The Internet is Saved - The FCC has ruled in favor of Net Neutrality

Net nuetrality is a trojan horse imo. The internet is not broke but the FCC is trying to fix it. Without NN the internet is screwed of course but if a pro-NN law is passed, well that just invited the FCC to regulate this so-called neutrality in either case.

BUT....this whole issue could be made irrelevant soon though because there are many people right now working to reshape and decentralize the internet as we know it. In other words, we wont need central servers that are run by ISPs. Everyones computers could act as a mini-server so to speak in the near future and information will be stored in a much more secure manner. check out project maidsafe for anyone interested in this.
 
TeamJordan79 said:
Net nuetrality is a trojan horse imo. The internet is not broke but the FCC is trying to fix it. Without NN the internet is screwed of course but if a pro-NN law is passed, well that just invited the FCC to regulate this so-called neutrality in either case.

BUT....this whole issue could be made irrelevant soon though because there are many people right now working to reshape and decentralize the internet as we know it. In other words, we wont need central servers that are run by ISPs. Everyones computers could act as a mini-server so to speak in the near future and information will be stored in a much more secure manner. check out project maidsafe for anyone interested in this.
Click to expand...
correction...

It is broken because the higher ups aren't making enough profit on it.
 
Guess I'm spoiled to have fios in my area. I thought it was fairly widespread. It's been here for over 3 years already.
 
Last edited:
JewelKnows said:
This is why I dumped Comcast for a local ISP. Luckily I lived in the area where they offered service because here in the Bay Area Comcast and ATT anda stronghold. We have a few small companies that compete and I will give them my money any day.

What baffles me the most is how googles home territory (bay area) is not covered in Google fiber, but that again isn't their fault.

We definitely need to fight this, but as long as the money is in the politicians pockets there's almost no way aside from technological advances. Google will be the front runner.
Click to expand...

I'm in San Jose. What other providers is there? I absolutely HATE Xfinity.
 
[h1]  [/h1]
Yeah, were screwed.
[h1]  [/h1][h1]  [/h1][h1]  [/h1][h1]Cable companies are reportedly funding fake consumer groups to attack net neutrality[/h1]
BY  DANIEL COOPER    @DANIELWCOOPER    JUNE 6TH 2014, AT 5:05:00 AM ET

The public wants net neutrality  so badly that it broke the FCC's website. But can the weighty voice of the people combat well-funded astroturfing?  VICE  believes that the nation's cable companies are funding groups that pretend to represent consumers, but are actually just parroting their own stance to shout down the general public. For instance, the outlet has learned that Broadband for America, which describes itself as a coalition involving "independent consumer advocacy groups," and which counts senator John Sununu  amongst its members, is actually funded by the NCTA -- big cable's lobbyists. It's the same situation with the American Consumer Institute, another anti-net neutrality voice of the people, which just happens to receive the bulk of its funding from the CTIA, which represents the US wireless industry. Now, what was the thing our grandma told us aboutastroturfing?  Oh right: if you have to invent spokespeople to represent the other side in the debate, you're probably not the good guys.

http://www.engadget.com/2014/06/06/cable-companies-alleged-to-astroturf-net-neutrality/
 
All the service providers are scared of competition and are worried the current business model will become a thing of the past because of the internet and rise in programming cost. Like others here said laying down fiber to individual homes is already super expensive which is why fios stopped expanding. Like was said in John Oliver's show almost all this country has 2 or less options for internet service and dsl is one of those mostly.
 
zapatohead408 said:
JewelKnows said:
This is why I dumped Comcast for a local ISP. Luckily I lived in the area where they offered service because here in the Bay Area Comcast and ATT anda stronghold. We have a few small companies that compete and I will give them my money any day.

What baffles me the most is how googles home territory (bay area) is not covered in Google fiber, but that again isn't their fault.

We definitely need to fight this, but as long as the money is in the politicians pockets there's almost no way aside from technological advances. Google will be the front runner.
Click to expand...

I'm in San Jose. What other providers is there? I absolutely HATE Xfinity.
Click to expand...
bruh we stuck with comcast
until google decides to bring google fiber to the bay
which is where it shoulda BEEN started :smh:
 
Murkn3m said:
Comcast and att are the only options I have in my area.. This sucks...
Click to expand...
Comcast is awesome. I pay for ~20MB/S and ever since signing up about two years ago they've constantly increased the amount of bandwidth on my connection. I'm pushing ~40MB/S now and upload speeds of ~20MB/S. Why don't you like Comcast?
 
nawghtyhare said:
bruh we stuck with comcast
until google decides to bring google fiber to the bay
which is where it shoulda BEEN started
mean.gif
Click to expand...
Comcast is a great ISP, I don't know why you guys are bashing them. Sonic, based out of Santa Rosa, also provides excellent internet services.
 
got an e-mail from senator chuck schumer on the issue after I hit the petition. may not be much but it's about all we can do. agendas gonn agenda
 
nawghtyhare said:
zapatohead408 said:
JewelKnows said:
This is why I dumped Comcast for a local ISP. Luckily I lived in the area where they offered service because here in the Bay Area Comcast and ATT anda stronghold. We have a few small companies that compete and I will give them my money any day.

What baffles me the most is how googles home territory (bay area) is not covered in Google fiber, but that again isn't their fault.

We definitely need to fight this, but as long as the money is in the politicians pockets there's almost no way aside from technological advances. Google will be the front runner.
Click to expand...

I'm in San Jose. What other providers is there? I absolutely HATE Xfinity.
Click to expand...
bruh we stuck with comcast
until google decides to bring google fiber to the bay
which is where it shoulda BEEN started :smh:
Click to expand...

What if we start a petition to bring Google Fiber to the Bay Area? If there's enough people asking for Google Fiber they'll come and fight Comcast. :pimp:


shake said:
Murkn3m said:
Comcast and att are the only options I have in my area.. This sucks...
Click to expand...


Comcast is awesome. I pay for ~20MB/S and ever since signing up about two years ago they've constantly increased the amount of bandwidth on my connection. I'm pushing ~40MB/S now and upload speeds of ~20MB/S. Why don't you like Comcast?
Click to expand...

I also pay for 20MB/S. I am constantly having problems with the internet working as it constantly disconnects and I get a message on my phone saying "Internet connection is unstable."

We had a dude come out to see what was wrong with it. He ran a test and let us know we're getting 40MB/S even though we only pay for 20. I'm VERY happy with my internet as it's incredibly fast, but it never works. I'm not exaggerating when I say my internet gets disconnected 20-40 times in a day. An average day is between 15-20 times, while I'm awake and using it.

Not to mention I don't support anything they're doing.
 
zapatohead408 said:
What if we start a petition to bring Google Fiber to the Bay Area? If there's enough people asking for Google Fiber they'll come and fight Comcast.
pimp.gif

I also pay for 20MB/S. I am constantly having problems with the internet working as it constantly disconnects and I get a message on my phone saying "Internet connection is unstable."

We had a dude come out to see what was wrong with it. He ran a test and let us know we're getting 40MB/S even though we only pay for 20. I'm VERY happy with my internet as it's incredibly fast, but it never works. I'm not exaggerating when I say my internet gets disconnected 20-40 times in a day. An average day is between 15-20 times, while I'm awake and using it.

Not to mention I don't support anything they're doing.
Click to expand...
Google Fiber already exists in the Bay Area and will be expanding soon enough.

Have you ever considered it being your networking equipment rather than the Comcast connection? You could be connected to a ****** Comcast node, but that's not very common in a heavily populated area like the Bay Area. What kind of router do you use? How old is it? Does an ethernet connection drop also?

As for as Comcast and Net Neutrality go, Comcast is a powerhouse business in the cable world. They're obviously going to save their ***** and reputation at the end of the day. I don't believe that many other ISPs will act much differently, no matter how big or small.
 
What's going on right now in the world is why net neutrality should be one of the biggest topics in the world
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...t-its-time-for-stronger-net-neutrality-rules/

The New York Times editorial board is calling on the Federal Communications Commission to adopt stronger net neutrality rules than what is currently being proposed, suggesting the agency should reclassify broadband under Title II of the Communications Act to preserve Internet openness.

Citing recent statements by President Obama, the Times argues that Internet providers should not be allowed to charge Web sites for faster access to consumers. Under FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler's current plan, Internet providers would be tacitly allowed to strike financial deals with Web sites so long as they were not deemed commercially unreasonable — a policy known as "paid prioritzation." Critics of the plan worry that it could result in some companies being unable to pay, or that the costs may be passed along to Internet users.

Obama said earlier this month that "you don’t want to start getting a differentiation in how accessible the Internet is to different users. You want to leave it open so the next Google and the next Facebook can succeed."

The Times said Thursday that the FCC should take a cue from Obama's remarks.

"Mr. Obama is sending Mr. Wheeler and his fellow commissioners a message," the Times writes. "They should pay attention."

Wheeler has said that he is personally opposed to paid prioritization because it risks interrupting a "virtuous cycle" of investment by broadband companies and consumer demand for new services.

The Times' editorial came a day after a former FCC commissioner, Michael Copps, requested a meeting with Obama to discuss net neutrality. In a letter to the president, Copps and Craig Aaron, president of the consumer group Free Press, said they did not "seek a meeting lightly."

"If we thought it was anything less than urgent, we would not do so," the two men wrote.


Opponents of stronger rules have pointed out that reclassifying broadband under Title II would not necessarily prevent Internet providers from pursuing paid prioritization, because the law would only prohibit "unjust and unreasonable" practices. Among those pushing against stronger regulation is the Wall Street Journal, whose editorial board wrote in May that Title II would "automatically impose myriad obligations that have nothing to do with current customer needs."

It wasn't long ago that net neutrality was an obscure issue for the courts. Now it's increasingly become a presidential matter.


Brian Fung covers technology for The Washington
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-jason-johnson/naacps-net-failure-in-ferguson_b_5686583.html

How the Civil Rights Organization's hypocritical stance on Net Neutrality Hurts Activism in Ferguson

The shooting of teenager Mike Brown by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri has mutated from a tragic local killing to a national crisis. The Ferguson police, operating with incompetence worthy of the film Police Academy and the aggression of an occupying army have turned a possible criminal act by a cop into a human rights crisis in America's heartland. Activists and organizations from Al Sharpton and the ACLU to new NAACP president Cornell Brooks descended upon the town to express outrage, call for justice and fight for solutions. While it helps for many of these civil rights organizations to be at ground zero, what would really make a big impact on Ferguson and other cities in racial strife should happen back in Washington DC. If the NAACP and other civil rights organizations really care about justice, accountability and activism, they'll change their bizarre stance on net neutrality. We would never know what was going on in Ferguson without a free and open Internet and for some reason the NAACP is fighting to shut that down.

Let's step back a few weeks. On July 18, Michael Brown was still alive, Darren Wilson was patrolling the streets like a white Eddie Walker, and the most important national story out of the St. Louis metro area was whether Michael Sam could make the Tony Dungy All-Star squad. What escaped the attention of all but a few tech media was that on that day the NAACP, the National Action Network, the Urban League, 100 Black Men, the National Hispanic Caucus of State Legislators, the Council of Korean Americans, Rainbow PUSH and about a dozen other civil rights organizations filed a brief to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) basically begging to end net neutrality.

What does net neutrality have to do with Ferguson, Missouri? Everything. Net neutrality means all content on the Internet has to be treated equally. So your Mom's blog about her Florida vacation loads at the same rate as when you binge watch House of Cards. In January, the U.S. appeals court ruled that big Internet service providers like Verizon and Comcast could charge different rates to different content providers online. Which means now an ISP could charge Netflix or Twitter more to make them run "faster" and content providers who aren't willing to pay may load content slower, or lose the ability entirely. This is not just some doomsday conspiracy theory either. Everyone from Amazon, Ebay, Linked In, Kickstarter, Google and even Twitter have warned the FCC that ending net neutrality will block content, stifle debate, harm citizen journalism and pretty much screw up the Internet.

Which brings us back to Ferguson. Local and national civil rights groups were dependent on hashtag activism and social media to know what was really going on during those first violent nights of protest. While many cable networks covered the unrest like it was the "No Church in the Wild" video, the real story on the ground was reported on Twitter and Vine by Ferguson Alderman Antonio French, Yamiche Alcindor at USA Today, Wesley Lowery at Washington Post, or Ryan Reilly at The Huffington Post. Not to mention organizations that dared to livestream from Ferguson in the face of police harassment. This all happened in realtime, information, fact-checking and oversight provided almost instantaneously by equally supported tweets, vines, posts and livestreams. If net neutrality ends we could see an end to that type of reporting and information. Imagine if AT&T ran Twitter slower than Verizon? Would civil rights groups have known Ferguson police were using tear gas while claiming they were only using smoke bombs? What if Time Warner didn't carry livestreams for nonprofit sites? What if some content was simply blocked by Comcast, do we ever find out what happened to journalists who were harassed by cops? Would America be better served by getting spoon-fed information about riots from a local police department that has lied, defied FOIA requests and isn't even trusted by the Department of Justice? When threats to Internet freedom happened in Turkey, Americans were up in arms. The fact that we're possibly months away from the same fate here should scare the apathy out of everyone in this country who is concerned about when the next three Ferguson's might happen.

This all begs the question, why would the nation's oldest, most influential civil rights organization side with Comcast, CenturyLink and Verizon over the tools of modern activism like Reddit, Tumbler, Facebook, and Twitter? Do they really believe the big telecoms will play fair on the information superhighway? Probably not, but a few million dollars in donations from AT&T has a way of changing even the most dedicated social justice organization. Let's not pretend the NAACP can't be bought. Just ask Donald Sterling. Telecom lobbyists know that the FCC listens to minority rights organizations, so with a few well-publicized donations here and there, Big Telecom knows some civil rights groups will fall all over themselves to destroy the Internet, the great equalizer in the battle for social justice.

There are literally dozens of things that will be coming in the aftermath of the Mike Brown shooting in Ferguson. More civil rights lawsuits than you can count, a new police chief, and serious federal level discussions about the militarization of police. The NAACP will play a large role in those discussions and other organizations will follow their lead. No one can ignore the role the Internet plays in shining a light on the horrific tragedies perpetuated by Ferguson Missouri cops as they goose-step over the U.S. Constitution. Without a free and open Internet this would not happen. If these civil rights organizations truly care about the future of justice in this country, they MUST change their stance on net neutrality. To do otherwise is to admit that corporate dollars mean more than constitutional rights.

Dr. Jason Johnson is a Professor of Political Science at Hiram College, Director of the "Politics Of..." Education Program and a frequent guest on Al Jazeera, MSNBC , CNN and Fox.
 


What Happens to #Ferguson Affects Ferguson:
Net Neutrality, Algorithmic Filtering and Ferguson
Ferguson is about many things, starting first with race and policing in America.

But it’s also about internet, net neutrality and algorithmic filtering.

It’s a clear example of why “saving the Internet”, as it often phrased, is not an abstract issue of concern only to nerds, Silicon Valley bosses, and few NGOs. It’s why “algorithmic filtering” is not a vague concern.

It’s a clear example why net neutrality is a human rights issue; a free speech issue; and an issue of the voiceless being heard, on their own terms.

I saw this play out in multiple countries — my home country of Turkey included — but last night, it became even more heartbreakingly apparent in the United States as well.

For me, last night’s Ferguson “coverage” began when people started retweeting pictures of armored vehicles with heavily armored “robocops” on top of them, aiming their muzzle at the protesters, who seemed to number a few hundred. It was the fourth night after an unarmed black man, Michael Brown, was shot by a — still unnamed — police officer after a “jaywalking” incident. Witnesses say he died hands in the air, saying “don’t shoot”.



The first night Mike Brown was shot, a friend asked on Twitter whether this would ever make the national news. It deserved to be national news as multiple significant, ongoing crises intersect at Ferguson: the loss of jobs which hit these communities worst; the militarization of US police departments; race; chronic multi-generational poverty.

But those very factors often make it less likely such places make the news, except as trouble spots. Places to be ignored. Avoided. “We” hear it only through official statements, often dismissing local concerns, painting them as looters, thugs, troublemakers.

Yes Ferguson will make news, another friend tweeted, because… well, here you go: Twitter.

It seems like a world ago in which such places, and such incidents, would be buried in silence, though, of course, residents knew of their own ignored plight. Now, we expect documentation, live-feeds, streaming video, real time Tweets.

I watched this interaction online. When local the police department in Ferguson showed up at the first vigils for this young man with dogs, the outrage spilled over to people who may not have been following it the first day. When night after night, reports of tear gas came in, more national journalists went to the area, as well as more residents turning on their cameras, deliberately. More and more people started talking about this.

Yesterday, national journalists were harassed, assaulted, arrested — without paperwork — while sitting quietly, recharging their phones at McDonald's — captured on video. Police positioned like snipers on top of armored, anti-mine vehicles kept their rifles — I have no idea what kind — aimed at protester within full view of national media, in broad daylight — pictured from multiple angles.



This unfolded in real time on my social media feed which was pretty soon taken over by the topic — and yes, it’s a function of who I follow but I follow across the political spectrum, on purpose, and also globally. Egyptians and Turks were tweeting tear gas advice. Journalists with national profiles started going live on TV. And yes, there were people from the left and the right who expressed outrage.

I write and talk often about protest over-policing in multiple countries, so the topic was not a new one to me but I saw many people who I know don’t necessarily follow this day-to-day (and don’t condemn — not everyone can, or should, follow every worthy issue) start talking about it.

And this is what happened to “Ferguson” on Twitter:



And then I switched to non net-neutral Internet to see what was up. I mostly have a similar a composition of friends on Facebook as I do on Twitter.

Nada, zip, nada.

No Ferguson on Facebook last night. I scrolled. Refreshed.

I was not the only one who noticed this. Others remarked as well:



This morning, though, my Facebook feed is also very heavily dominated by discussion of Ferguson. Many of those posts seem to have been written last night, but I didn’t see them then. Overnight, “edgerank” –or whatever Facebook’s filtering algorithm is called now — seems to have bubbled them up, probably as people engaged them more.

But I wonder: what if Ferguson had started to bubble, but there was no Twitter to catch on nationally? Would it ever make it through the algorithmic filtering on Facebook? Maybe, but with no transparency to the decisions, I cannot be sure.

Would Ferguson be buried in algorithmic censorship?

Would we even have a chance to see her?


Photo: Robert Cohen
This isn’t about Facebook per se—maybe it will do a good job, maybe not—but the fact that algorithmic filtering, as a layer, controls what you see on the Internet. Net neutrality (or lack thereof) will be yet another layer determining this. This will come on top of existing inequalities in attention, coverage and control.

Twitter was also affected by algorithmic filtering. “Ferguson” did not trend in the US on Twitter but it did trend locally. [I’ve since learned from @gilgul that that it *briefly* trended but mostly trended at localities.] So, there were fewer chances for people not already following the news to see it on their “trending” bar. Why? Almost certainly because there was already national, simmering discussion for many days and Twitter’s trending algorithm (said to be based on a method called “term frequency inverse document frequency”) rewards spikes… So, as people in localities who had not been talking a lot about Ferguson started to mention it, it trended there though the national build-up in the last five days penalized Ferguson.

Algorithms have consequences.

Mass media, typically, does not do very well covering chronic problems of unprivileged populations, poor urban blacks bear the brunt of this, but they are not alone. Rural mostly white America, too, is almost always ignored except for the occasional “meth labs everywhere” story. But yesterday, many outlets were trying, except police didn’t let them. Chris Hayes says that police ordered satellite trucks off the area so that they could not go live from the area. Washington Post was only one outlet whose journalists were arrested — citizen journalists were targeted as well.

On the scrappy live feed kept up by frequently tear-gassed, coughing citizen journalists, I heard the announcements calling on them to “turn off their cameras.”


https://twitter.com/trevortimm/status/499742916315582464
But maybe in the future, they don’t have to bother to arrest journalists and force cameras off. In California, legislation is being considered for “kill switches” in phones — a feature I honestly cannot imagine a good use for this in the United States.

The citizen journalists held on, even as choked from the gas, some traditional media started going live from the region, and today, it’s on the front page of many newspapers.

Maybe, just maybe, there can be a national conversation on these topics long-ignored outside these communities. That’s not everything: it may be a first step, or it may get drowned out.

But at least, we are here.

But I’m not quite sure that without the neutral side of the Internet—the livestreams whose “packets” were fast as commercial, corporate and moneyed speech that travels on our networks, Twitter feeds which are not determined by an opaque corporate algorithms but my own choices,—we’d be having this conversation.

So, I hope that in the coming days, there will be a lot written about race in America, about militarization of police departments, lack of living wage jobs in large geographic swaths of the country.

But keep in mind, Ferguson is also a net neutrality issue. It’s also an algorithmic filtering issue. How the internet is run, governed and filtered is a human rights issue.

And despite a lot of dismal developments, this fight is far from over, and its enemy is cynicism and dismissal of this reality.

Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

What happens to #Ferguson affects what happens to Ferguson.
Click to expand...
 
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/11/10/president-obama-net-neutrality-reaction/18797601/

President Obama's call for net neutrality could drive the Federal Communications Commission to regulate broadband service like a utility as a way to protect consumers' ability to access all content without a threat of connectivity being throttled.

The FCC is an independent agency that will establish its own rules. But Obama's public prodding could push the agency to adopt a new set of regulations that will allow greater oversight of Internet service providers.

Obama walked into the fray Monday, seeking more clarity on the hot-button issue. His unequivocal support for "net neutrality" – the notion that any and all content should be treated equally by Internet providers – could add fervor to a fight that has already gone on for years.

"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," Obama said in a statement released by the White House. "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."

1: Under the concept of net neutrality, all data on
1: Under the concept of net neutrality, all data on the Internet are treated the same by an Internet service provider (ISP).(Photo: Source USA TODAY research by Mike Snider, USA TODAY)
Specifically, Obama called for prohibiting ISPs from blocking or deliberately slowing any legal content. His proposals also include a recommendation to mostly ban paid-for "fast-lane" access, in which a content provider refusing to pay extra would be subject to slower Internet transmission.

His support for the FCC to reclassify consumer broadband Internet service and regulate it as if it's a utility – like electricity and water – rallied many consumer advocacy groups that have asked for a similar strategy to protect unfettered access. The reclassification would give the FCC "much greater authority to address consumer problems," says John Bergmayer, an attorney at technology policy advocacy group Public Knowledge. "It's a source of authority that the FCC can draw on for many broadband problems."



2: But some content, such as video, is more data-intensive
2: But some content, such as video, is more data-intensive and can hit bottlenecks, frustrating consumers.(Photo: Source USA TODAY research by Mike Snider, USA TODAY)
"This is the critical infrastructure of our 21st century," said Michael Copps, a former FCC commissioner and special adviser to Common Cause. "This is how we communicate with each other. This is our news and our information, our journalism, our innovation and entrepreneurship. This really demonstrates that the president understands how important this issue is."


USA TODAY
Obama endorses net neutrality
3: Net neutrality rules would require all content be
3: Net neutrality rules would require all content be treated equally. Some exceptions could be made for prioritized traffic such as data involving health care and emergencies.(Photo: Source USA TODAY research by Mike Snider, USA TODAY)
However, industry groups that represent ISPs criticized the plan. "Such a move would set the industry back decades, and threaten the private sector investment that is critically needed to ensure that the network can meet surging demand," the Telecommunications Industry Association in a statement.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R- Texas, compared the plan to Obamacare on Twitter, saying that "the Internet should not operate at the speed of government."


The FCC has been recasting new net neutrality rules because the previous set were tossed out by a federal court in January. The court agreed that the agency could regulate the Internet but first must enact rules that establish its authority. The agency got nearly 4 million responses during its public comment period on potential rules.

While the FCC had been expected to vote on new rules by the end of the year, that is unlikely. "The more deeply we examined the issues around the various legal options, the more it has become plain that there is more work to do," FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said in a statement after the president's was made public.

Net neutrality supporters have criticized early drafts of the rules saying they could allow ISPs to create "fast lanes" that would cost consumers more. Meanwhile, ISPs have told the FCC that they would abide by open Internet rules, to not prioritize certain content, without such a utility-based regulatory approach.

"This would be a radical reversal that would harm investment and innovation, as today's immediate stock market reaction demonstrates," said Comcast Corp. executive vice president David Cohen in a statement.

Shares of ISPs fell Monday morning following the announcement. Comcast fell 3.75% to $53.07.

Cohen argued that Congress should be the body to enact new net neutrality rules. "The Internet has not just appeared by accident or gift – it has been built by companies like ours investing and building networks and infrastructure. The policy the White House is encouraging would jeopardize this engine for job creation and investment as well as the innovation cycle that the Internet has generated," he said.


During his initial campaign, the president promised to fight for an open Internet, in which free speech was protected and content flowed equally. Still, his public statement "is a dramatic move. It's unprecedented for the Oval Office to issue a statement so forcefully and clearly," said Richard Doherty of industry consulting firm The Envisioneering Group.

With the midterm elections behind him, Obama wants clarity on the agency's direction, he says. Still, Doherty expects any regulation to allow some market forces to work organically, allowing competition and prioritization for critical functions such as remote health care monitoring. "I think we will see what America is best at .. (a) competitive marketplace at work."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

jape
Is death the only answer?
3 4 5
Replies
123
Views
12K
spizike231
spizike231
barrebaby
So will we ever see JB drop the retro 4+ blue speckle that was supposed to be after 25 years of waiting?
Replies
11
Views
3K
airdhazzal
airdhazzal

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom