Obama says FCC should reclassify internet as a utility

[Ykcutnek]

President Obama has come out in support of reclassifying internet service as a utility, a move that would allow the Federal Communications Commission to enforce more robust regulations and protect net neutrality. "To put these protections in place, I'm asking the FCC to reclassifying internet service under Title II of a law known as the Telecommunications Act," Obama says in a statement this morning. "In plain English, I'm asking [the FCC] to recognize that for most Americans, the internet has become an essential part of everyday communication and everyday life."

There's been a growing battle around protecting net neutrality — the principle that all internet traffic, no matter what it is or where it comes from, should be treated equally — ever since the FCC's original protections were struck down in court earlier this year. Those protections were able to be struck down because the commission didn't make the rules in a way that it actually had authority over, so it's been trying to create new rules that it will definitely be able to enforce. It hasn't chosen to use Title II so far, but net neutrality advocates, now including President Obama, have been pushing for its use.

Regulating internet service under Title II would mean reclassifying it as a utility, like water. This means that internet providers would just be pumping internet back and forth through pipes and not actually making any decisions about where the internet goes. For the most part, that's a controversial idea in the eyes of service providers alone. It means that they're losing some control over what they sell, and that they can't favor certain services to benefit their own business. Instead, providers would be stuck allowing consumers to use the internet as they want to, using whatever services they like without any penalty. If that sounds pretty great, it's because that's basically how the internet has worked up until now.

http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/10/7185933/fcc-should-reclassify-internet-as-utility-obama-says

[djean111]

1. Great idea! I will wait and see what Tom Wheeler actually does.

[Ykcutnek]

2. Hopefully he gets canned if he defies his boss. nt

[former9thward]

22. He can't get canned.

FCC commissioners serve 5 year terms. Nobody can fire them.

[appal_jack]

33. So ideally, Obama should have weighed-in sooner.

The time for Obama to have exerted influence over Net Neutrality would have been before or during the appointment process for Tom Wheeler.

Right now, Obama's words are just words. Nice words, for sure. I agree with them. But I voted in 2008 and 2012 for progressive action from my President. Getting a few nice words in 2014 is a little too little, too late.

-app

[LiberalLovinLug]

36. Exactly

I was waiting waiting waiting for something like this in his first years in office. Not only this but a much more vigorous pursuit of net neutrality assurance. But now he can brush his hands and say...I at least asked politely. Nice words. Thanks Obama.

[JDPriestly]

73. Yes. This way, Obama gets to look like he is on the right side of things. He didn't do wrong.

His appointee did. The time to find out what an appointee will decide on big issues is before you appoint them. How did Wheeler get appointed in the first place?

Wheeler is one of a number of bad Obama appointments. Paid for by the American corporation election donation machine. Wheeler should resign if he cannot stand for what the country and Obama want.

[truebluegreen]

68. <sigh> The FCC is an "Independent" Agency.

Wheeler can't get canned and Obama is not his boss.

[gordianot]

3. This would be a major accomplishment.

[kelliekat44]

42. Only if regulation of all utilities is improved and enforced. nt

[flamingdem]

4. I like that a lot

[yurbud]

19. this is a pleasant surprise

[valerief]

5. Who controls (in practical not official terms) the FCC? Would Congress have to be involved? nt

[former9thward]

24. Congress is involved.

FCC commissioners are nominated for five year terms by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Three have to be members of one party and two the other party. Their budget comes from Congress.

[valerief]

67. Fuck, so this'll never happen.

[BrotherIvan]

6. While I agree with this

Did the Administration not know that this was an important issue BEFORE the election that would get young people to the polls? This would have been great to campaign on.

[Veilex]

18. There's clearly somthing else going on that we're not privy to...

Else why did it take until after an election for Obama to come out in favor of title 2?

Perhaps this is his way of gaining additional political clout? If the FCC puts title 2
into effect, it might do exactly that, since Obama would in effect be advocating
for what the people want in this instance.

[BrotherIvan]

21. But why screw over the rest of the Democrats?

It's very strange. As usual, I don't truly understand what the President is trying to do.

[Veilex]

23. "It's very strange" - kinda is isn't it?

That's why I think there's something going on behind the scenes that we're not privy to.
For all the attempts to make Washington more transparent, its still as opaque as ever.

[BrotherIvan]

27. It sounds like the public option

Why discuss this after the election? Cruz is already shooting his mouth off. They could have pegged the Republicans as the old man party who can't move into the future and who is afraid of technology, both true. It just doesn't add up. If he's decided to do whatever he wants now with the Rs in Congress--unleashed candidate Obama--I'm all for it. But timing is what has me confused.

[Veilex]

29. "timing is what has me confused." - Agreed

[BeanMusical]

32. Maybe it's related to the TPP?

[BrotherIvan]

34. We'll see

But the US must catch up to the rest of the world in terms of internet or we will definitely be left behind. Playing politics or protecting profit at the expense of everyone else is a very dumb idea. But then again, we do that for health insurance companies.

[rhett o rick]

40. This is called empty rhetoric. He knows that the FCC isn't going to go along, but

this makes it look like he wants them to. If he really had these feeling he should have appointed someone else other than DINO Tom Wheeler.

I fear we are destined to see a lot more of this rhetoric.

[KoKo]

44. So do I...and where were Dem Candidates saying Internet should be available to all

not just those who can afford It is a "Populist/ for the Good of the Commons" message that should be supported by the Dem Party.

That no one advocated for it during the campaign says that it was considered not a "winning message" for Democrats. Meaning, Democrats aren't really in favor of it because of their funding these days. The companies want their 3 Tier System. If you are poor...stay on Dial Up or do without.

Why Now...indeed. Fluff to throw at disappointed and angry Democrats.

But, I hope that a fairer system for home users can be worked out.

[yeoman6987]

51. I am mor concerned about when they put limits on

Usage. I hope they never do that. They are talking like limiting everyone to 500 which equates to 34 hours of Netflix a month not including all the other Internet usage. That to me is scary in and of itself.

[KoKo]

70. I think that's the point..Gong after reducing BandWidth for those of us

already COMPROMISED.... That was what I was trying to say.

[Ykcutnek]

26. The CWA opposing it might have something to do with it. nt

[BrotherIvan]

30. But they have turned their backs on large unions before

Like the teacher's union.

[LiberalLovinLug]

38. Can you imagine?

If he would have asked, neigh demanded, that the FCC would be a utility service BEFORE the election. Enough time before the election that the GOP would have had their boxers in a bunch over it. Then he could have gone on a nation wide blitz speaking to college crowds about how THEIR internet would be taken out from under them if the GOP got a majority.

But its not all that simple I guess. We're all just surfing frogs. One day we will boil to death as the monopolization by 2 or 3 old money families rule where we can surf and how much it will cost us.

[ZombieHorde]

77. Yeah, it's a weird oversight.

Democrats don't understand elections.

[Nay]

87. I think they understand where their money comes from, though.

[Samantha]

78. There is potentially another angle here

Perhaps this is President Obama's delicate way of thanking the media for the biased reporting it rendered to him and the Democrats during the mid-terms. I hope so.

Sam

[BrotherIvan]

79. I hope nothing but good comes from it

I really do. We NEED to update all of our infrastructure and technology. But I'll be a little sceptic over here in my corner. I brought wine.

[Puzzledtraveller]

7. It would be bad for us, no reason to do this at all.

Keep internet FREE.

[valerief]

8. Huh? I have to pay for my internet. nt

[Plucketeer]

10. Me too

And I pay WAY TOO MUCH for the truly pathetic service I have to endure!

[drm604]

9. Can you enlarge on that?

It seems like a puzzling viewpoint. What he wants to do would keep the internet free. You seem to think the opposite.

[Veilex]

20. I think you're confused friend.

Title 2 would place broadband as a utility. Considering how important it has become to our lives,
calling it a utility would be accurate. It would also properly regulate broadband internet...and may actually
lower costs. Utilities are regulated in how prices are dealt with... and must go through a lengthily process to increase rates... more over, they are regulated to be competitive, rather than profit-motive driven, like they are now.

But don't take my word for it... take a look for yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_ratemaking

[Ykcutnek]

25. Some people make the mistake of opposing this simply because the CWA does.

I know it's hard to imagine for some, but the Communication Workers of America oppose it for selfish reasons.

[vademocrat]

11. Hopefully, this will lead to bandwidth being billed like a utility - for total usage.

Let me decide whether I use it to surf the internet, watch a movie or make a phone call. The cable & phone companies are making a fortune billing us separately for tv, internet & phone - it's the same signal coming & going whether it's carrying voice or data.

[Xithras]

15. Net neutrality doesn't impact VLAN's/VWAN's or other forms of network segmentation.

If I have a gigabit cable, I can have two VLan's running over it. One can carry the public Internet, while the other carries a private network. One wire, two networks. Regulations covering Internet services would ONLY apply to the VLAN that is carrying Internet services. If a company runs its VOIP services and television services over a non-Internet VLAN network that is simply pipe-sharing with an Internet service, the FCC would have an almost impossible job arguing that it's Internet regulations should apply to it as well. They would essentially need to declare authority over ALL network communications, public or private, in order to pull that off.

[vademocrat]

39. I understand - am merely hoping that a public discussion can begin

Once the internet is classified as a utility, perhaps we can talk about how it's delivered and what we're paying for - there is no physical reason to pay Verizon or Cox or Comcast or any of the other companies a separate fee for type of usage once the bandwidth is delivered.

Having bandwidth billed like electricity has been a pipedream of mine since the first cable splitter was installed in my house - and I could see one cable coming in the house and split inside to tv & route. I realized the cable company was billing me twice for the same signal.

[Xithras]

45. I get it, but it's an incredibly hard thing to regulate.

I expect that Net Neutrality regulations are going to run into the exact same problem.

My company has a client that makes extensive use of telepresence meetings to coordinate their various international operations. To fix some quality issues, our network guys recently segmented their LAN/WAN into multiple VLAN's/VWAN's, with packet priority given to the telepresence video network. Setting up something like that on a phone or cable line would be trivial (and they may already be doing it, for all I know), and would provide a simple way to skirt any kind of Net Neutrality regulations. "This isn't the Internet, it's a private video/audio/data/phone network for our subscribers and is exempt."

Short of the FCC declaring that it has authority over all forms of I/P networking, I just don't see how that can be regulated. Where does the "Internet" stop, and the "Private Network" start?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

12. I can already hear the Right screaming that he wants the Internet to be "Socialized".

[Enthusiast]

50. Commie Obamie

[Spitfire of ATJ]

52. They'll call it "Obama's Takeover of the Internet"....

Then claim the goal is to "indoctrinate your children" and then claim they already ARE indoctrinated which is why everyone needs to vote Republican to "protect our freedom" from "useful idiots".

[Enthusiast]

58. An Obama internet will be usefull in bringing in Sharia law and ebola.

You know, two of Obama's main goals. [URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[F4lconF16]

75. You laugh

But a mind-numbingly large chunk of our country actually believes that

I truly don't understand how you can possibly be that stupid and survive past the age of 6

[Spitfire of ATJ]

92. These people honestly believe voting and prayer have the same supernatural power over reality...

They believe they can pray for rain and vote away global warming.

Trying to tell them otherwise and you are the Devil challenging their faith and they are warriors for God's Own Party......and every one of these pod people SWEARS they are "rugged individualists" who think for themselves.

[RufusTFirefly]

89. Horrible! Almost like the streets in our neighborhoods! Armageddon is approaching!

I take a road to get to my local brick-and-mortar grocery store. I take the Internet to get to an online store. Both routes should be taxpayer supported and open to all.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

93. During the Health Care debate I said,...

"Eventually we will think of government run health care the way we think of government run street lights."

[RufusTFirefly]

94. You mean "socialized street lights," don't you??? n/t

[Spitfire of ATJ]

95. Not really, some of my best socializing has been parked far away from those things in the dark.

[cprise]

13. I knew my sig would have an effect

[Xithras]

14. I'm on the fence with this one.

There is a reason why Title II support hasn't been pursued before now. A robust Congressional act to ensure net neutrality would have been far preferable to a utility declaration.

The problem with a utility declaration is that it puts the Internet solidly under the FCC's control. They can potentially regulate it just like broadcast TV or any other type of utility. The problem? Let's say a Republican wins in 2016, or 2020, or 2024. The Republican controlled FCC will have the power to pass regulations on the Internet without Congressional approval. If the FCC decides to ban porn on the Internet, they merely need to pass a regulation to ban it (the same way they ban porn on broadcast TV). You may not care about porn, but imagine the possibilities when a Republican administration is given carte blanche to pass regulations controlling the Internet, and the only recourse for the American people is to go to court and fight for injunctions to stop them.

I am 100% for net neutrality, but I don't think that redefining it as a utility is the proper way to go about getting it. It's a short term win, with some serious long term negative implications.

[Jesus Malverde]

28. Good catch..nt

[Xyzse]

48. Interesting view point.

Thanks for pointing that out.

[lumberjack_jeff]

57. Given the choice of government regulation or comcast regulation, I prefer the former. n/t

[Xithras]

61. Giving Republicans the ability to regulate the Internet without going through Congress....

...could end up being much worse for us in the long haul.

The FCC can impose regulations at will and with only token public input, at the directive of whomever is in the White House at the moment. The only way they can be overridden is to either take them to court and prove that the regulations are unconstitutional, or to get Congress to pass a bill to override them (which would require the signature of the very White House that ordered the regulations...not going to happen).

If you're telling me that the only way we can get Net Neutrality is to place the entire Internet under the absolute control of some politician and bureaucrats, then we're fucked either way.

And it's a joke to think that the media companies won't just grease a few Republican palms to have the FCC pass new regs authorizing packet prioritization the next time they get power anyway. If one White House has the power to arbitrarily impose net neutrality, the next one has the right to impose new regs giving them the ability to remove it. Only this time, instead of calling your congressperson to complain about the bill, you won't get a voice at all, because unlike your congressperson, the FCC doesn't answer to voters.

[Ampersand Unicode]

63. Nothing should be "banned" from viewing, short of CP, animal-crush, and rape and snuff films.

If you don't like it, change the channel or close the browser. We have freedom of speech in this country. The FCC (a government agency) shouldn't be allowed to "ban" anything that makes the pearl-clutchers wince. Dicks and titties for everyone!

Also, the double standard: Why is it that the George Carlin words and Janet Jackson's boobs are considered offensive but not the N-word or the pejorative NFL team name? Everybody fucks; you wouldn't be alive without fucking, and consensual fucking doesn't harm anyone. Racial epithets are hurtful, though. So why is "fuck" bad and "n*r" OK?

[Xithras]

64. You misunderstand. I don't want ANYTHING banned. But the Repubs do.

This change would give them the power to do that the next time we have a Rethug president. Once the Internet is declared a utility under FCC authority, the President will be given regulatory control over it. That may be fine when we have Democrats in the White House, but that won't always be the case.

In 2012, the US Supreme Court declined to review its 1978 ruling (FCC vs. Pacifica) granting the FCC legal authority to regulate "incecency". The Court stated that the FCC had the authority to prohibit broadcasts when needed in order to protect children and society, and gave the FCC broad leeway to determine what constituted indecency in different contexts. If the FCC wants to ban something, they don't have to go to Congress for permission and can simply issue an immediate ban. If Congress doesn't like it, they have to pass a law to specifically curtail that action.

If the FCC is placed in charge of the Internet, it's foolish to think that the Repubs won't take advantage of that regulatory ability the next time they're in power. Remember, these are the same Repubs who manipulated the same FCC rulemaking ability to eliminate the Fairness Doctrine and create todays Hate Radio networks. Do we REALLY want to give them the same power over the Internet?

[Nay]

88. This is interesting -- so, knowing this, why would Pres Obama suggest

that the Internet should be declared a utility? What possible reason could he have for wanting this? Does ANYONE give Mr Obama advice on this stuff? I have to think he gets all the info, but WTH?

[joshcryer]

82. Possible, but would harm status quo.

Over the air broadcasts are free, anyone can view them. You still have to pay for a cable or internet subscription.

If that happened and we had a proper SCOTUS then it wouldn't pass muster from a status quo perspective. It would fall under more of a state PUC (public utilities commission) type of umbrella.

[RufusTFirefly]

90. Excellent point! +1 n/t

[ballyhoo]

97. Your post is the best here. It will be regulated like TV, etc, but

to a greater extent. The freedom will be gone just under a different regulator. The Fascist that own government now have to have a way to control our every thought. Once the government takes over the Internet, it will be simply a matter of time before you start seeing political "big brother" type commercials. Here in DU people talk constantly about their loss of freedoms, for this for that, whatever...But these same people think that with the Internet it will somehow be different--this will be the new nirvana. What Obama is trying to do is no different that what he's been doing since 2009: to do what his fascist oligarchs have instructed him. We are living in 1984 30 years past due. And that's the name of that tune. Doubt it? Watch what happens.

[SpankMe]

16. Internet access should be no-cost or low cost

It is correct that the 'net has become an indispensable part of life for most people. Almost no one can get along without it. It should be free to everyone - or provided at very low cost as a government-supported utility. And, at the fastest speed possible. The money can then be made on what business *does* over the internet.

My analogy would be roads and highways. These are supported by taxes of various stripes and we all get to use them at any time and at will. Companies then use the roads to ship goods, and we use the roads to go out and buy those goods. Effectively "free" highway infrastructure enables tons of economic activity. I think fast broadband Internet for free would do the same.

[Enthusiast]

53. I'm with you!

If the internet had been created back in the 1950s or 1960s it would have been just as you describe. But now, with corporate interests dominating the "democracy", we are living in a different age.

[Ampersand Unicode]

62. Ike created DARPA

The government agency that created the Internet.

So it makes sense that the Internet should be a publicly-funded "superhighway" system. After all, Ike authorized the physical highway project too.

But then again... a lot of people back then said that he was a "commie" too.

[RufusTFirefly]

91. Completely agree! I made a similar point above before realizing you'd already expressed it well.

[Doctor_J]

17. I like it

I wonder why he waited until the senate was GOP

[Enthusiast]

54. I wonder why..........

[Doctor_J]

76. There will probably be a lot of liberal-sounding bluster from Obama and Reid and Pelosi

now that there's no chance of any of it happening. Makes for a lot of rec's and high-5's at DU though.

[eridani]

31. So email whitehouse.gove and let him know you approve n/t

[JEFF9K]

35. WHY DIDN'T OBAMA DO THIS BEFORE THE ELECTION?

[Enthusiast]

55. Because it's just as many of us have said all along.

That is all.

[NorthCarolina]

85. Because he might have had to actually deliver then. Now he's got a Congress he can work with,

and the added benefit of being able to don the populist speak without fear of having to make good on it. Politics as usual.

[Flatulo]

37. This is a smart move. Who can live without the net these days?

I doubt the Rs will go along... I think they'd be much happier selling off bandwidth to the highest bidder.

[stuffmatters]

41. Obama should have said this LAST Monday- it would have brought out youth voters

I wondered throughout the election why net neutrality was buried/ignored by all the Dems campaigns. The Repubs in the House already have voted for a tiered internet...so it was a wide open, unchallenged Republican stance that could have enthused their opposition to turnout and vote.

Too bad Obama didn't bring it up last week, it's such a vital issue for our democracy. It really needs to be emphasized as a Democratic position by our party. Part of our message that never got messaged.

[grahamhgreen]

43. Kudos on this one! He has some power here to force that decision, let's hope he uses it.

[rhett o rick]

46. He is telling the FCC they "should" do the right thing. How much is that worth, really?

His hand picked chair along with the Republicans don't want it.

[ashling]

47. Ted Cruz Calls Net Neutrality 'Obamacare For The Internet'

I was just about to post this link as it's own thread when I saw your post

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ted-cruz-net-neutrality-obamacare

[Enthusiast]

49. I think it's a trick.

[lumberjack_jeff]

56. Dude. Like you couldn't have said this three weeks ago? n/t

[blkmusclmachine]

59. Obama says one thing, but means another thing.

[PatrynXX]

60. Well when (the big ) cables companies push

we can shove back. Shoulda left well enough alone.

[samsingh]

65. this kind of passion from the President would have been fantastic before the mid terms

[spanone]

66. k&r...

[gcomeau]

71. FFS...

Making it a utility renders it, by law, equal access. This is the best possible course to take if you want net neutrality maintained.

[JDPriestly]

72. Good news! But I do not trust Obama on this issue.

Obama should be framing this as the internet is part of the commons (as the television and other bands for which the US sells the licenses to providers like NBC) that belongs to
all Americans. Private companies should be limited as to the extent to which they can determine who has priority in using it.

Also, Obama should talk about this issue as one of economic, racial, religious, etc. justice. This is a justice issue, not a money issue.

Small businesses should have the same right to access and priority on the internet as do the big paying conglomerates.

[KoKo]

84. "Obama should be framing this as the internet is part of the commons..."

Quote you:

"Also, Obama should talk about this issue as one of economic, racial, religious, etc. justice. This is a justice issue, not a money issue.

Small businesses should have the same right to access and priority on the internet as do the big paying conglomerates."

[YOHABLO]

74. The way I see it, if we lose net neutrality than the game really is over. They'll steam roll

progressives.

[SunSeeker]

80. Fuck yes! nt

[nikto]

81. If Obama really feels that way, then...

WHY the heck does he put in Corporate-lobbyist types in the FCC in the 1st place?

[NorthCarolina]

83. Exactly.

Because there is no substance in his words. The new GOP Congress is highly unlikely to give him what he wants, even less so than now. Time to flex a little populist speak for public consumption, since it's guaranteed none of his newly found populist speak will be adopted by the GOP held congress, why not? Washington critters laugh at the voters I'm sure, as they line their pockets with cash from those they truly do support. Trading votes for gold...it's the (new) American way.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

86. Yes. Smart!

Thankful he keeps pushing forward, even in the face of a nation full of hateful idiots and evil (truly. Evil.), murdering robber-barons.

[librechik]

96. Yes, please!