President Obama: My plan for a Free and Open Internet


#1

#2

It’s a PR move. He’s looking to curry favor with the masses who are pissed with having their internet usage censored and monitored.


#3

Equal surveillance for all!

Obama’s plan is absurd.


#4

I think this is great.

MaidSafe for all :smile:

USA government will have no choice but to recognize such a technology as valid and acceptable. :slight_smile:


#5

#6

It’s not great because it’ll lead to a congestion and the inability to purchase a better service even if you wanted it and even if the your provider had the service you wanted to pay for. It doesn’t get more ridiculous than that. You can get any type of Internet (speed and QoS) you want, as long as it’s ObamaNet.

ObamaNet, ObamaPhone, ObamaCare… Why not introduce ObamaSafe, so that everyone gets the same number of SAFE coins regardless of how much (or if at all) they “mine”? :smiley:

Why would someone want to invest in new network capacity for your new shiny MaidSafe home-farm so that you can run your little farm subsidized by some grandma down the street who uses the Internet only to checks her AOL email, effectively partially paying the cost you create by hogging the pipe?

I know this is going to turn into a political discussion so I’ve “Muted” this topic.

By the way, this topic belongs to the Off-Topic section.


Broadband Reclassified to Title II
#7

No matter what any political party does, the opposite party is going to raise a stink about the worst case scenario.

Maidsafe will enforce net neutrality. That is much of the goal, I believe. Particular in places like China…

Really the question is “Ought Amazon and Netflix’s business model be subsidized by Comcast and Time Warner - and the answer is probably 'No” on the other hand, Time Warner and Comcast ought not unnecessarily Clog the pipe for to hinder these services in furtherance of their own…

Its just corporate bickering and tattle tales… Don’t give it more importance than it is.

If MaidSAFE gets it’s way, the Internet service provider will be a utility only… They may not like it, but they won’t have a choice…


#8

We need the to be dumb pipes. He’s saying Title II. Fits at least rhetorically with a first step in addressing digital divide in the last place performance, highest prices, endless excuses corporate welfare US. This industry needs to be STUFU’d, the idea that the industry has a voice relative to the public is outrageous. The only voice is the public’s, the only purpose for a tiny voice for industry is how it will best directly serve the public.

To quote that sponsored whore mag Ars Technica

“In short, Obama is siding with consumer advocates who have lobbied for months in favor of reclassification while the telecommunications industry lobbied against it.”

There is no other side except the public’s. We don’t do things against the public because a people spent a lot of money trying to bribe and screw the public- that is crime, its a conspiracy (or collusion) against the public even if ( or perhaps especially if) it happens to intersect with a useless increase of profit.

Hopefully this the first salvo in getting rid of sponsored media all together and will be the basis of a platform used to defeat the GOP. Sponsored media is basically the core vote suppression mechanism and turning the net into cable was their master plan. Hilarious watching the cable telco industry trying to say that regulating their pathetic last place nonsense will help China and Russia- because what these countries are the enemy? He’s pulled their punk card hard with this and if they push it they can separate the GOP even from its own voters and with proper rule changes get rid of the GOP permanently.

I look forward to the day when the American people can apply the writ of quo waranto, the corporate death penalty to Comcast and AT&T. http://calcorporatelaw.com/2014/10/killing-corporation/


#9
  1. You say it’s unnecessary, they think it’s not. It’s basic economics. Resources are limited, needs are not. Someone always needs to pay. Somebody has to pay. If nobody pays (if it it turns into an all-you-can-eat), service will get crappy.
  2. The more they clog the pipe to hinder Netflix and the more they can sell their own service, the cheaper it becomes for non-Netflix customers to access the Internet. Whatever way one feels about it, it doesn’t change the fact that somebody has to pay. Of course most people hope that somebody is not them. That’s not new.
  1. China ranks very poorly in terms of networking performance (~50% of world average).
  2. Additionally, because of the fight for market share many companies offer free online storage greatly diminishing the need the advantage of open source solutions. It’s common to allow users to store 1TB of new data per year for free. That’s 2.5 GB/day. As long as it’s not subversive content, anything goes.
  3. There are legal streaming services that stream popular movies and music, so there’s little need to hoard content and build a personal multimedia library (and even if you wanted to, you can store 3 DVDs per week for free).
    So I disagree that people there are desperate for alternatives. They’re surely welcome them, but I wouldn’t expect tens of millions of data-hungry users there.

I said elsewhere on this site that if they can’t charge for QoS and capacity, unlimited data plans will be first to go.
If they don’t have a choice, they won’t invest and you’ll get such crappy service that your MaidSafe farm will make close to zero revenue while users in countries without ObamaNet will pay a bit extra to their telco (just enough to beat your congested network) and make disproportionately more from the same investment in their MaidSafe farm.
People will be begging for discrimination.


#10

Actually I didn’t say that it was unnecessary… In some cases it may be. I understand that, and believe that QoS ought to be preserved. I am smart enough however not to trust incumbents to police themselves. In some cases, the government sponsored monopoly (Cable company) may want to hinder free market offerings (Amazon / Netflix) that compete with their own. I am pretty certain that their interests extend well beyond QoS.

Remember this: These companies are Government sanctioned monopolies. It isn’t a free market. If it is a government sanctioned monopoly, it does deserve some government oversight. I have two choices for broadband in my neighborhood. Both of them are government sanctioned monopolies. The nature of regulated incumbents is to try to fence out the innovative competitors.

I am a conservative, and generally do not approve of Obama’s policies. I refuse however to pick up the opposition’s talking points and run with them though. I like free markets a lot more than rent seeking government monopolies. If we are going to have a government sanctioned monopoly, it ought to be a utility, not a “content provider”

By and large, the parties are pawn of the corporate bickering. Their job is to stir discontent to make us worried and angry enough to vote and to give money to political causes. Technology trumps government. Don’t empower them by giving them more credit than they deserve.


#11

I agree that it’ isn’t a free market, but I think you got it backwards - it isn’t free because of the government oversight.
We can’t claim it needs oversight by the government because the government screwed it up. The solution to a poor government is not more government.

To those on this page to argued how this is great news and how the US telcos will turn the other chin: look below folks! That was totally impossible to predict! Once ObamaNet strikes you’ll be using USB stick-carrying pigeons for your comms…


#12

The monopolies exist because they have to exist. Cable TV and Telephone networks, and to a certain degree the internet needed government permission to exist. Same with Electrical utilities and sewers. You can’t just fling wires and pipes all over the landscape, It requires permission, and the government allows them to do such thing for the public good.

The question is what public good is the government sanctioning – and the answer should be free and open data networks. Not freedom to limit access, and preserve profits for the incumbents at the exclusion of the innovators. That is the stance the government is taking, and I think it is correct. They allowed broadband to the home for the purposes of data transmission, not walled gardens and the re-AOLing of the internet. The ISP’s ought to be allowed to maintain Quality of Service, but they ought not be able to discriminatively apply QoS rules against their content competitors only…

I ought not be able to stream faster over VPN than I can straight to Netflix, but I can. I am still using the same amount of bandwidth, as I am streaming the same content.


#13

And their QoS arguments have pretty much nonexistent merit. We’ve thrown enough money at them. We should light the ocean of dark fiber and drown them. They want a system that would disincentivize them to ever do anything about slow network speeds because doing so would eat into profit. That is the point of their premium nonsense games. The don’t don’t really compete and the public doesn’t get much of anything from their profit. I’d be happy to replace them with government bureaucrats working off an infrastructure schedule.

We don’t have to hear about the private contractors who pave the highways- Verizon and AT&T need a similar status reduction. Dumb pipe is way too good. We can de-license their spectrum and we can go municipal for the rest of the internet, along the way to going purely end user owned. It will tell industry a cautionary tale, if its a screw people model don’t invest because you should lose what you have if you do.

I see these industries as in the way. The internet we need will have all necessary equipment owned by the end users. These are intermediaries and it can be very profitable for tech firms to help us eliminate them.