Obama Picks Net Neutrality Backer as FCC Chief

[HardOCP News]

The president has selected a new head honcho of the FCC, if his taxes are in order and his nomination is confirmed, we should be in good shape on the net neutrality front. Let’s all keep our fingers crossed.

Genachowski is likely to continue the Democratic push for more Net neutrality regulations, which are opposed by some conservatives and telecommunications providers. He was a top Obama technology advisor and aided in crafting a technology platform that supported Net neutrality rules.

 

[novadude]

...if his taxes are in order...

You'd think by now that would be Obama's first question when he's picking someone

 

[trooper11]

But to be honest, even if there were tax issues, he would be accepted anyway, so it really isnt a big deal lol

 

[the_dealer]

The outgoing is from my hometown. I don't know if this one is any better or worse, but I assume the latter.

 

[qdemn7]

Excellent, this should stick in quite a few people's craw's.

 

[Jack Hammer]

I forget... where do we stand on net neutrality?

 

[Azazel90x]

I think we want net neutrality, where the internets tubes all lead to the same place! Correct?

 

[Methadras]

For me net neutrality is about the way data is treated as an inherent blandness. No one packet should be discriminated against any other packet of data. ISP's should be nothing more than dumb pipe providers and users are consumers of content. If it happens to be illegal content, then it is up to law enforcement to seek the proper warrants to discriminate that data they suspect is illicit and go through the proper channels to do so. That for me is net neutrality. It may be something else for other people. I'm not sure how many people would agree with me on my interpretation of definition of it, but I think I'm close to what I think it should be.

 

[Morazl]

For me net neutrality is about the way data is treated as an inherent blandness. No one packet should be discriminated against any other packet of data. ISP's should be nothing more than dumb pipe providers and users are consumers of content. If it happens to be illegal content, then it is up to law enforcement to seek the proper warrants to discriminate that data they suspect is illicit and go through the proper channels to do so. That for me is net neutrality. It may be something else for other people. I'm not sure how many people would agree with me on my interpretation of definition of it, but I think I'm close to what I think it should be.

Agreed

 

[JDM_WAAAAT]

+1 for a bamf president.

 

[w1retap]

Personally, I want the government to stay the fuck away from my internet. That's the last thing I want them to regulate and ruin like everything else. I don't support this decision.

 

[Gorankar]

I am not sure where I stand on it totally myself. I do think VOIP, government, and business traffic should get a higher priority than little Johny Warez's torrents or Grandma's e-mails. But on the other hand I can easily see the ISP's and Telcos getting way out of hand if net neutrality is not enforced. This is an extreme example, but we could end up in a situation where Newegg has to pay my ISP in addition to their own to make sure I can browse their site in reasonably speedy fashion. No extortion like practices like that have occurred yet as far as I know. And I really don't expect it to soooo...

So far we don't need net neutrality. As such, I am hesitant to involve the US government in it if possible. Those technological 5 year old's serving in the House and Senate tend to screw up more than they fix when they get involved. Especially when it is tech related.

 

[acidic]

I like Ron Paul's stance and that is to let the market decide whatever happens.

 

[qdemn7]

Personally, I want the government to stay the fuck away from my internet. That's the last thing I want them to regulate and ruin like everything else. I don't support this decision.

I like Ron Paul's stance and that is to let the market decide whatever happens.

The free market and keeping government out of everything has done such a great job over the last thirty years. I mean the stock market is doing great. Unemployment is a record lows. Things couldn't be better, right?

 

[w1retap]

The free market and keeping government out of everything has done such a great job over the last thirty years. I mean the stock market is doing great. Unemployment is a record lows. Things couldn't be better, right?

Actually, the government telling banks who they have to loan to, and what type automobiles have to be manufactured, and what standards everything has to meet, and who has to be given certain financial aid, and who gets a bailout, and who followed the rules but got fucked over anyway... yeah, those things worked out really well for the country. The problem is over regulation. Keep living in a dream world. Until then, move to a collectivist society where you work your for dollar and you put it in someone else's pocket for the sake of the commune. That isn't how America works.. but it certainly is what it's turning into. GTFO.

 

[pigwalk]

I'm not exactly sure how any techie in his right mind can be against Net Neutrality.

 

[w1retap]

I'm not exactly sure how any techie in his right mind can be against Net Neutrality.

Because if that person is smart enough to see the massive utter failures that happen every time the government sticks it's hands into something.. we see something worth keeping for ourselves and not let them destroy.

 

[fromage]

Personally, I want the government to stay the fuck away from my internet. That's the last thing I want them to regulate and ruin like everything else. I don't support this decision.

ummm...
net neutrality is exactly what you want. otherwise, your ISP will be throttling anything they deem fit. I don't think you want that.

 

[Fendrix]

^
I was going to reply with roughly the same message but you beat me to it.

"Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven't had capitalism."
- Dr. Ron Paul

 

[Fendrix]

Err, in reference to w1retap talking about too much gov't regulation. (No edit button)

 

[w1retap]

ummm...
net neutrality is exactly what you want. otherwise, your ISP will be throttling anything they deem fit. I don't think you want that.

No. Don't tell me what I want. I know what I want. I want the market to work itself out so I we have competition among competitor/businesses, and the government doesn't tell them every move they have to make and every standard they have to meet. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of net neutrality if you're advocating otherwise.

 

[pigwalk]

Because if that person is smart enough to see the massive utter failures that happen every time the government sticks it's hands into something.. we see something worth keeping for ourselves and not let them destroy.

So you're saying that ISP's having control over what content we have full access to and what we get throttled on?

W1retap, do you use Netflix or any other streaming video service? I'm sure your ISP would be glad to throttle it for you to push you towards whatever video on demand service they have.

 

[w1retap]

So you're saying that ISP's having control over what content we have full access to and what we get throttled on?

W1retap, do you use Netflix or any other streaming video service? I'm sure your ISP would be glad to throttle it for you to push you towards whatever video on demand service they have.

I'm saying I will dump the service provider that fucks with me the customer, and I have. I am with an ISP right now which I love.

What's stopping the government from coming along with net neutrality and doing something to the network you don't like, which makes it a federal mandate? Say you're only allowed a certain percentage of bandwidth, or you aren't allowed to access certain content, or you can't use a protocol they deem improper and infringing on the rest of the community? You're fucked then. We already see the government doing this in everything from tax policy to environmental policy to trade policy to food/drug policy, etc.. There's would be nothing stopping them from doing it to your internet policy.

 

[DTN107]

^
Being against net neutrality means you want every ISP to be just like Comcast.

Do people truly want that?

 

[w1retap]

^
Being against net neutrality means you want every ISP to be just like Comcast.

Do people truly want that?

No it doesn't. It means I get to choose the company that ISN'T like Comcast, and I have. If you support net neutrality, that means you want nearly irreversible federal mandates which could make your internet like Comcast's "for the sake of the community".

 

[DeadSkull]

if his taxes are in order and his nomination is confirmed,

Obama for some reason expects all the high earners who are hard working business owners / high tech proffesionals to pay more taxes yet a troubling percentage of his cabinet nominees seem to forget about paying their taxes.

Yes, I'm sure the plan of taxing those who work the hardest for their money even more and redistributing to those who don't sounds fair to those who evade their own tax duties.

 

[DTN107]

No it doesn't. It means I get to choose the company that ISN'T like Comcast, and I have. If you support net neutrality, that means you want nearly irreversible federal mandates which could make your internet like Comcast's "for the sake of the community".

Mhmm... I was the under the impression that net neutrality = no one owns or controls the internet. The ISP will just provide you the internet but can not tell you what to do and not to do.

I guess I need to look more into it.

 

[w1retap]

Mhmm... I was the under the impression that net neutrality = no one owns or controls the internet. The ISP will just provide you the internet but can not tell you what to do and not to do.

I guess I need to look more into it.

Net neutrality means the government enforces whatever it wants on the internet for the sake of the people. If that means rationing or imposing stricter laws, they can do it. Whatever politician or party is in power next could impose whatever else they wanted on it as well. Once you give a government more power (or it gives itself more power), the citizen gets screwed. Why people want to give government power over virtually every private sector portion of their lives is beyond me.

 

[Glacian22]

Mhmm... I was the under the impression that net neutrality = no one owns or controls the internet. The ISP will just provide you the internet but can not tell you what to do and not to do.

That is net neutrality in essence. What ends up as legislation may or may not reflect that, but I'm really hoping something to that effect does end up as law. Because someone is going to be fiddling with my net connection...ISPs already do it to some degree, sometimes bad enough to cause backlash (comcast), so I'd rather governmental "meddling" to ISPs being able to screw over the consumer just because it's more profitable. And w1retap, your comment of "well then dump your ISP for a better one" isn't always valid, as in some areas people don't really have options, and are just stuck with whatever service is available.

So yes, I am for net neutrality, for the same reason I think certain levels of government regulation of markets are justified: to stop the consumer from being screwed by monolithic corporations.

 

[w1retap]

And w1retap, your comment of "well then dump your ISP for a better one" isn't always valid, as in some areas people don't really have options, and are just stuck with whatever service is available.

That's called a circumstance. You aren't stuck. It's just the circumstance that you are in. Nobody is forcing you to use their service, nobody is forcing you to buy from them. That isn't the case for everyone, so what you want should not effect everyone else. If I want something that differs from something you want, should I impose those differences on you as well? Should my government agenda be imposed on you, or would you rather not have the government fuck with your shit in the first place?

 

[Darkest Daze]

I'm saying I will dump the service provider that fucks with me the customer, and I have. I am with an ISP right now which I love.

What's stopping the government from coming along with net neutrality and doing something to the network you don't like, which makes it a federal mandate? Say you're only allowed a certain percentage of bandwidth, or you aren't allowed to access certain content, or you can't use a protocol they deem improper and infringing on the rest of the community? You're fucked then. We already see the government doing this in everything from tax policy to environmental policy to trade policy to food/drug policy, etc.. There's would be nothing stopping them from doing it to your internet policy.

Well, Net Neutrality would mean that neither the government or the ISP's can treat one type of content differently then another. If Obama doesn't want you to read a Republican website, too bad, Net Neutrality means that he can't stop you. Same as using Netflix to stream movies..your ISP can't throttle/block competitive websites or content.

Also, how do you expect people to drop a service that does stuff they don't like, when many, many people only have one choice of service where they live? I only have Comcast available for internet unless I want to go back to dial-up, which defeats the whole purpose of having the internet these days anyway. Sure I can get DirecTV for television, but if I want to stream movies, play games, or download anything, I need to use Comcast. Without someone telling them they can't handicap services like Vonage (which they were caught doing, and forced to stop) or Netflix, then I am even further dependent on only using Comcast services.

If cable companies didn't divide areas up and there was more then one service to choose from, then everything would be great, unfortunately, until FIOS is available outside densely populated, higher income areas, we're SOL.

 

[pigwalk]

Net neutrality means the government enforces whatever it wants on the internet for the sake of the people. If that means rationing or imposing stricter laws, they can do it.

Where the hell did you get that from?

Net Neutrality doesn't necessarily have ANYTHING to do with government. If the gov wants to pass legislation to help maintain NN then I don't see anything wrong with it.

 

[Gorankar]

Don't get the government involved if you don't have to. If the ISP's do really start to extort content providers, or lock out content providers, then get the government involved. And not before.
I would like to say just change ISP's, and let the market fix itself if that were to happen, but since most places either have a monopoly or near monopoly situation, that is easy to say and not always easy to do.

The concept of net neutrality is mostly reasonable, but if the US government actually tries to enforce it, it will not be net neutrality anymore. It will get twisted til nobody with a brain could call it net neutrality with out coughing into their fist. It will be what ever the lobbyists want it to be at that point. We will end up with the RIAA, MPAA, and the likes idea of net neutrality or worse.

 

[jcvjcvjcvjcv]

If I'm right this enforced Net neutrality also discriminates against ISP's using QoS?

Seriously, I have no problem that there is a ping of 10 seconds on my moviedownload, but I want next-to-zero ping on the datapackets that are from my Battlefield 2 multiplayer

 

[jcvjcvjcvjcv]

I would like to say just change ISP's, and let the market fix itself if that were to happen, but since most places either have a monopoly or near monopoly situation, that is easy to say and not always easy to do.

The problem with 'the market fixing itself' are ignorant and dumb customers.

The same problem applies to elections. But who is gonna regulate those...?

 

[pigwalk]

If I'm right this enforced Net neutrality also discriminates against ISP's using QoS?

Seriously, I have no problem that there is a ping of 10 seconds on my moviedownload, but I want next-to-zero ping on the datapackets that are from my Battlefield 2 multiplayer

I'm pretty sure there is data on the internet that is MUCH more important than our gaming ping .

 

[hdnut]

I think this website better explains what net neutrality is really about.

http://www.savetheinternet.com/=faq

Most opponents of net neutrality are from Republican/conservative background who are naturally against any sort of government regulation, good or bad.

 

[BGK]

What's stopping the government from coming along with net neutrality and doing something to the network you don't like, which makes it a federal mandate? Say you're only allowed a certain percentage of bandwidth, or you aren't allowed to access certain content, or you can't use a protocol they deem improper and infringing on the rest of the community? You're fucked then. We already see the government doing this in everything from tax policy to environmental policy to trade policy to food/drug policy, etc.. There's would be nothing stopping them from doing it to your internet policy.

I don't see how those examples you provided are at all related to net neutrality, if anything, net neutrality would provide networks free of those restrictions. That is the definition of a neutral network. There are possible negatives to a neutral network, you just didn't list one of them.

 

[Gorankar]

The problem with 'the market fixing itself' are ignorant and dumb customers.

The same problem applies to elections. But who is gonna regulate those...?

It's not just dumb customers, though they do play a large enough part in it. I can use my one local cable provider for internet or I can use craptastic satellite service or dial up. It is a monopoly situation for broadband in my case, and in many other cases as well it is a monopoly or duopoly when it comes to broad band. This monopoly/duopoly situation in many places precludes even the possibility of the market correcting itself in those areas.

 

[bonsai]

This is why we need Net Neutrality:

Who wants to get rid of Net Neutrality?

The nation's largest telephone and cable companies -- including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner -- want to be Internet gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow and which won't load at all.

They want to tax content providers to guarantee speedy delivery of their data. They want to discriminate in favor of their own search engines, Internet phone services, and streaming video -- while slowing down or blocking their competitors.

These companies have a new vision for the Internet. Instead of an even playing field, they want to reserve express lanes for their own content and services -- or those from big corporations that can afford the steep tolls -- and leave the rest of us on a winding dirt road.

The big phone and cable companies are spending hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying Congress and the Federal Communications Commission to gut Net Neutrality, putting the future of the Internet at risk.

The threat to an open internet isn't just speculation -- we've seen what happens when the Internet's gatekeepers get too much control. These companies, even, have said as much about their plans to discriminate online. According to the Washington Post:

William L. Smith, chief technology officer for Atlanta-based BellSouth Corp., told reporters and analysts that an Internet service provider such as his firm should be able, for example, to charge Yahoo Inc. for the opportunity to have its search site load faster than that of Google Inc.