Campaign Creations

During the Presidential campaign, one of the big voting issues that most Americans were clueless about (but meant a lot to us) was the issue of Net Neutrality.  Unfortunately, McCain was against the idea of the Internet remaining a free and equitable place for access and information.  In contrast, Obama supported Net Neutrality, stressing its importance in preserving the integrity of digital technology's limitless future.

Today, FCC chairmen, Julius Genachowski, appointed by the new Obama Administration, has proposed new rules for Net Neutrality.  Here is the article:

http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20090920/ap_on_hi_te/us_internet_rules

The head of the FCC plans to propose new rules that would prohibit Internet service providers from interfering with the free flow of information and certain applications over their networks, an official at the agency said Saturday.

The Federal Communications Commission chairman, Julius Genachowski, will announce the proposed rules in a speech Monday at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank, the official said on condition of anonymity because news of the announcement had not been formally released.

The proposals would uphold a pledge Barack Obama made during the presidential campaign to support Internet neutrality — the equal treatment of Internet traffic. That would bar Internet service providers such as Verizon Communications Inc., Comcast Corp. or AT&T Inc., from slowing or blocking certain services or content flowing through their vast networks.

This is tremendously good news for all of us.  I am very glad President Obama has kept this campaign promise.  This issue will indirectly effect everything in the online world here in the United States.  We will never truly know the rationing disaster that could have befallen the Internet if the telecommunication companies would have been allowed to call the shots thanks to the FCC's new stance under a progressive administration.

I never knew much about politics but when I heard Obama was supporting net neutrality I knew he was my nigguh.

The question is, what about the Canadian guys who are throwing elections every single year?

AA7Dragoon wrote:Unfortunately, McCain was against the idea of the Internet remaining a free and equitable place for access and information. 

GOOD THING THE COOL PROGRESSIVE GUY YOU VOTED FOR WON INSTEAD OF THAT TYRANT MCCAIN.




Honestly, I couldn't see any of that shit going down on Obama's watch, and would be really really surprised if he didn't follow through on this.

IskatuMesk wrote: I never knew much about politics but when I heard Obama was supporting net neutrality I knew he was my nigguh.

The question is, what about the Canadian guys who are throwing elections every single year?

I doubt the Conservatives will push something like this through given how precarious their position is and the Liberals likely won't out of their political alignment unless they see it as a way to justify it in a political light.  (Ricky and those crazy Quebecers might try it so I wouldn't trust them.)  But seriously, it'll likely depend on what the US does since most of your Internets comes through the backbone servers here anyway.

Phhbt. Sounds like a good idea in theory, but do you really trust the government to regulate what's "fair"? Telecom companies have a bad reputation that's well-deserved in some cases, but if you don't like their policies you can pick another one. If you don't like your government's policies, though, your only option is to move out.

Well, there's not exactly anything you can do. At least he's supporting the idea. I don't trust any government, especially Canadian, but you get what you get.

Xenon wrote: Phhbt. Sounds like a good idea in theory, but do you really trust the government to regulate what's "fair"? Telecom companies have a bad reputation that's well-deserved in some cases, but if you don't like their policies you can pick another one. If you don't like your government's policies, though, your only option is to move out.

The case for a lot of telecom companies especially in rural/suburban areas is that there isn't another option unless you count dial-up. Also I don't see what your question has to do with ISPs filtering traffic on their own accord and to me it just sounds like an appeal to fear.

Besides, telecom companies are already actively throttling, filtering, and setting quotas on Internet traffic without any notice to users whereas the government only has one law which might let them take control of the Internet (which they already control since they own much of the Internet backbone servers) in case of a national cyberattack in theory.  This law would actually limit the power of the telecom companies and the FCC to mess with the Internet, which makes it a good thing.

Its great having an ISP that won't throttle you unless their entire network is getting raped by someone.

Hunter_Killers wrote: Its great having an ISP that won't throttle you unless their entire network is getting raped by someone.

Speaking of which, I've tried to search this out but is there any defense against a DDoS attack besides "Ban each machine and add moar servers"?

DrumsofWar wrote:

Hunter_Killers wrote: Its great having an ISP that won't throttle you unless their entire network is getting raped by someone.

Speaking of which, I've tried to search this out but is there any defense against a DDoS attack besides "Ban each machine and add moar servers"?

Limit the amount of requests that can be made from a single source?

Update: FCC Chairman gives speech.

http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20090921/ap_on_hi_te/us_tec_internet_rules

NEW YORK -
Wireless carriers shouldn't be allowed to block certain types of Internet traffic flowing over their networks, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission chairman said Monday in a speech that got a cool response from the industry.

Unless done very carefully, this extension of regulation risks stifling investment in Internet access, executives said.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said wireless carriers should be subject to the same "open Internet" rules that the agency has begun to apply to home broadband providers. That may mean that a carrier couldn't, for example, ban the use of file-sharing services on its wireless network, which AT&T Inc. does now.

I love how AT&T and Comcast are sweating their pants.  Anything they don't like is a good thing.

Anything they don't like is a good thing.

Hey, let's detonate an EMP device that ruins all the electronic equipment on the continent! Them evil telecom industries wont like it so it's a great idea! 

Nice, obama is actually staying true to his promises.

A law requiring unbiased, open Internet access would relieve liability from providers of being sued for copyright infringement cases (as the recording industry has been pursuing since shifting from targetting individuals).