President Obama pushes FCC to classify Internet as public utility, protect net neutrality

Posted:
in General Discussion edited November 2014
In a move likely to see support from Internet-based content providers such as Apple, Netflix, and others, President Barack Obama on Monday publicly called on the Federal Communications Commission to take the strongest measures possible in protecting net neutrality.




Obama's plan calls on the FCC to reclassify broadband services under Title II of the Telecommunications Act, essentially classifying Internet connections as a basic utility like water or electricity. Doing so would prevent Internet service providers from deciding how customers' connections are used.

Advocates have called on the U.S. government and others to implement laws preventing ISPs from creating a so-called "tiered" Internet.

Observers have expressed concern that Internet providers could begin charging users to access certain websites, or favoring one online service over another with faster connection speeds.

For example, if an ISP were to cut a deal with an online video service, it could offer faster access to the favored service than content from Apple's iTunes. Or, in a more extreme example, the ISP could block iTunes altogether, and charge users more for the ability to access it.



"Whether you use a computer, phone or tablet, Internet providers have a legal obligation not to block or limit your access to a website," Obama said. "Cable companies can't decide which online stores you can shop at, or which streaming services you can use, and they can't let any company pay for priority over its competitors."

The Obama administration is pushing what it calls four "commonsense steps" as the basis for its net neutrality initiative:
  • No blocking: ISPs cannot be permitted to block access to legal content.
  • No throttling: ISPs cannot intentionally slow down some content or speed up others.
  • Increased transparency: Ensure that some sites are not getting special treatment in places other than the "last mile" of connection between ISPs and consumers. If necessary, the FCC could apply net neutrality rules to points of interconnection between the ISP and the rest of the Internet.
  • No paid prioritization: Prevent ISPs from cutting deals with content providers for faster access. Obama has asked the FCC to explicitly ban any such restrictions.
The FCC is an independent organization that must come to its own decision on the matter. But urging from Obama, as well as overwhelming public support for maintaining net neutrality, will likely make the issue a higher priority for the commission.

"For most Americans, the Internet has become an essential part of everyday communication, and everyday life," Obama said.

While Apple has been in support of net neutrality, its carrier partners unsurprisingly fall on the other side of the issue. Verizon Wireless was criticized in August by FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler after the wireless provider revealed plans for a data throttling program and called it a "widely accepted" practice.
«13456716

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 304



    It's not broken, just a way for agency's to further control and track information. Is it possible that FCC will be directed by agency's to block information as a "Matter of National Security"?

  • Reply 2 of 304

    That won’t do anything. If it’s classed as a public utility there will be ZERO reason to improve speeds (not like it happens anyway), ZERO reason for the ISPs not to collude (more than they do now), and ZERO reason for unlimited and unthrottled plans to keep existing.

  • Reply 3 of 304
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,608member
    Wait! I am sure there is a way to look at this in a negative light. Surely.
  • Reply 4 of 304
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     

    That won’t do anything. If it’s classed as a public utility there will be ZERO reason to improve speeds (not like it happens anyway), ZERO reason for the ISPs not to collude (more than they do now), and ZERO reason for unlimited and unthrottled plans to keep existing.




    I think you just outed yourself as a Tea Party conspiracy nut.

  • Reply 5 of 304
    paxman wrote: »
    Wait! I am sure there is a way to look at this in a negative light. Surely.

    It's bad because it's coming from Obama¡
  • Reply 6 of 304
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     

    That won’t do anything. If it’s classed as a public utility there will be ZERO reason to improve speeds (not like it happens anyway), ZERO reason for the ISPs not to collude (more than they do now), and ZERO reason for unlimited and unthrottled plans to keep existing.


     

    You know what, on the second thought, a post like this isn't worth replying too so I've edited it out and leave you with the non-response this crazy nonsense deserves.

  • Reply 7 of 304
    icoco3icoco3 Posts: 1,459member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post



    ...

     

    • Increased transparency: Ensure that some sites are not getting special treatment in places other than the "last mile" of connection between ISPs and consumers. If necessary, the FCC could apply net neutrality rules to points of interconnection between the ISP and the rest of the Internet.

    ...


     

    Right there is where they can decide to favor one site over the other.

  • Reply 8 of 304
    It's too late now, but when email first emerged it should have been put under the jurisdiction of the USPS. It IS mail after all. Instead of embracing new technology, they saw it as a threat and clung to paper mail.
  • Reply 9 of 304

    One marvels at how Obama and his fellow far-left lackeys prioritize the nation's pressing problems.  "War on women."  Minimum wage hikes.  Abortion at any stage of birth, for any reason.  Free "ObamaPhones."  And now "broadband is a public utility."

     

    worst. President. EVER.

  • Reply 10 of 304
    Originally Posted by joshuarayer View Post

    I think you just outed yourself as a Tea Party conspiracy nut.

     

    Keep your delusions to yourself, boyo. Enjoy the fantasy world in which utilities companies compete.

     

    Originally Posted by hpod View Post

    Actually, it would have the exact opposite effect, just like it has for natural gas and electrical companies, but of course you knew that.


     

    Yep, I knew that because I have exactly one of each where I live and they haven’t changed their prices or availability in the last 15 years. Oh, wait, you’re completely wrong.

     

    You realize you can shop around and get lower gas/electric prices WITHOUT BEING LOCKED IN A CONTRACT, at will, right?


     

    Again, fantasy world where they compete, yada yada.

     

    So, everything you just said is completely wrong, and can be proven as such by the examples I just gave.


     

    You gave zero examples. I, on the other hand, can easily provide documentation that two blocks over has a different company than me, cannot get my company, and I cannot get theirs.

     

    So please, shut up about things you couldn’t in a lifetime comprehend. Utility companies command monopolies.

  • Reply 11 of 304
    icoco3icoco3 Posts: 1,459member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hpod View Post

     

     

    Actually, it would have the exact opposite effect, just like it has for natural gas and electrical companies, but of course you knew that. You realize you can shop around and get lower gas/electric prices WITHOUT BEING LOCKED IN A CONTRACT, at will, right? So, everything you just said is completely wrong, and can be proven as such by the examples I just gave.  Stop posting, do not pass go, and go directly to jail.


     

    Time Warner delivers to the house 200 feet down the road from me but say I am "out of their franchise area."  Wow, great choice and after paying them since November 1997 at my old house this is how they treat you.  I would say he was correct because I don't have an choice now for access beyond low end DSL.

  • Reply 12 of 304
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     

     

    Keep your delusions to yourself, boyo. Enjoy the fantasy world in which utilities companies compete.

     

     

    Yep, I knew that because I have exactly one of each where I live and they haven’t changed their prices in the last 15 years. Oh, wait, you’re completely wrong.

     

    Again, fantasy world where they compete, yada yada.

     

    You gave zero examples. I, on the other hand, can easily provide documentation that two blocks over has a different company than me, cannot get my company, and I cannot get theirs.

     

    So please, shut up about things you couldn’t in a lifetime comprehend. Utility companies command monopolies.


     

    Not worth replying to a moron.

     

    Posts removed.

  • Reply 13 of 304
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     

    That won’t do anything. If it’s classed as a public utility there will be ZERO reason to improve speeds (not like it happens anyway), ZERO reason for the ISPs not to collude (more than they do now), and ZERO reason for unlimited and unthrottled plans to keep existing.




    I dunno - SaskTel in Canada is a crown corporation (i.e. owned by the provincial government) and it has unlimited bandwidth, up to 260 mbps fibre speeds (which they are in process of laying in older neighbourhoods) and you get free routers (or cable box modems) etc. at similar or better prices than others  - far better deal than Rogers (private national company)

     

    Of course, this may be subsidized by tax dollars - just like Energy, Power, Telephone (Landline) and other "utilities"

  • Reply 14 of 304
    Originally Posted by hpod View Post

    I actually attempted to remove my post, because you really aren't worth talking too, but since you replied, let me rip you apart now.




    Aww, that’s cute.

     

    Natural gas and electrical companies already do this, idiot.


     

    Great argument¡

     
    I gave multiple examples by pointing to the natural gas and electrical companies, moron.

     

    Good for you. Neither of mine do. What’s your next move, boyo? Are you going to keep lying to me about my own companies?

  • Reply 15 of 304
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member
    solipsismy wrote: »
    It's bad because it's coming from Obama!
    Fixed that for you!????????
  • Reply 16 of 304
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     



    Aww, that’s cute.

     

    Great argument¡

     

    Good for you. Neither of mine do. What’s your next move, boyo? Are you going to keep lying to me about my own companies?


     

    Moron.

  • Reply 17 of 304
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 8,687member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by coffeetime View Post

     

    One marvels at how Obama and his fellow far-left lackeys prioritize the nation's pressing problems.  "War on women."  Minimum wage hikes.  Abortion at any stage of birth, for any reason.  Free "ObamaPhones."  And now "broadband is a public utility."

     

    worst. President. EVER.




    Agreed. 

  • Reply 18 of 304
    Uh oh!

    [QUOTE]"Net Neutrality" is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government. — Senator Ted Cruz (@SenTedCruz) November 10, 2014

    [LIST]
    [*] http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/10/7186433/what-senator-ted-cruz-just-said-should-scare-anyone-who-wants
    [/LIST]
    [/QUOTE]
  • Reply 19 of 304
    richlrichl Posts: 2,213member

    Thanks, Obama!

    (No, really. Thanks.)

  • Reply 20 of 304
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    solipsismy wrote: »
    Uh oh!

    Bravo Ted Cruz. Never trust a government bureaucracy to make things better for consumers.
Sign In or Register to comment.