• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Net Neutrality: President Obama's Plan for a Free and Open Internet

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
Status
Not open for further replies.

'Cuda340

Very Welcoming Senior, Premium Member #11
Joined
May 30, 2004
Location
[email protected]
.
More than any other invention of our time, the Internet has unlocked possibilities we could just barely imagine a generation ago. And here's a big reason we've seen such incredible growth and innovation: Most Internet providers have treated Internet traffic equally. That's a principle known as "net neutrality" — and it says that an entrepreneur's fledgling company should have the same chance to succeed as established corporations, and that access to a high school student's blog shouldn't be unfairly slowed down to make way for advertisers with more money.

That's what President Obama believes, and what he means when he says there should be no gatekeepers between you and your favorite online sites and services.

And as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) considers new rules for how to safeguard competition and user choice, we cannot take that principle of net neutrality for granted. Ensuring a free and open Internet is the only way we can preserve the Internet's power to connect our world. That's why the President has laid out a plan to do it, and is asking the FCC to implement it.

Watch President Obama explain his plan, then read his statement and forward it on.





The President's Statement

An open Internet is essential to the American economy, and increasingly to our very way of life. By lowering the cost of launching a new idea, igniting new political movements, and bringing communities closer together, it has been one of the most significant democratizing influences the world has ever known.

“Net neutrality” has been built into the fabric of the Internet since its creation — but it is also a principle that we cannot take for granted. We cannot allow Internet service providers (ISPs) to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas. That is why today, I am asking the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to answer the call of almost 4 million public comments, and implement the strongest possible rules to protect net neutrality.

When I was a candidate for this office, I made clear my commitment to a free and open Internet, and my commitment remains as strong as ever. Four years ago, the FCC tried to implement rules that would protect net neutrality with little to no impact on the telecommunications companies that make important investments in our economy. After the rules were challenged, the court reviewing the rules agreed with the FCC that net neutrality was essential for preserving an environment that encourages new investment in the network, new online services and content, and everything else that makes up the Internet as we now know it. Unfortunately, the court ultimately struck down the rules — not because it disagreed with the need to protect net neutrality, but because it believed the FCC had taken the wrong legal approach.

The FCC is an independent agency, and ultimately this decision is theirs alone. I believe the FCC should create a new set of rules protecting net neutrality and ensuring that neither the cable company nor the phone company will be able to act as a gatekeeper, restricting what you can do or see online. The rules I am asking for are simple, common-sense steps that reflect the Internet you and I use every day, and that some ISPs already observe. These bright-line rules include:

No blocking. If a consumer requests access to a website or service, and the content is legal, your ISP should not be permitted to block it. That way, every player — not just those commercially affiliated with an ISP — gets a fair shot at your business.
No throttling. Nor should ISPs be able to intentionally slow down some content or speed up others — through a process often called “throttling” — based on the type of service or your ISP’s preferences.
Increased transparency. The connection between consumers and ISPs — the so-called “last mile” — is not the only place some sites might get special treatment. So, I am also asking the FCC to make full use of the transparency authorities the court recently upheld, and if necessary to apply net neutrality rules to points of interconnection between the ISP and the rest of the Internet.
No paid prioritization. Simply put: No service should be stuck in a “slow lane” because it does not pay a fee. That kind of gatekeeping would undermine the level playing field essential to the Internet’s growth. So, as I have before, I am asking for an explicit ban on paid prioritization and any other restriction that has a similar effect.

If carefully designed, these rules should not create any undue burden for ISPs, and can have clear, monitored exceptions for reasonable network management and for specialized services such as dedicated, mission-critical networks serving a hospital. But combined, these rules mean everything for preserving the Internet’s openness.

The rules also have to reflect the way people use the Internet today, which increasingly means on a mobile device. I believe the FCC should make these rules fully applicable to mobile broadband as well, while recognizing the special challenges that come with managing wireless networks.

To be current, these rules must also build on the lessons of the past. For almost a century, our law has recognized that companies who connect you to the world have special obligations not to exploit the monopoly they enjoy over access in and out of your home or business. That is why a phone call from a customer of one phone company can reliably reach a customer of a different one, and why you will not be penalized solely for calling someone who is using another provider. It is common sense that the same philosophy should guide any service that is based on the transmission of information — whether a phone call, or a packet of data.

So the time has come for the FCC to recognize that broadband service is of the same importance and must carry the same obligations as so many of the other vital services do. To do that, I believe the FCC should reclassify consumer broadband service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act — while at the same time forbearing from rate regulation and other provisions less relevant to broadband services. This is a basic acknowledgment of the services ISPs provide to American homes and businesses, and the straightforward obligations necessary to ensure the network works for everyone — not just one or two companies.

Investment in wired and wireless networks has supported jobs and made America the center of a vibrant ecosystem of digital devices, apps, and platforms that fuel growth and expand opportunity. Importantly, network investment remained strong under the previous net neutrality regime, before it was struck down by the court; in fact, the court agreed that protecting net neutrality helps foster more investment and innovation. If the FCC appropriately forbears from the Title II regulations that are not needed to implement the principles above — principles that most ISPs have followed for years — it will help ensure new rules are consistent with incentives for further investment in the infrastructure of the Internet.

The Internet has been one of the greatest gifts our economy — and our society — has ever known. The FCC was chartered to promote competition, innovation, and investment in our networks. In service of that mission, there is no higher calling than protecting an open, accessible, and free Internet. I thank the Commissioners for having served this cause with distinction and integrity, and I respectfully ask them to adopt the policies I have outlined here, to preserve this technology’s promise for today, and future generations to come.






Source
 

Super Nade

† SU(3) Moderator  †
Joined
Aug 30, 2004
Location
Santa Barbara, CA
Guys please,

No politics. Please keep the discussion on topic. For example:

Saying "Regulations suck" is ok, but bringing in political personalities is not ok.
 

hokiealumnus

Water Cooled Moderator
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Let's add on topic and civil. Bans from the thread will be doled out swiftly and without hesitation. Depending on how bad your post is, a single thread ban is the least of your problems. This is an important issue that can be discussed in a civil and mature manner. Don't bring politics of personality into it.
 

Zylith

Registered
Joined
Aug 7, 2014
Location
Alabama
politics aside (which is difficult) the major ISP's had a response the the statement in the OP- If the article 2 was used they would sue. I am trying to find the source.
 

Silver_Pharaoh

Likes the big ones n00b Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2013
Good. I like this even though I don't live south of the border.

Getting sick of ISP's anyway.
 

caddi daddi

Godzilla to ant hills
Joined
Jan 10, 2012
being a noob to this, what are the outcomes of this as it pertains to me, the end user?
 

Super Nade

† SU(3) Moderator  †
Joined
Aug 30, 2004
Location
Santa Barbara, CA

hokiealumnus

Water Cooled Moderator
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Basically, if there is no net neutrality framework in place, ISPs can control your internet use by throttling your connection to sites that don't pay to play. It is a tongue in cheek comic, but this explains it succinctly: http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality

Without net neutrality, the open internet we know will be a thing of the past.

There is a lot more to it of course, but not that is easily parsable to post from my phone.

Edit - SN is ninja supreme.
 

caddi daddi

Godzilla to ant hills
Joined
Jan 10, 2012
ok, read the links and can grasp that.
I have commicast here at this house, an unlimited plan, unlimited meaning to commicast 300 gigs a month, I only ever use 10-20 gigs a month, so aren't I already paying by band width, and shouldn't we pay by the amount we use as opposed to what the content on those gigs are?
 

caddi daddi

Godzilla to ant hills
Joined
Jan 10, 2012
so as i read it, my isp can slow my connection to content owned by another isp to cause me to not visit that site and view that content and cause a reduction in site visits and thus ad revenue?
that's apisser, i pay for a speed and they cut it back.
 

hokiealumnus

Water Cooled Moderator
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
so as i read it, my isp can slow my connection to content owned by another isp to cause me to not visit that site and view that content and cause a reduction in site visits and thus ad revenue?
that's apisser, i pay for a speed and they cut it back.

Right. It's not just bandwidth they would charge for. It's the ability to even get through to a site, or get there with usable speeds.
 

Janus67

Benching Team Leader
Joined
May 29, 2005
What hokie said.

On another note it would allow for other ISPs to basically rent the existing lines that were put in place by an ISP and resell the service to customers. I found a well written eli5 on reddit yesterday but can't seem to find it now about how it would be beneficial.

edit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2lvjq7
specifically this thread of it:
Here

Does a good job explaining the benefits.
 
Last edited:

Alaric

New Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2011
Location
Satan's Colon, US
I'm just not convinced that taking away their (ISPs) right to run their business is the answer. Most of the regulation of corporate America has been to protect investors or the health and welfare of consumers/employees. I would be more supportive of a specific bit of deregulation. Stop giving the cable companies/ISPs 'protected' turf and let 'em go head to head with some real competition.
 

Robert17

Premium Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Location
Republic of Texas
I’ll be the first to subscribe to the regulation encapsulated entry into a federal register that said simply “no throttling, no lying, cheating and stealing” if that’s all that we’d get out of a regulation.

Unfortunately there is a bad habit of writing regulations that have both unintended and intended consequences. By way of Example de la XTreme:

NET NEUTRALITY REGULATION

1) Everyone has equal access, rights, and all that stuff
2) Everyone will really get lots of benefits
3) You'll really like our new complaint department
4) A new department will be created to administer the new NET NEUTRALITY REGULATION and will be funded at $5 billion/year and a tax levied of $1.00/month on everybody. And for sacrificing their stand for their having wanted to keep it the way it was the telecommunications advisory board members will get a 10% discount on all future Wi-Fi bandwidth purchases by their respective companies.

Maybe it’s not exactly like the end result will be but it encompasses many bad habits of bureaucracy.
 

caddi daddi

Godzilla to ant hills
Joined
Jan 10, 2012
all this is just complicated and hard to understand.
I know I know nothing about how the interwb works so i'll really show it.

why can't we be the interwebs.
we around here have some pretty stout rigs, some of us even have servers.
 

Silver_Pharaoh

Likes the big ones n00b Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2013
all this is just complicated and hard to understand.
I know I know nothing about how the interwb works so i'll really show it.

why can't we be the interwebs.
we around here have some pretty stout rigs, some of us even have servers.

We need more hard drives.

lots of hard drives :p
 

Alaric

New Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2011
Location
Satan's Colon, US
And a lot more Xeons And I'm gonna need a new case......I don't mind a reasonable profit , but I expect them to earn it. The current system is "Here. You have X number of captive audience. Profit is guaranteed no matter how bad u suck." As for this
The FCC is an independent agency, and ultimately this decision is theirs alone.
I respectfully say horse$#et. MY country (me and my 300 million compadres). The gummint works for us. I see no good coming from an agency that doesn't have to answer to anybody.
 

Arbiter Odie

Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2011
all this is just complicated and hard to understand.
I know I know nothing about how the interwb works so i'll really show it.

why can't we be the interwebs.
we around here have some pretty stout rigs, some of us even have servers.


Do you know what a LAN party is (like, UT 99 days?) If so, then you understand the internet quite well.

At the party, you need all the computers attached to cables, which connect to a switch, which is managed by a router.

The internet service providers laid out and buried the copper or fiber lines (cables), and connect them to trunks (switches), which are managed by... uh, I don't know what they call them :p, but they do the routing. They're just bigger than normal routers.
 

caddi daddi

Godzilla to ant hills
Joined
Jan 10, 2012
I have a phone line in both houses that I pay for.

I have a file server at the other house.
I find 99% of the interwebs worthless (fb, tweeter).
why can't I just dial into that server from this house without somebody ( the isp) in between?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.