White House press secretary statement on net neutrality (updated)

[ProSense]

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 15, 2014

Statement by the Press Secretary on Net Neutrality

The President has made clear since he was a candidate that he strongly supports net neutrality and an open Internet. As he has said, the Internet’s incredible equality – of data, content, and access to the consumer – is what has powered extraordinary economic growth and made it possible for once-tiny sites like eBay or Amazon to compete with brick and mortar behemoths.

The FCC is an independent agency, and we will carefully review their proposal. The FCC’s efforts were dealt a real challenge by the Court of Appeals in January, but Chairman Wheeler has said his goal is to preserve an open Internet, and we are pleased to see that he is keeping all options on the table. We will be watching closely as the process moves forward in hopes that the final rule stays true to the spirit of net neutrality.

The President is looking at every way to protect a free and open Internet, and will consider any option that might make sense.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/15/1299631/-White-House-press-secretary-statement-on-net-neutrality

Updated to add:

FCC votes to start formal consideration of net neutrality proposal

By Jim Puzzanghera

Wheeler made some changes to his proposal this week to secure the votes of Clyburn and Jessica Rosenworcel, the commission’s other two Democrats...both publicly thanked him for the changes, which included asking whether pay-for-priority deals should be banned outright and if the FCC should subject broadband providers to stricter utility-like regulations.

Still, Rosenworcel criticized the process as too rushed.

She had called last week for a one-month delay in Wednesday’s vote in response to the sharp public outcry in recent weeks to Wheeler’s proposal, which critics have said would allow broadband providers to create paid fast lanes on the Internet.

<...>

In response to the backlash, Wheeler revised his proposal this week, specifically asking for public feedback on whether pay-for-priority deals should be banned and if the FCC should reclassify broadband providers for sticter regulation under Title 2 of the nation’s telecommunications law.

- more -

http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-mo-net-neutrality-fcc-protestors-wheeler-20140515-story.html

Call to action:

The FCC has asked for public comment on new rules about net neutrality.
Use this form to submit a comment to the FCC. Learn more about the FCC rulemaking process.

Dear FCC,

<...>

It's our Internet. We made it, and it has re-made us, changing the way we communicate, learn, share and create.

We want the Internet to continue to live up to its promise, fostering innovation, creativity and freedom. We don't want regulations that will turn our ISPs into gatekeepers, making special deals with the few companies that can "pay to play" and inhibiting new competition, innovation and expression.

Start your letter to the FCC:

- more -

https://www.dearfcc.org/

Proposed FCC Rules Don’t Do Enough to Protect Net Neutrality

WASHINGTON – The Federal Communications Commission voted today to open a new rule for how Internet Service Providers treat the data they carry for public comment. The proposal follows a January decision by the D.C. Circuit Appeals Court that stuck down key provisions of the FCC’s existing net neutrality rules.

Gabe Rottman, legislative counsel and policy advisor with the American Civil Liberties Union, had this reaction to today’s vote and proposed rule:

“This proposed rule leaves the individual at the mercy of an increasingly concentrated broadband market, in which the big players will be able to act as gatekeepers for online speech, deciding what gets seen and when. Fortunately, the FCC left the door open to fix this problem by reclassifying broadband internet service as what it really is: a public utility, or in legal terms, a ‘common carrier,’ which we will continue to vigorously advocate for. This is a First Amendment issue because if broadband service providers are allowed to slow or block some content at will, they will be able to stifle the speech of internet users. The FCC must ensure that it has the tools necessary to prevent such blocking or discrimination against certain types of content.”

https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/proposed-fcc-rules-dont-do-enough-protect-net-neutrality

[villager]

1. Another nice, flowery "statement." Now on to the reality...

...of the legislation, rules, codes, et al...

[rhett o rick]

19. "We [the WH] will be watching closely as the process moves forward in hopes that the final rule

stays true to the spirit of net neutrality." That says that the WH is "hoping" "the final rule stays true to the spirit of net neutrality." There are three DEmocrats on the panel, and the chair was appointed by the President and yet they have "hope". So if it doesnt turn out, it's not the WH's fault. They watched closely and hoped and hoped and hoped.

[villager]

24. Wasn't "hope" the other part of the bill of goods we were sold, along with "change?"

[Octafish]

26. Like the best things in life, they're free.

Fiscal policy, no. The People pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. And pay. Then die.

[villager]

27. They're free. And we are not.

How much more of this "change" can our "Republic" withstand?

[rhett o rick]

29. Well I bet H. Clinton-Sachs isnt going to run on "hope and change".

She will run with Goldman-Sachs as her VP. If corps are people, why cant they run for office?

[G_j]

2. and...?

[ProSense]

4. Since you asked,

I'm wondering why this thread is getting attention, and not this one: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024958257

[G_j]

8. I lost track of how many petitions and letters

I've signed already..

[ProSense]

12. Is one

"I lost track of how many petitions and letters I've signed already.."

...more not worth it given that this is part of the proposal:

In response to the backlash, Wheeler revised his proposal this week, specifically asking for public feedback on whether pay-for-priority deals should be banned and if the FCC should reclassify broadband providers for sticter regulation under Title 2 of the nation’s telecommunications law.

I mean, a lot of the comments today are out of frustration, but many seem to be why bother. I guess each person will have to figure that out for him/herself.

[G_j]

14. I already did, it's that important

but, yes it does feel rather futile.

[djean111]

3. Yes, I guess that since he appointed a guy who would naturally want to get rid of net neutrality,

his hands are tied.
Words are absolutely pointless. Let's see what actually happens, eh?

[onehandle]

5. Seizing all ISPs and making Internet access a Right is an option that might make sense. nt

[Armstead]

6. Blah, fucking blah..Liars.

They don't give a rat's ass about it. Otherwise someone otehr than Wheeler would be heading the FCC.

[ProSense]

7. See, the update. n/t

[Armstead]

9. It's bullshit -- The purpose is to wear people down

Big outcry and public demands to kill the proposal?

Well, just extend the period so people get worn down. Then sneak it though.

[ProSense]

11. OK, so just complain.

I'm sure the other side will flood the FCC with comments.

[Armstead]

15. I've aleady flooded them with my own comments

Many other have....But people can't keep beating the same drum over and over again. Especially when the politicians and hacks are unresponsive....The only ones who can do that on a continual full-time basis are the bastards who have a financial interest in purchasing the entire internet.

[ProSense]

17. This

"I've aleady flooded them with my own comments

Many other have....But people can't keep beating the same drum over and over again. Especially when the politicians and hacks are unresponsive....The only ones who can do that on a continual full-time basis are the bastards who have a financial interest in purchasing the entire internet."

...fight has been ongoing for more than a decade (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024876742). Persistence is typical when pushing for policies.

As I stated above, is one more comment not worth it given that this is part of the proposal:

In response to the backlash, Wheeler revised his proposal this week, specifically asking for public feedback on whether pay-for-priority deals should be banned and if the FCC should reclassify broadband providers for sticter regulation under Title 2 of the nation’s telecommunications law.

I mean, a lot of the comments today are out of frustration, but many seem to be why bother. I guess each person will have to figure that out for him/herself.

See the EFF piece in comment 13.

[Armstead]

32. If Mitt were president the chapter would be understandable

But why are we having to fight this again with a Democratic President who claimed to be a staunch supporter of Net Neutrality, and could have chosen an FCC chair who actually IS a supporter of Net Neutrality, instead of a Comcast Bedmate?

It's one thing to have to persistently be up against the GOPosition. It's another to get screwed by the politicians who claim to be on our side.

[ProSense]

35. Actually,

..."if Mitt were President," you'd have nothing to talk about.

<...>

Here’s the question and Romney’s response:

9. The Internet. The Internet plays a central role in both our economy and our society. What role, if any, should the federal government play in managing the Internet to ensure its robust social, scientific, and economic role?

Governor Romney’s response: It is not the role of any government to “manage” the Internet. The Internet has flourished precisely because government has so far refrained from regulating this dynamic and essential cornerstone of our economy. I would rely primarily on innovation and market forces, not bureaucrats, to shape the Internet and maximize its economic, social and scientific value.

Thanks to the non-governmental multi-stakeholder model, the Internet is — and always has been — open to all ideas and lawful commerce as well as bountiful private investment. Unfortunately, President Obama has chosen to impose government as a central gatekeeper in the broadband economy. His policies interfere with the basic operation of the Internet, create uncertainty, and undermine investors and job creators.

Specifically, the FCC’s “Net Neutrality” regulation represents an Obama campaign promise fulfilled on behalf of certain special interests, but ultimately a “solution” in search of a problem. The government has now interjected itself in how networks will be constructed and managed, picked winners and losers in the marketplace, and determined how consumers will receive access to tomorrow’s new applications and services. The Obama Administration’s overreaching has replaced innovators and investors with Washington bureaucrats.

In addition to these domestic intrusions, there are also calls for increased international regulation of the Internet through the United Nations. I will oppose any effort to subject the Internet to an unaccountable, innovation-stifling international regulatory regime. Instead, I will clear away barriers to private investment and innovation and curtail needless regulation of the digital economy.

President Obama’s response:

A free and open Internet is essential component of American society and of the modern economy. I support legislation to protect intellectual property online, but any effort to combat online piracy must not reduce freedom of expression, increase cybersecurity risk, or undermine the dynamic, innovative global Internet. I also believe it is essential that we take steps to strengthen our cybersecurity and ensure that we are guarding against threats to our vital information systems and critical infrastructure, all while preserving Americans’ privacy, data confidentiality, and civil liberties and recognizing the civilian nature of cyberspace.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/09/21/obama-romney-ne-neutrality/

[Armstead]

38. I wish there was nothing to talk about under Obama

Like many people, I stopped thinking much about the issue of Net Neutrality a couple of years ago when it appeared to be settled. And, taking Obama at his word, I figured there was nothing to worry bout -- at least not while he was in office.

Yes it was the courts that brought it back into the realm of issues.

But the fact that Obama appointed an industry insider who obviously wants to scuttle the whole concept of Net Neutrality and turn it over to Comcast -- and the fact that Obama's response has been empty lip service at best, unfortunately is a topic of "conversation."

I hate that. As I said above, at least with the GOP you see the knife in their hands. They don't place it behind their backs as they reassure you with nice words.

[ProSense]

39. Interesting

I wish there was nothing to talk about under Obama

Like many people, I stopped thinking much about the issue of Net Neutrality a couple of years ago when it appeared to be settled. And, taking Obama at his word, I figured there was nothing to worry bout -- at least not while he was in office.

Yes it was the courts that brought it back into the realm of issues.

But the fact that Obama appointed an industry insider who obviously wants to scuttle the whole concept of Net Neutrality and turn it over to Comcast -- and the fact that Obama's response has been empty lip service at best, unfortunately is a topic of "conversation."

Here's what you just admitted: Obama tried to resolve the issue in a way that made you feel comfortable enough to "stopped thinking much about." Then the courts "brought it back into the realm" of discussion.

[Armstead]

40. And Obama appointed an Industry insider who is dedicated to undermining it...

and who is in bed with a corporation that is seeking a basic Monopoly over broadband and cable service.

I guess interesting is a good word.

[ProSense]

41. And, as

"And Obama appointed an Industry insider who is dedicated to undermining it. and who is in bed with a corporation that is seeking a basic Monopoly over broadband and cable service."

...I pointed out, it's not over. Pushback worked, and it's time to increase the pressure.

In response to the backlash, Wheeler revised his proposal this week, specifically asking for public feedback on whether pay-for-priority deals should be banned and if the FCC should reclassify broadband providers for sticter regulation under Title 2 of the nation’s telecommunications law.

[Whisp]

20. *sniff *sniff, I smell Cat Food Commission.

Yes, all those old folks now dead because of Obama. Same with net neutrality - he's already sold us all out! The crystal ball insists on it.

[rhett o rick]

21. If the Pres had made a better choice, there wouldnt have had to be an updated proposal.

The people wouldnt have had to become outraged. This is simply a game. The President appoints Wheeler and then says that the FCC is independent and they, the WH, will have to watch closely and HOPE for a good outcome. So Wheeler sends up a trial balloon and people dont like it. So he backs off a bit. A variation of the "lesser of evils" trick.

[ProSense]

30. If the people

"If the Pres had made a better choice, there wouldnt have had to be an updated proposal. The people wouldnt have had to become outraged. This is simply a game."

...hadn't elected Obama...

Seriously, if you believe this is what Obama really wants, why do you think he would have "made a better choice"?

People are always going to be "outraged." The goal is to save the Internet. People need to keep pushing back. The right course is clear, which is why the language was altered to leave the door open.

Just think: If enough people demand that "pay-for-priority deals should be banned" and "the FCC should reclassify broadband providers for sticter regulation," then people can take credit for thwarting Obama's plan.

[rhett o rick]

33. That has to be the craziest rationalization I think I have ever read. nm

[ProSense]

36. "Rationalization"?

That wasn't a "rationalization." It was a fact: The goal is to save the Internet.

You can't undo Obama's appointment. The only thing you can do is harp on it. Then there is the issue at hand.

[Union Scribe]

34. "People need to keep pushing back."

We are. Why are you individually chastising posters for expressing the same ideas? Is it a hardwired response?

[ProSense]

37. Nonsense. n/t

[myrna minx]

10. How ridiculously mealy mouthed.

"I can't promise that'll try, but I'll try to try." - Bart Simpson

[pa28]

18. The ability to write or speak pure milquetoast is a rare skill.

Bad news: Clearly the administration is not going to put pressure on the FCC and likely has the rule makeup they wanted in the first place.

Good news: Public pressure and an unexpected degree of awareness is working. Let's ignore this worthless bunch and keep the ball rolling for telecom re-classification.

[ProSense]

13. EFF: FCC Hears the Public Outcry for Net Neutrality, Continues to Consider Pay-to-Play Rules

FCC Hears the Public Outcry for Net Neutrality, Continues to Consider Pay-to-Play Rules

There’s good news: the nationwide outcry against the Federal Communications Commission’s troublesome proposal for new Open Internet rules is clearly having an impact. At a public meeting this morning, commissioners were factoring in questions that—according to previous accounts—weren’t on the table only days ago. The bad news: the FCC still is considering a set of rules that will allow Internet providers to discriminate how we access websites with only vague and uncertain limits, endangering network neutrality and threatening the vibrant growth of the Internet.

We’re still waiting for the full proposal. But according to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler’s statements at the open meeting, the FCC didn't take pay-to-play "fast lanes" off the table. Paid “fast lane” access fees threaten the engine of innovation that has allowed hackers, startup companies, and kids in their college dorm rooms to make the Internet that we know and love today. We want the Internet to continue to thrive as a platform for innovation and expression; vague rules that bless "pay to play," with ill-defined limits, are not compatible with our vision of an open Internet.

We are encouraged that the FCC is continuing to push for greater transparency. Internet users and innovators cannot protect themselves if they can't scrutinize how their ISP handles their traffic. Without knowledge of how ISPs are operating and maintaining their network architecture, enforcement of any network neutrality rules will be hollow. New forms of discrimination may surface to circumvent regulatory or public responsibility, unbeknownst to users and the FCC alike.

Today was an important day in the fight for net neutrality, but this battle is far from won. The FCC announced plans to open an extended four-month public comment window to solicit the stories from people across the country about the agency’s proposed open Internet rules. Internet users must take this opportunity to speak up, early, and often.

We’ve created a tool to help. Visit www.DearFCC.org to raise your voice and make sure the FCC is clear on this point: we don’t want regulations that will turn ISPs into gatekeepers to their subscribers. It’s time to protect our Internet.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/05/fcc-hears-public-outcry-continues-consider-pay-play-rules

[williesgirl]

16. I think we just lost the Senate with this bullshit.

It's turning off Dem voters big time. President Obama put him there knowing this would happen. He now owns the problem.

[rhett o rick]

22. Masters of rhetoric."The FCC is an independent agency, and we will carefully review their proposal."

"We will be watching closely as the process moves forward..." So the WH will watch closely and review carefully. And that's it.

Oh yeah, ".. in hopes that the final rule stays true to the spirit of net neutrality." They are also "hoping".

It's like turning a bull loose in a china shop and saying "He is independent (code for we have no control of him), but we will watch him very closely and hope everything turns out ok."

And if everything doesnt turn out ok, then blame the left for having unreasonable expectations.

[Efilroft Sul]

25. I wish someone in the press would ask...

Who the fuck do you think you are fooling?

[rhett o rick]

28. They are fooling a lot of people. Just look up this thread. nm

[spanone]

23. k&r...

[Cha]

31. Thank you, ProSense.. this is certainly

hopeful.. I know the President wants it and I trust him.