Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Networking Politics

New White House Petition For Net Neutrality 248

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the money-speaks-louder-than-petitions dept.
Bob9113 (14996) writes "On the heels of yesterday's FCC bombshell, there is a new petition on the White House petition site titled, 'Maintain true net neutrality to protect the freedom of information in the United States.' The body reads: 'True net neutrality means the free exchange of information between people and organizations. Information is key to a society's well being. One of the most effective tactics of an invading military is to inhibit the flow of information in a population; this includes which information is shared and by who. Today we see this war being waged on American citizens. Recently the FCC has moved to redefine "net neutrality" to mean that corporations and organizations can pay to have their information heard, or worse, the message of their competitors silenced. We as a nation must settle for nothing less than complete neutrality in our communication channels. This is not a request, but a demand by the citizens of this nation. No bandwidth modifications of information based on content or its source.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New White House Petition For Net Neutrality

Comments Filter:
  • by Narcocide (102829) on Thursday April 24, 2014 @05:13PM (#46835979) Homepage

    So say we all.

    • by Scowler (667000)
      Cool, now you can't stop my DOS attack.
      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Cool, now you can't stop my DOS attack.

        The joke is on you, I'm running OS/2 Warp.

      • We stop DOS attacks via filtering and black hole routing. Paying a provider to filter your traffic has nothing to do with neutrality nor does asking them to route all traffic to a specific destination to null.

        If were going to make regulations how about regulating that BCP38 be mandatory.

  • Oh, yes! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 24, 2014 @05:17PM (#46836017)

    Because this time, the Government will listen to a petition of the people posted on a website.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Yes, this time!

      http://change.gov/agenda/ethic... [change.gov]

      "I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on lobbyists â" and won. They have not funded my campaign, they will not run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president."

      -- Barack Obama, Speech in Des Moines, IA

      • by OneAhead (1495535)
        To be fair, that is true up until "I won", which is a cynical echo of Bush's infamous "mission accomplished". Obama lost early and lost hard (one of the prime examples being the spectacular defeat of "Obamacare 1.0" in 2009) against the lobbyists, and it is now abundantly clear he doesn't have the power to go against them and they are actively drowning out the voices of the American people [slashdot.org]. President != dictator (and that's a good thing, even if the president happens to align with one's opinion).
    • by Mitreya (579078)

      the Government will listen to a petition of the people posted on a website.

      It will.
      And then they will ask the head of FCC to explain why his decision is obviously a good thing (just like they have with ban-TSA White House petition).

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Obama ran on a policy of net neutrality support and staffed the FCC board with members with the intent of establishing net neutrality.

    Now the FCC (which the Obama administration controls) is doing a 180.

    Is this being done because Obama and the DNC doesn't want it or because Comcast is throwing money around?

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/re... [forbes.com]

    http://thehill.com/blogs/hilli... [thehill.com]

    • Is this being done because Obama and the DNC doesn't want it or because Comcast is throwing money around?

      I suspect that the latter directly impacts the former.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 24, 2014 @05:29PM (#46836097)

    Serious question. These petitions are clearly not only completely absent any actual legal or procedural relevance; they are routinely ignored by the white house, often complete with redicule and mocking, that is if any attention is paid to them whatsoever.

    These things are at best a token 'feel good' nod toward public relations and more realistically, these things are just flat out time wasters for all involved.

    So why is so much attention paid to them?

    Isn't it better to use your time and money towards things that could result in some real policy or legislative changes in government, such as supporting or working to defeat politicians, supporitng lobbying efforts, or other more traditional methods of interacting with the state?

    Oh and by the way, president Obama has made his 'transparency' campaign lie completely 'transparent' by now, you all should know that he will follow through on no promise that he doesn't already want to act on (which is most of them) and in the end is happy to lie right to the face of the voter and then go off into a back room and do exactly the opposite of what he states he will do, towards whatever end he pleases. So given that (Gitmo? allowing bills to be reviewed before signing them? eliminating lobbyists from the white house etc.) why would you guys spend any effort at all in trying to influence his decicions or actions? You *know* they could not possibly care less what you proles think.

    Real question; what are you guys thinking here? No one cares!

    • Real question; what are you guys thinking here? No one cares!

      Because it forces them to explicitly state that they don't give a fuck. We don't expect them to change. We expect them to give us ammo.

    • by Bob9113 (14996)

      Serious question. These petitions are clearly not only completely absent any actual legal or procedural relevance; they are routinely ignored by the white house, ... So why is so much attention paid to them?

      Because if they do work, great. If they do not, they are a way of documenting the fact that the government is not listening. The first step on the road to real reform is documenting the betrayal of will of the people.

      Isn't it better to use your time and money towards things that could result in some real

  • by MetalliQaZ (539913) on Thursday April 24, 2014 @05:30PM (#46836113)

    ...they can bend it all they want.

    Tom Wheeler is a crotchety old sleazebag who has been bought and paid for by Big Telecom. Unfortunately he's probably also foolish enough to think he's doing right by the American public. That's the most dangerous kind.

    RIP Internet

  • by Monoman (8745) on Thursday April 24, 2014 @05:31PM (#46836121) Homepage

    We pay for our bandwidth and now the greedy ISPs are wanting to get paid by the content providers (Netflix, Hulu, etc). Do you really think they are going to absorb the additional costs if this continues? Of course not, they will raise their prices.

    ISPs rarely deliver what you pay for so them crying that its the content providers fault is BS. The problem is lack of real competition in the ISP market. Most folks have a choice between cable and DSL. Two isn't enough to be very competitive.

    • Most people don't even have that choice. As sad as it is, Google Fiber is practically our last light of hope illuminating the shadow cast by ATT, Verizon, and Comcast.

      • by HaeMaker (221642)
        Yeah, but try setting up your own web server on Google Fiber... Net Neutrality is only for the big boys, it seems.
    • The effect you describe are correct, but the intermediate steps will be different in my opinion.
      If I follow what you say , Customers pay more, Cable companies become more profitable and internet companies pass on the cost and remain about the same in terms of profitability.
      The situation will probably be worse. All the larger companies (established ones) will be able to pay (And probably not take a serious hit). Any new entrants will find it a barrier. So will any non-US website. So, other than Netflix,Hu
    • The amount you pay your ISP is based on traditional usage patterns. Someone has to pay for the extra equipment.

      Either the ISP raises their prices or the content providers do, and why should Comcast customers who don't use Netflix pay extra in order to subsidize those that do?

      • by Monoman (8745)

        If they can't provide the bandwidth they advertise then they need to upgrade or change their business/billing model.

        The electric company doesn't charge me more for having inefficient appliances or for using them too much.

        • Huh? Yes, the electric company charges you more if you use more electricity. Or, at least, that's how it works in most of the world.

          As for the ISPs changing their billing model, well, what's your suggestion? Data caps/charges might work (ala electric company) but I assure you they're a pain in the backside. If the content providers and the ISPs can reach a deal which avoids that, I don't think you should be complaining about it.

          • by Monoman (8745)

            Yes the electric company bills by usage.

            My suggestion to the ISPs is don't false advertise unattainable speeds and "unlimited" service. Advertise/promise what you can deliver without the BS fine print.

            • Well ... the advertised speeds aren't unattainable - they're just not guaranteed in every situation. Unlimited service just means no data caps, so no false advertising there (at least not as concerns this story).

              I'm not sure why you're picking on ISPs in particular, very few industries go into that level of detail outside of the fine print when advertising. Confusing your customers isn't good business ... perhaps the FCC or whoever could mandate something. Perhaps it's possible to come up with a vaguely

      • They were already paid for in the 1996 Telecommunications Act with tax breaks. They took the money but never delivered the infrastructure upgrades that they agreed to. We were promised a faster cheaper internet by 2006 in return for a change in the rules that allowed all these mergers.
  • Sorry, but just about every one of these I've seen have been coming back from the office of Mr. "YES! YOU CAN!" has been "NO! YOU CAN'T!"

    Online petitions are worth exactly the amount of energy it takes to ignore them completely.

  • by MouseTheLuckyDog (2752443) on Thursday April 24, 2014 @05:42PM (#46836191)

    would ask that ISPs be classified as common carriers. Then there could be nothing they can do.

  • by XB-70 (812342) on Thursday April 24, 2014 @05:47PM (#46836245)
    The recent Princeton research shows that the U.S. appears to be an oligarchy.

    Let me put this out there: if they don't want net neutrality, mark my words, all the petitions in the world won't make a whit of difference.

    Let's review this topic in two years and see whether I'm right.

    • by Bob9113 (14996)

      Let me put this out there: if they don't want net neutrality, mark my words, all the petitions in the world won't make a whit of difference.

      The purpose of such efforts is a double edged sword: If it works, great. If it does not, it is one more bit of documentation that our government has betrayed the will of The People, and must be reformed.

  • One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results.

  • Comcast should be fined for extorting Netflix so they don't throttle their bandwith. The problem is that Comcast buys out politicians so the government no longer regulates monopolies, monopolies regulate the government.
    • Oh, for heaven's sake - haven't we gone over this enough times by now? Comcast *wasn't* throttling the bandwidth. They simply declined to pay for additional equipment that would only be of benefit to Netflix customers.

      Why should Comcast customers who don't use Netflix subsidize those that do?

  • As I see it, an ISP should first of all do QoS on their traffic based on *subscriber*...what their plan is, whether they have any SLAs in place, etc. At this stage the *type* of traffic should not be considered.

    As a second optional stage, *if a subscriber asks them to do so* then they could do type/source/whatever-based QoS, but that would *only affect packets belonging to that subscriber*.

    That way, your traffic can't affect mine, and mine can't affect yours. If I want, I can do my own QoS, or I can let t

  • As a veteran of the early days of the Internet, I wish people would just chill out from trying to get the Federal government to put more regulations on the Internet. The lack of regulation is what enabled the Internet to be what it is today.

    Someone has to pay to put bits into a network, someone has to pay to move bits in a network, and someone needs to pay to move bits out of a network.

    Leave it to the content providers and ISPs to figure out how to slice up the pie.

    If you want more competition in local ISP

  • As bad-taste as it is to post another submitted story in a front-page story, here is another whitehouse.gov petition story that addresses net neutrality from an angle that is actually winnable:

    http://slashdot.org/submission/3512823/whitehousegov-net-neutrality-petition [slashdot.org]

    That links to this: http://wh.gov/lfOKl [wh.gov]

    In order to win this fight, we need to make people understand that net neutrality is a services-paid-for issue. They paid for something, but they are being robbed out of getting what they purchased. To

    • No, the problem is that people don't understand what they've paid for. If you'd really paid for both ends of the traffic, with unlimited bandwidth, the prices would have been much higher than they are.

      Why should Comcast customers who don't use Netflix subsidize those that do?

  • i've signed on to the one linked in the article, but that petition lacks specifics. for example, one of the biggest problems is having a former CTIA lobbyist as the chairman of the FCC. that has to end.

    sign this petition if you agree: http://wh.gov/lwhr8 [wh.gov]

    yes, the usefulness of these petitions are questionnable. but if enough *voters* make a fuss, people notice. cynicism and total inaction never changes anything.

  • "[...] to mean that corporations and organizations can pay to have [...] the message of their competitors silenced."

    The new rules, as described in the previous article, allow a content provider to pay an ISP to install extra equipment to increase the bandwidth they have to their customers. They do not allow a content provider to pay to have an ISP block or degrade access to another content provider.

    The new rules are just common sense. ISPs should not be permitted to sell content providers exclusive access

  • Historic E.U. Net Neutrality Win Shows Maturing Digital Rights Advocacy [freedom-to-tinker.com]

    After a 5-year long campaign by European and U.S. digital rights NGOs, today the European Parliament turned a dubious Commission proposal on its head to safeguard the principle of net neutrality. It’s a historic win, and all over the news. It also shows how digital rights advocacy is maturing.

  • I'm all for network neutrality as a CONCEPT. As someone who has been running servers for decades I don't see how Washington can make a LAW requiring network neutrality that doesn't blow up in our faces.

    An ISP gets hundreds of thousands of connection attempts from known email spammers every day. The volume of other attacks can be measured in how many hit you per minute. You absolutely MUST block and prioritize traffic based on its origin in order to have any hope of running a usable network. If Washingto

  • Just a thought, but it seems that many of the objections here seem to be premised on the assumption that ISPs (and Comcast in particular) is taking too big of a profit margin. (Some people seem to think that running an ISP costs almost nothing and that Comcast are clearly pocketing almost all of their income.)

    So, perhaps rather than asking for regulatory changes that would break the internet, it would be more sensible to ask that ISPs - at least those with monopoly positions - be required to publicly relea

  • I can't believe there's only 5k signatures so far. I expected whitehouse.gov to get slashdotted.

A committee is a group that keeps the minutes and loses hours. -- Milton Berle

Working...