• Welcome to ZD Forums! You must create an account and log in to see and participate in the Shoutbox chat on this main index page.

White House Moves for Internet to Become Public Utility

Djinn

and Tonic
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Location
The Flying Mobile Opression fortress
This one sounds a tad more political than technology but on the subject of the internet.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/net-neutrality
More than any other invention of our time, the Internet has unlocked possibilities we could just barely imagine a generation ago. And here's a big reason we've seen such incredible growth and innovation: Most Internet providers have treated Internet traffic equally. That's a principle known as "net neutrality" — and it says that an entrepreneur's fledgling company should have the same chance to succeed as established corporations, and that access to a high school student's blog shouldn't be unfairly slowed down to make way for advertisers with more money.

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

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

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

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

Emma

The Cassandra
Site Staff
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Location
Vegas
People who signed petitions, or made protests over this, shouldn't give themselves too much credit. The White House doesn't care what you think. This was about more money. Obama didn't take this stance until big companies like Google stood up for net neutrality. So in the case, the companies that want the internet crippled have less money than the ones that want it kept neutral. Google thrives on a big internet. The bigger the better. Killing net neutrality will kill a lot of the internet and Google would get a lot less traffic because most of what people would search for wouldn't be from a big corporation that can pay the ISP ransom. It'd also hurt their browser and smartphone divisions because people will complain about it being too slow. All in all it'd really damage their business. So it's not surprising why they stand against it.
 

Djinn

and Tonic
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Location
The Flying Mobile Opression fortress
That's true for everything though, politicians only make any effort when it looks nice in the next election round. Or in some significant way pushes their own careers. I agree they could not care less what the individual is paying for or how. But this one is actually pretty useful in actually helping bring net neutrality back to the table after being defeated last spring.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom