A good development, IMO.
I wonder if classifying the internet as a utility has any impact upon privacy law. We need similar guarantees regarding expectations of privacy when using the internet.
Also, the 'legal' part here could be worrisome:
- If a consumer requests access to a website or service, and the content is legal, your ISP should not be permitted to block it.
ISPs shouldn't regulate content or be enforcers.
Honestly, the whole thing seems like a publicity stunt, if Wheeler isn't being sacked.
I don't see this as conspiratorially as you do, but I'm certainly not going to tell you you're wrong to suspect something fishy. As he can't run for prez again, this is likely an attempt at leaving a favorable legacy of his presidency, aside from Obamacare. One problem, aside from fundamental issues other Hubskites have raised here, is that there's no way that the "Battle For The 'Net" is going to be finished playing out by January of 2017, when the next asshole is sworn in as POTUS. Who knows what their stance on the issue will be, and who knows who they'll appoint as head of the FCC. Wheeler has released a statement. I don't even care to read it, because I can imagine what it says, and I'm familiar with his history of hypocrisy. Anyway, you are definitely right about watching the money.
I know we've had the discussion before, but I'm just frustrated. We have people in positions of power who have committed what I would consider criminal negligence at best, and outright betrayal of the American people at worst. They continue to sleep soundly, in comfort and luxury, and even claim a moral high ground for their actions. Everyone not being paid to say otherwise seems to agree that Wheeler is essentially a corporate sockpuppet, and that while Obama could replace him, he is actively choosing not to. I don't give two shits about what The Crock of Drama has to say about this stuff. He knows what's right, and apparently doesn't care. I understand the concerns over the 'iron fisted president' stuff, (Firing anybody who disagrees with him) But he only has two years left. I didn't vote. I have voted in the past, I'm actively choosing to never vote for anything above a city/county level ever again, and even those must be issues that would otherwise force me to violence.
That's too bad, IMHO. There are usually local initiatives that are on the ballot, even if you abstain from the top of the ticket. Personally, I think a concerted write-in protest vote would be much more effective than the same number abstaining.I didn't vote. I have voted in the past, I'm actively choosing to never vote for anything above a city/county level ever again, and even those must be issues that would otherwise force me to violence.
I looked at what was going to be on my towns ballot. No issue that would move me to violence. Nothing that would affect people in my families tax bracket. I don't plan on having any effect on politics until I have enough money to buy a politician for myself. Who do I write in to? No one in a position of power cares about any of these issues, or they wouldn't be in power.
An evolution really. But I don't see movement towards moderation, Frank and honest conversation about real issues, or greater personal accountability demanded of those in government. The current structure could be salvaged by massive purges of appointed and elected positions, and the replacements sourced from relevant fields in the private sector. It's possible, but unlikely. The most likely thing is that we'll continue much as we have for the next couple decades until the droughts out west get bad enough to cause serious food shortages. Then there will be a lot of blood spilled, and hopefully by then I will be dead or have made enough money to have a self sufficient compound in the woods some where.
I strongly encourage your plan to focus on city/county and local elections, but at every level, whoever gets elected is decided by who shows up to vote. As evidenced by the wave of Republicans that just swept in: But I guess if you see a crapton of Republicans coming in as being the same as more Dems not much would change. Why not focus on getting one radical representative voted in on a very local level and go from there? Personally I think it's best to vote as much as possible while trying to put reps on the ballot that support radical campaign finance reform. Lawrence Lessig is a good guy to follow if you think that's the root of the problem: http://lessig.tumblr.comI didn't vote. I have voted in the past, I'm actively choosing to never vote for anything above a city/county level ever again...
Honestly, there's a tiny, tiny part of me that's kind of excited about big Republican victories. I think they are more likely to use extreme measures to accomplish their goals, which will hopefully cause greater dissatisfaction among the general population, and get more people to want high-level reforms. Or they'll just go 'Damn red guys, they screwed us this time, maybe the blue guys will use lube.' and we'll continue the cycle.
Legal guarantees of privacy would be empty platitudes. We used to have a legal expectation of privacy on the phone, and look how easily that crumbled. The NSA's not going to unplug themselves from the backbone of the internet any time soon. Fortunately, this is an area where we don't need to depend on legislators' promises. Privacy can be ensured by end-to-end encryption, and the technical solution requires a lot less trust in parties that consistently prove themselves untrustworthy in such matters. A lot of sites have been finally been moving to mandatory (or at least default) SSL. SSL isn't perfect, though; it seems more or less certain that major governments have access to root keys, and could effectively write their own certificates and MITM at will. I don't know how we can go about fixing or replacing SSL to take it out of government hands, but it seems like it's the narrowest part of the river on the path to privacy online.
I think that if Obama can enforce some sort of net neutrality, that it can turn out to become his lasting legacy. The internet and its open usage and freedom is only going to become more important. If we can now introduce some sort of legislation that favors the people instead of major conglomerate corporations, it will be beneficial for years to come. In the first part of the article it has quotes from leaders from Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast, and that just made me laugh. Those companies disgust me with their interests. If for a second you can tell me that Comcast is looking out for everyone in the long run, with a straight face, I would laugh at you.
He can't. The President doesn't have the authority to direct the FCC. In the 114th Congress? Seems unlikely.I think that if Obama can enforce some sort of net neutrality
If we can now introduce some sort of legislation that favors the people instead of major conglomerate corporations
We have to at least try something, Obama doesn't necessarily have to do it anyway. But even promoting net neutrality is a start