

*Police

*Access to Health Care

[font size=3]FDR Economic Bill of Rights[/font]

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be[font size=3] established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.[/font]

Among these are:

*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

*The right of every family to a decent home;

*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

*The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

[font size=3]America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.[/font]

Please note that the above are stipulated as Basic Human RIGHTS to be protected by our government,
and NOT as COMMODITIES to be SOLD to Americans by For Profit Corporations.

[Enthusiast]

50. +1! Thank you, bvar22!

[Armstead]

30. Free market bullshit

A lot of people CAN'T afford electricity. Water is (so far) low cost enough enough to not be an issue in most places because it is provided as a public service, not a commodity.

So you want a society where the poor and moderate income can only use the Internet to pay their bills or contact the police because it has become the basic means of electronic communication but the Corporate Pirates and Slimy Investors have their stranglehold?

That's BULLSHIT right wing drivel.

[Armstead]

32. I wish his backbone were as strong as his tongue

[merrily]

39. Ironic to have so many videos on a thread about the FCC's decisions on net neutrality.

[merrily]

41. First, please see Reply 25, from the statement of the chair of the FCC

on the January 2014 court opinion. The FCC chair does not seem to think the court ruling inhibited him.

Second, please see this brief article. http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2014/04/the-end-of-net-neutrality.html

While certain posters, including msanthrope, have claimed it is not correct, the author is a law professor--you know, the people who teach lawyers how to be lawyers-- and former advisor to the FCC. So, you can decide for yourself whose view to accept.

Next, consider how many industry lobbyists were brought into the FCC under the Obama administration, including Chair chair Wheeler, a former lobbyist for the industry and an Obama fundraiser, who had said he was not opposed to who was opposed to prioritization of traffic, aka known as NOT net neutrality.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2013/05/tom--wheeler-federal-communications-commission.html

Obama could have chosen a fierce advocate for net neutrality to head the FCC. He did not.

There's more than one way to skin a cat and more than one way to break a promise.

[Jefferson23]

42. *Obama could have chosen a fierce advocate for net neutrality to head the FCC. He did not.

That is lost on some, but not many.

[Segami]

60. Thanks for the links merrily!

[merrily]

61. You're welcome Segami.

[Jefferson23]

45. Friendly reminder, Net Neutrality 101:

ACLU

Q. To what extent is government regulation required to ensure #NetNeutrality?

- @joshdmiller



A. Either the FCC or Congress has to take action, or the companies that hook us up to the Internet are under zero legal obligation to comply with net neutrality principles. Throughout most of the past decade things were a lot more unclear – and that helped to keep the companies honest, because they didn’t want to bring the FCC down on their heads. But this past April, a court decision decisively struck down the FCC’s authority to enforce net neutrality, under the legal umbrella that the FCC was using at that time. The FCC commissioners can fix that if they want by changing to a new legal footing, but they haven’t acted yet.



Q. Why is the ACLU bothering with Net Neutrality?

- Multiple Comments



A. Net neutrality is one of the foremost free speech issues of our time, and defense of free speech was the founding mission of the ACLU and has remained at the core of our organization. The Internet is a supernova of free speech – it’s where most people exercise their right to free expression today – and boy do they! The ACLU always has and always will fight fiercely to defend online speech. We have been engaged on this issue for at least a decade.



It’s true that the First Amendment protects against censorship from the government, not from private parties. But if a few big companies are threatening the openness of the Internet as a forum for speech, it is crucial that policymakers protect that openness, for all the same reasons that free speech is important in the first place (such as, the right to express oneself, the right to organize, to tell truth to power, to criticize others, and to engage in democratic conversation and debate).



Q. Have any telecom companies actually restricted user's access to particular web sites, or is this just a hypothetical problem?

- @joselinder



A: There are numerous examples of abuses. We detail a bunch in our recent net neutrality report, which can be found at http://bit.ly/d5UQ28. To pick just two examples, Comcast was found to be throttling online file-sharing using the BitTorrent application and others. This blocking was not related to network congestion – the blocking took place even when there was plenty of network capacity. Critics pointed out that BitTorrent is often used to distribute videos (sometimes illegally, but often perfectly legally) and Comcast hopes to sell online video itself, raising the question of whether Comcast was trying to stifle competition.



In another case, a Canadian Internet Service Provider blocked all its customers from accessing a web site maintained by a union that was involved in a labor dispute with the ISP. This incident was in Canada but shows just the kind of behavior that all Internet providers are tempted to engage in, if they are not stopped from doing so by strong protections.



We have good theoretical reasons to believe that net neutrality violations will be a problem if the government doesn’t put protections in place – the fact that companies have 1) the technological ability, and 2) the financial incentive to engage in such abuses is all anyone really needs to know. But yes, there have definitely been real-world abuses already.



Q. How likely is this to go to the Supreme Court for a decision? If so, what do you think the chances are of a ruling in "our" favor?

- Maria Stephan Wooldridge



A. We’re a long way from a Supreme Court decision on net neutrality but it is possible. First, the FCC would have to act as we are calling upon them to do, and impose basic “common carrier” protections on the Internet. Then an incident of FCC using its powers would have to take place, which an ISP would sue over, and it would have to work its way up.



The Supreme Court did weigh in on the net neutrality issue once already. In 2002, the Bush-era FCC decided to regulate high-speed internet services as an “information service” instead of as a “telecommunications service.” This flew in the face of common sense and good policy, and a number of groups challenged that classification. The Supreme Court, relying on longstanding legal doctrines that encourage the judiciary to defer to the executive branch on such discretionary matters unless it’s totally unreasonable, declined to step in and tell the FCC that it could not classify the Internet in that way. The case was called NCTA v. Brand X.



Q. How is this a violation of 1st Amendment protections of free speech? The text is pretty clear that congress (government) cannot limit the free exercise of speech. So I'm curious has to how the ACLU sees Verizon or AT&T as the government? I agree that Net Neutrality is a noble endeavor but I'm not seeing a free speech issue here.

- Ramey Bowen

https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=450537611905

[Enthusiast]

51. We certainly can't rely on the supreme court to rule in favor of consumers/regular citizens.

The "justices" are without integrity.

[Jefferson23]

54. No, we can't..my purpose to post the info was more about clearing up any confusion anyone

might have on the topic.

Card carrying ACLU member here.

[Enthusiast]

59. I appreciate your help.

I don't have a card to carry but I have donated to the ACLU in the past.