President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

Here&#x27;s the thing that bothers me the most about a lot of the talk about net neutrality by government officials:<p>&gt; If a consumer requests access to a website or service, and the content is legal, your ISP should not be permitted to block it.<p>Specifically &quot;and the content is legal&quot; is what raises a flag for me. I&#x27;ve seen similar phrases in nearly everything I&#x27;ve read coming from any government official regarding net neutrality.<p>If this phrasing makes it into eventual laws regarding net neutrality, it seems to me that it could easily require inspection of all traffic by ISPs to ensure the legality of traffic.

Because TC doesn&#x27;t bother with the editing process anymore, here&#x27;s a direct link to the letter: <a href="https://medium.com/@PresidentObama/my-plan-for-a-free-and-open-internet-c45e2f4ab1e4" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;medium.com&#x2F;@PresidentObama&#x2F;my-plan-for-a-free-and-op...</a>

I hope no one is getting excited about this.<p>President Obama is a lame duck. His party just got tossed out of the Senate, relegating his political capital to basically 0. In the wake of this, he&#x27;s decided to take maybe the most important economic issue of the next 20 years and politicize it.<p>Neither the red team nor the blue team could say they owned this issue, but one of the most divisive voices in politics just stuck the blue flag in it - at a time when he has less influence over policy than any other time in his presidency.<p>I would have preferred him to just keep his mouth shut.

As per usual with all politicians, these are just words. Nice words, but until a bill is passed and there is movement in the senate to make something like this closer to a reality, words are meaningless.<p>My question to Obama is: why now? This whole net neutrality debate has been going on long before Obama started his first term of presidency, why wait until you are almost out of the White House to act upon something as important as this? He has had six years to act on this. Could it perhaps have anything to do with the fact the Democrats took a heavy blow recently with Republicans being popular with the voters in the recent election? Is Obama merely trying to save some face with the voters for his party to mitigate risk at the next presidential election?<p>Maybe, maybe not. It probably is not fair of me to try and make connections to speculative thoughts like that. I am passionate about net neutrality and it just feels weird Obama is going public on a subject like this not long after votes were casted.<p>But you know what? Either way, if Obama can get a bill deeming internet to be classified as a utility within the next two years, maybe he will leave behind a legacy that we talk of in the years to come. It might be six years too late, but if anyone can make something like this happen, it is the president.<p>I am aware that the FCC can change things without any bills needing to be passed and while I am speculating here, the FCC is not exactly known for being honest and transparent. An independent agency with some suspicious ties to lobbyists and corporations trying to protect their monopolies like Comcast. The issue here is the FCC can change things and should change things but ultimately will not change a thing unless the pressure is there from the right hands. Obama speaking up is great, do not get me wrong, but I think the likes of the FCC will need more than gentle words to start changing things. Action needs to be taken.<p>I simply refuse to believe that an agency can run itself to the point where it controls what can and cannot happen with something as important as the internet which in my opinion is a basic human right to have access to.

Since I have zero trust in Obama these days, I&#x27;m waiting for the other shoe to drop - or to see what&#x27;s Obama&#x27;s angle in this. Is he doing it because he <i>already knows</i> a Republican-backed Congress and FCC have already made up their minds <i>against</i> net neutrality - and he just wants to be remembered that &quot;he tried&quot;?<p>Or is he supporting full net neutrality because that would give the government much more control over the Internet?<p>Either way I don&#x27;t think he&#x27;s doing this because &quot;he cares&quot;. Whatever his angle&#x2F;hidden agenda, it&#x27;s probably a bad one for us.

And it&#x27;s already getting worse:<p><a href="https://twitter.com/SenTedCruz/status/531834493922189313" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;SenTedCruz&#x2F;status&#x2F;531834493922189313</a><p><i>&quot;Net Neutrality&quot; is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government.</i>

I am not American (feel free to ignore my opinion) but this is just a bad joke from someone who seems to be an utmost failure.<p>Especially in light of last week FBI&#x2F;NSA&#x2F;DHS undermining TOR and killing its utility for any dissidents and free speech in authoritarian states. Under his watch the surveillance state has expanded and has become downright creepy<p>25 years after the fall of the Berlin wall we should be saying &quot;Ich bin ein Ost-Berliner&quot; :( The Stasi would be proud of the surveillance state that western countries have created with Obama at the helm.<p>edit: Oh i see the cult of personality is still strong in this one, downvoted in under a minute.

It seems to me that introducing net neutrality law is a band-aid over what is really just monopolistic behaviour because last-mile providers don&#x27;t have competition.<p>Why not fix the root cause? Force last-mile providers to provide transit to third party ISPs like they do in the UK, or otherwise regulate them specifically.<p>I don&#x27;t see why rules should apply across the board to markets where there is healthy competition. There is no problem elsewhere, is there?

I am excited Obama is getting in on this, however, I&#x27;m concerned Net Neutrality may become a partisan issue. Ted Cruz has stated that Net Neutrality is like Obamacare for the internet (<a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/ted-cruz-net-neutrality-is-obamacare-for-the-internet-2014-11" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.businessinsider.com&#x2F;ted-cruz-net-neutrality-is-ob...</a>) which just enrages me. Please get the message out to your conservative friends&#x2F;family before the right has an opportunity to brain wash them.

Huh? Is this the same President Obama that put Tom Wheeler in charge of the FCC? In case it isn&#x27;t obvious (and since no-one else has mentioned it yet, I guess it&#x27;s not), Tom Wheeler was a huge lobbyist for the very people who are trying to end net neutrality.<p>I don&#x27;t get calling for X then performing actions that negate X.<p>Edit: there&#x27;s another front-page story to Bloomberg that actually explicitly mentions the Tom Wheeler connection: <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-10/obama-calls-for-regulating-internet-like-phone-companies.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.bloomberg.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;2014-11-10&#x2F;obama-calls-for-reg...</a>

The current Chairman for the FCC is Tom Wheeler. He is a former lobbyist for two telecommunications associations:<p>* National Cable &amp; Telecommunications Association (NCTA) (from 1976 to 1984, becoming president in 1979)[1]<p>* Cellular Telecommunications &amp; Internet Association (CTIA) (from 1992 to 2004, serving as CEO)[1]<p>[1] <a href="http://www.fcc.gov/leadership/tom-wheeler" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.fcc.gov&#x2F;leadership&#x2F;tom-wheeler</a>

This is very similar to Mozilla&#x27;s proposal to the FCC last spring: <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/mozilla-offers-fcc-a-net-neutrality-plan-with-a-twist/" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;arstechnica.com&#x2F;tech-policy&#x2F;2014&#x2F;05&#x2F;mozilla-offers-fc...</a><p>Mozilla: <i>&quot;The petition calls on the FCC to designate last-mile delivery of edge provider communications as “remote delivery” services, and as telecommunications services under Title II of the Communications Act.&quot;</i><p>Obama: <i>&quot;I believe the FCC should reclassify consumer broadband service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act.&quot;</i>

Yes, let&#x27;s give the government control to dictate how we may use the most powerful system for free-speech and keeping governments&#x2F;corporations in check that has ever existed in all of human history. Despite the US government&#x27;s insistence and profound ability to commandeer the internet for military&#x2F;spying uses, I&#x27;m sure this time they will act in our best interests...<p>And I know the control Obama&#x27;s saying he wants the FCC to exert over the internet does not yet appear directly tied to the NSA, but after the past year of Snowden revelations I just want the government to keep the hell as far away from technology as possible. Because the only way this policy becomes politically feasible is when there&#x27;s a way net neutrality could somehow be perverted to weaken the internet&#x27;s ability to shine light on corruption.

First, let me say that my local ISPs have left a lot to be desired. Comcast and Verizon have driven me crazy in the past. But making them a utility scares me. As bad as my ISPs have been, looking back 15 years, I was on a 56k modem. Now I have 50 mbps broadband. When I look at other utilities like power and water, I&#x27;ve seen zero innovation and my bill continues to rise.<p>Something should be done, but I&#x27;d rather the focus be on removing barriers to more local competition by getting rid of ordinances that create a defacto monopoly by constricting access to utility poles and right-of-ways. When Verizon offered fios to my area, overnight comcast dropped their prices and then raised their speeds significantly. I want more of that.

His administration literally started the process that will ultimately be the end of the open internet in the next few years.<p>Now everybody is working on a national&#x2F;regional &quot;Internet&quot;, even the EU is going the first steps into this direction.<p>Him calling for open and free Internet is absolutely bizarre. Who knows, maybe he&#x27;ll call tomorrow for the end of torture and drone executions without trial.

Because that worked so well with the phone companies.

&gt; &quot;Regulating Internet Like Phone Companies&quot;<p>There is this other headline which came to my mind when I read the above headline: &quot;Retroactive Amnesty for Telecoms&quot;.<p><a href="https://www.eff.org/pages/case-against-retroactive-amnesty-telecoms" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.eff.org&#x2F;pages&#x2F;case-against-retroactive-amnesty-t...</a>

This headline is in such stark contrast to the other, which reads &quot;President Obama calls for a free and open internet.&quot;<p>Which reads more like the actual intent?<p>Edit: The two submissions got merged, so my comment is now outdated.

Have ZERO understanding how the Republicans are going to hold off on Anti-Net Neutrality. I am sure this is something that Libertarians will fight tooth and nail and well I would say over 12% of currently republicans labeled themselves as such. With 30 congressmen in the House Liberty Caucus things are not so easy for the G.O.P.<p>I feel that there is a strong likely hood that G.O.P. will have a switch for Net Neutrality once they see that this policy has such a strong vocal majority.

On &#x27;network neutrality&#x27;, I&#x27;m lost: Someone please clear this up for me, say, with this &#x27;scenario&#x27;:<p>I pay my ISP for 15 Mbps download bandwidth, and some Web site with video clips pays their ISP for 10 Gbps upload bandwidth. So, I connect to that Web site and download or &#x27;stream&#x27; a video clip.<p>Then the Web site better get their 1 Gbps upload bandwidth, if they want to send that much, and if they send me 15 Mbps of video then I better get the full 15 Mbps I paid for.<p>So, what&#x27;s the role of &#x27;fast lane&#x27;, &#x27;slow lane&#x27;, the Web site paying my ISP for &#x27;more&#x27;, &#x27;slow downs&#x27;, etc.<p>Or as far as I can see, if I&#x27;m getting my 15 Mbps (from any Web site sending me that much) and the Web site is getting their 1 Gbps, everything should be okay. Otherwise, either my ISP or the Web site&#x27;s ISP is not delivering what they were paid for, and I have a tough time believing that that would be common.<p>I&#x27;m failing to see the opportunity for funny business.<p>Or, yes, if use the Internet as a video phone, then there could be issues of dropped packets, out of order packets, latency, jitter, etc. -- is that what the talk is about?

1. Net neutrality (NN) is of essential importance for the free Internet, now and in the future.<p>2. Barack Obama (BO) can &quot;call for&quot; many things, but after the latest elections he cannot do much. Even if he, personally and as a POTUS, would want to <i>do</i> something to protect NN.<p>3. If you hope GOP will do something about it... well, harsh reality is this: Republicans will do what corporate interest wants them to do. Democrats (along with BO) were doing the same. Now that GOP has the majority in both the congress and the senate they MIGHT pay lip service to the issue, but, nothing will change in essence.<p>4. Maybe you think&#x2F;hope, people will go out on the streets, write petitions, fight for NN. If recent history teaches us something it&#x27;s this: Snowden revelations didn&#x27;t move much US citizens on to the streets. And, compared to NN, it was a larger issue.<p>(Hope for a better world is something to strive for, but after all these years, I&#x27;ve realized that there is only one reality: Interest. And Big Money has a lot of it to fight NN)

This proposition (implementation of some of the regulations required for telecommunication services under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934) is taken directly from a notice published by the FCC in 2010<p><a href="http://www.fcc.gov/rulemaking/10-127" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.fcc.gov&#x2F;rulemaking&#x2F;10-127</a><p>It has been argued previously that the FCC lacks the authority to reclassify Title II common carrier, and that such a reclassification could actually be damaging<p><a href="http://www.mayerbrown.com/files/Publication/b3dde165-879d-41d4-bd11-22cec4ecc93f/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/f8f8d83f-b025-4a9f-8dbd-394dfcad45e1/10937.PDF" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.mayerbrown.com&#x2F;files&#x2F;Publication&#x2F;b3dde165-879d-41...</a>

&quot;So, as I have before, I am asking for an explicit ban on paid prioritization and any other restriction that has a similar effect.&quot;<p>Does that work? Is that implementable and&#x2F;or good? Isn&#x27;t peering a pretty reasonable thing to do in a lot of cases?

This just provides more impetus for us to get out ahead of the government and implement the next-generation communication technologies that make it impossible for anyone to spy on us.. of course, if that happens, there&#x27;ll be further battles upstream .. as well as a few submarine battles we probably don&#x27;t know we have to fight, already, as advocates of peace and communication - but nevertheless the time has never been as ripe as it is now for the new shit to drop.<p>Question is, how? What? These are the sorts of answers we have to find. A DHT over a P2P with no central control? It still seems so out of reach ..

He presided over some of the worst breeches of data privacy in contemporary political history, how exactly does he expect anyone to trust him? Would he have made these bold statements, had he not have been found out?

What do these statements mean, specifically parts I&#x27;ve marked?<p>&gt; 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 <i>other provisions less relevant to broadband services</i>.<p>and<p>&gt; If the FCC appropriately <i>forbears from the Title II regulations that are not needed to implement the principles above</i> — 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.

&gt;And then you encounter things like this by Senator Ted Cruz:<p>The biggest regulatory threat to the Internet is &quot;net neutrality.&quot;<p>In short, net neutrality is Obamacare for the Internet. It puts the government in charge of determining Internet pricing, terms of service, and what types of products and services can be delivered, leading to fewer choices, fewer opportunities, and higher prices for consumers.<p>The Internet should not operate at the speed of government<p>&gt;How does one even begin to engage with people that find this in any way intellectually valid?<p>&gt;It doesn&#x27;t even make sense and yet I have family that shares his status.

This is a good thing everybody. Lets see what happens going forward.

Why should we care about what the POTUS has to say about internet freedom? It&#x27;s not like the POTUS or politicians in general have a good track record of trustworthiness.<p>IMO, anytime officials are talking about it, they are guaranteed to screw it up.<p>I am actually surprised that they aren&#x27;t talking more about having it be $Free and under government control. Maybe that is step 2.<p>Either way, the less authority the ISPs and the Government have over your network traffic the better.

I&#x27;m glad the president is giving a hoot about this issue, because it&#x27;s an issue I care deeply about and follow closely.<p>That said, I&#x27;m still not convinced a &quot;no slow lanes&quot; policy is possible. Peering is a huge part of the Internet, and without it, the Internet doesn&#x27;t work. Paid peering is a private network owner&#x27;s right to ask for, and it&#x27;s every other person&#x27;s right to deny.

I know nothing about politics, but my guess is that this is a reaction to the majority republican house&#x2F;senate. There&#x27;s no way in hell a bill like this can be passed through congress (with all the special interests and whatnot), so by being at the front of this movement which is important to so many people, they&#x27;ll opt to blame the republicans (who are now in charge).

I don&#x27;t think I fully understand the argument for net neutrality. I try to think about it from a few different perspectives:<p>Broadband intensive services like Netflix: I think a problem that they face is that their connection is often slow, not only intentionally, but also because developing infrastructure is expensive. Why would an ISP bother building out the infrastructure if they can&#x27;t extract a higher value from those that it most benefits (Netflix)? In fact, Netflix thinks it&#x27;s worth it to pay Comcast directly. If that was not beneficial, I don&#x27;t see why Netflix would have done so. Sure, they would probably prefer to get that service for free, but it must be mutually beneficial for both parties to go along. If Netflix were not allowed to make sure a deal with a company like Comcast, would that really benefit anyone?<p>Smaller Websites: There is the risk that ISPs try extracting a toll but I think it may not be worth it a lot of the time for the ISP. I think this fear is overblown, although I could be wrong.<p>Consumers that don&#x27;t use broadband extensive services: Why should those consumers be subsidizing those that use broadband heavy services?<p>Consumers using broadband extensive services: Why should Netflix not be allowed to help subsidize the cost of providing broadband? Why should this fall solely on the individual?<p>Government: The obvious concerns of more governmental control of the internet.<p>I could imagine a scenario where Netflix was not allowed to pay Comcast directly for increased bandwidth. Instead, Netflix would spend that money to lobby politicians to force Comcast to build out their infrastructure. I don&#x27;t see how that&#x27;s a better scenario than currently exists.<p>I think a better solution to very little competition in ISPs would be to decrease the barriers it takes to compete. Further regulation would only increase the barriers.<p>Netflix paying Comcast: <a href="http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/04/after-netflix-pays-comcast-speeds-improve-65/" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;arstechnica.com&#x2F;information-technology&#x2F;2014&#x2F;04&#x2F;after-...</a><p>Starting an ISP is Really Hard: <a href="http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/04/one-big-reason-we-lack-internet-competition-starting-an-isp-is-really-hard/" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;arstechnica.com&#x2F;business&#x2F;2014&#x2F;04&#x2F;one-big-reason-we-la...</a>

This is almost a little sad. Even on HN, a discussion about net neutrality seems to be devolving into a discussion of partisan politics.

Do NOT be fooled. An explicit ban on paid prioritization is the only way to preserve the system we have today. If you allow paid prioritization, there will no longer be a &quot;vibrant&quot; tech sector (as we think of it today) in the US. If you <i>only</i> ban paid prioritization, ISPs will continue to hold monopolies, price-fix, offer inferior service, not invest in their infrastructure, and fuck over their customers with fraudulent charges. But, hey, Netflix will stay in business, so all&#x27;s well, right?!<p>The goal with this move is to AVOID common carriers and AVOID competition. Paid prioritization is a minor symptom of the problem that ISPs are not common carriers. I say this because without common carriers, <i>if the only ISP has paid prioritization, a there is no competitor to switch to</i>. Banning paid prioritization will do nothing to address the <i>actual problems</i> with American ISPs. Our cable lobbyists and therefore our government will do anything to avoid common carrier legislation being passed.<p>Common carriers would not be allowed to control the content on their wires at all -- they would be forced to let ISPs purchase bandwidth and compete on the same wire. Granting wire ownership and content control to one company is a natural monopoly: In almost every locale new ISPs cannot use the wires someone else owns, new ISPs cannot dig trenches for new wires, and new ISPs have no common wires to offer service on. Therefore, no new ISPs can form under normal conditions, and competition cannot exist. The only logical conclusion is that we are being denied a free market, on purpose.

The usual political propaganda where a politician pretends to be &quot;champion of freedom&quot; while doing something that is exactly opposite. (In past he had described Tax Cuts as Tax Subsidies, implying all money belongs to government by default).<p>Here is the more relevant part<p>&quot;In a letter and a video posted on the White House website, President Obama said he believes &quot;the FCC should reclassify consumer broadband service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act,&quot; <i></i><i>allowing Internet Service Providers to be more heavily regulated</i><i></i>. According to Obama, the change would acknowledge that &quot;the Internet has become an essential part of everyday communication and everyday life.&quot;<p>This basically would mean government will now have a much bigger control over how new players enter this space and how they operate and how much profit they can make. When was the last time you heard PG&amp;E doing something innovative ?<p>The real problem with net-neutrality has not been that the operators are bad. The real problem is existing government regulation does not facilitate entry of new players. More government regulation would only mean slowing down of innovative services like Google Fiber or SpaceX&#x27;s internet satellites.<p>This sort of regulation would destroy the internet as we know it and will give more control to Government as to how we consume internet.

Obama&#x27;s comment &quot;and the content is legal&quot; comes the same day we hear the government seizes TOR nodes: <a href="http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/11/law-enforcement-seized-tor-nodes-and-may-have-run-some-of-its-own/" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;arstechnica.com&#x2F;security&#x2F;2014&#x2F;11&#x2F;law-enforcement-seiz...</a>

This is huge. The head of the executive branch just telegraphed one of his appointees that nothing less than Title II would meet his mark, at a time when the rule making process is in full swing. I think people need to dial back the cynicism a few notches. Call me overly optimistic,We could have true net neutrality within the next few years.

I hope this isn&#x27;t just hope and words, Obama needs to make this his legacy issue.<p>No segregation or discrimination online. There are no fast lanes, only slow lanes and tolls roads in our future if this isn&#x27;t preserved. The internet is one last place of freedom in the US, don&#x27;t turn it into a class&#x2F;caste based system.

Getting rid of &#x27;throttling&#x27; and &#x27;extra fees&#x27; not a bad idea. However, &quot;Free and Open&quot; is a way off. &quot;New ISP Regulations for Internet Access&quot; would be closer to reality. I am sure they will slip in some shady unconstitutional Section in the new Law as they always do.

There&#x27;s a lot of confusion about net neutrality and regulation of the internet at large.<p>I&#x27;d love to see a poll of the HN community to see the distribution of support, amongst what should be a relatively knowledgable group of people. Unfortunately I don&#x27;t have enough karma to create it myself.

This was a positive statement on an issue we all feel strongly about. Don&#x27;t listen to all the B.S about the president being a &quot;lame duck&quot;, he is still the most powerful man in the world. So give credit where credit is due. And stop listening to all the negative B.S.

..while all the major manufacturers of network equipment are trying their best to implement and even standardize logging, tracking, data collecting and traffic filtering &quot;features&quot; requested by governments of different countries, including US.

Can a net neutrality advocate please help me understand why the internet is different to physical roads and bridges?<p>UPS and FedEx are free to charge a different price when delivering a package from Amazon.com compared to Walmart.com.<p>So why should an internet service provide be prevented from charging a different price for delivering data from Amazon.com compared to Walmart.com?<p>Is it simply a case of there not being enough competition between internet service providers? If so, should net neutrality still be required in areas where there IS competition? For example, where I live in Australia I can get a 4G mobile data plan from any of 3 different providers (Telstra, Optus and Vodafone). Competition between them seems very effective, so is there really a need to require net neutrality in this case?

Now if he can call for free and open travel to Cuba. Maybe we can have an open dialog about US influence on a country that might be more &quot;open&quot; if we shared our culture with them. Oh well ...

1) Him having to interfere against the bs of the ISPs makes me sad, as it&#x27;s one more sign of the politicisation of the internet.<p>2) I welcome Obama being well advised, but he remains the spy master of the world.

I am ready to vote for the President for a third term only on this policy stance. But again, I am from India so can&#x27;t vote in the US and Presidents can&#x27;t have a third term in the US.

It&#x27;s a trap! I want net neutrality as much as the next person but having the federal government oversee it like it oversees utilities is a cure far worse than the disease.

&quot;Free&quot; and &quot;neutral&quot; can&#x27;t co-exist. &quot;Free&quot; means that the government controls it. This by itself implies that it&#x27;s not neutral.<p>Q.E.D.

I think this statement is just a disclaimer by the president for what&#x27;s to come. Does anybody truly believe that he&#x27;s in favor of net neutrality?

So on one hand he calls for state regulation of ISP&#x27;s, yet on the other he calls for a &quot;free and open&quot; internet. So which is it to be?

Oh you mean the dude who has been persecuting journalists in a more aggressive manner than any previous president. Yeah trust him and his opinion.

If the FCC rules against Net Neutrality, there is only one thing to be done: All the network administrators in the country must band together and bring the Internet to a screeching halt. Neither the politicians, the lobbyists, nor the corporate suits have any idea how to keep these systems running. But all the system admins that do, they know full well what is at stake here. So I have no doubts about this. As long as all of the admins can organize in action, Net Neutrality will soon become the law.

He is not calling for a free and open internet. He is essentially bringing it under government control by painting ISPs as bad guys.

Is the proposed policy designed to fix problems that real people are having right now? If so, who is being blocked from what?

I&#x27;m going to see Sen. Cruz speak on Saturday. If I get the chance, I&#x27;ll ask him about his net neutrality stance.

How is Tom Wheeler not mentioned once in this article?<p>Is there not a direct connection between his appointment by Obama and this issue?

Probably shouldn&#x27;t have appointed a former Comcast exec as the head of the FCC, Barry.

The usual horror of the phrase<p>&quot;I am from government and I am here to fix things for you&quot;.<p>Now, the government is in-charge of how we consume internet. This is bad and very bad. I cant see any scenario where this would be good for us. Expect the prices to go up and service to go down.

Obama supports it? Now this is DEFINITELY not going to happen.

I feel like he has just guaranteed that Title II won&#x27;t happen; the Republicans just got elected on a platform that essentially boiled down to &quot;We aren&#x27;t Obama&quot; and now control a majority of the legislature.

Yeah, one that he controls and regulates.

As usual, in the general case, President Obama verbs for a noun phrase. (Not that it&#x27;s bad, just routine.)

Unfortunately, he&#x27;s saying this at the point he has no chance of getting it through Congress.

Url changed from <a href="http://techcrunch.com/2014/11/10/president-obama-calls-for-a-free-and-open-internet-wants-it-reclassified-as-a-utility" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;techcrunch.com&#x2F;2014&#x2F;11&#x2F;10&#x2F;president-obama-calls-for-a...</a>, which points to this.

Yeah, and then he goes and signs an order expanding the permissions of the NSA and FBI to bypass constitutional rights and international law in the pursuit of being able to access and store private and confidential user data.

Should have had support for Net-Neutrality years ago. Nevertheless glad to see it now. I hope it makes a difference.

Free and Open Internet Vouched by NSA

screwed up medicare. screwed up with russia. screwed up with Iraq. Time to screw up the internet!

What an asshole.<p>It was under his Presidency that NSA expanded their programs.

Hahahah this is laughable...

&quot;Government&#x27;s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.&quot; Ronald Reagan

&quot;... Obama asked for no blocking of websites ...&quot;<p>So no blocking of torrent sites? yeh as if thats going to happen, rolls eyes