In a YouTube interview conducted today, President Obama reiterated his strong support for net neutrality, responding to a prominent question by one of the thousands of citizens who participated in the online town hall.
Here’s the exchange:
MR. GROVE: Great. Well, let’s move back to the questions. And I got to tell you, the number one question that came in, in the jobs and economy category had to do with the Internet. And it came from James Earlywine in Indianapolis. He said: “An open Internet is a powerful engine for economic growth and new jobs. Letting large companies block and fill their online content services would stifle needed growth. What is your commitment to keeping Internet open and neutral in America?”
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I’m a big believer in net neutrality. I campaigned on this. I continue to be a strong supporter of it. My FCC Chairman, Julius Genachowski, has indicated that he shares the view that we’ve got to keep the Internet open; that we don’t want to create a bunch of gateways that prevent somebody who doesn’t have a lot of money but has a good idea from being able to start their next YouTube or their next Google on the Internet. So this is something we’re committed to.
We’re getting pushback, obviously, from some of the bigger carriers who would like to be able to charge more fees and extract more money from wealthier customers. But we think that runs counter to the whole spirit of openness that has made the Internet such a powerful engine for not only economic growth, but also for the generation of ideas and creativity.
This is an area where the executive branch is acting directly. As Obama mentioned, his FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski shares his vision, and the FCC has approved rules for an open Internet. The rules will be finalized in the spring, and certainly there is the possibility for wiggle room in the final language and explicit overturning of the rule from Congress. But this statement of continued support from the President aids the cause. Tim Karr of Save the Internet spoke with the questioner, who was pleased with the outcome.
“I was pleasantly surprised to hear he took my question,” said Earlywine, an online marketing expert who is working with eScrapInc to recycle electronic products that would otherwise be put into a landfill. “This business relies upon an open Internet for our continued growth and survival. ”
“I really believe in Obama’s commitment to saving the Internet for people,” Earlywine told me today. “Our nation’s laws are intended to protect the weak. But there are a lot of powerful people trying to set the agenda for themselves. Government is supposed to be a counterbalance to that and it’s nice to see we have a president who shares those values.”
As the FCC prepares to make new rules on Net Neutrality this spring, it’s important to hear Obama take a stand. Obama’s statement comes on the heels of other prominent public officials expressing their support of Net Neutrality and Internet freedom, including FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Save the Internet has collected 1.7 million signatures in support of net neutrality.





27 Comments


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
According to the EFF, the FCC’s current plans for “net neutrality” include permitting ISPs to block BitTorrent traffic because it is often used for illegal file sharing:
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/01/net-neutrality-plan-would-permit-blocking-bittorrent
“Yet now that the FCC has formally issued draft net neutrality regulations, they have a huge copyright loophole in them — a loophole that would theoretically permit Comcast to block BitTorrent just like it did in 2007 — simply by claiming that it was “reasonable network management” intended to “prevent the unlawful transfer of content.”
You heard that right — under these conditions, the new proposed net neutrality regulations would allow the same practices that net neutrality was first invoked to prevent, even if these ISP practices end up inflicting collateral damage on perfectly lawful content and activities.”
Obama campaigned on Net Neutrality ? He’s a big supporter ?
Transaltion:
We’re just a few months away from a total corporate takeover of the net.
Is his support for net neutrality as “strong” as his support for the public option was? Will he be a “fierce advocate” for net neutrality, like he has been for GLBT rights?
He has squandered all his credibility. Obama does a 180 on net neutrality in 3… 2… 1…
The FCC leaves a huge loophole in it’s proposed open network principles “do not… apply to activities such as the unlawful distribution of copyrighted works.”
The whole idea of net neutrality is a open net, not one controlled by corporations or regulators.This is the FCC idea of neutrality. Allowing isp service providers and corporations to be internet police for censorship and surveilence of the internet where free speech should remain just that.
Does this go with his strong support of a public option, his strong desire to close Guantanamo, his strong defense of 4th Amendment rights…
In other words, swirling clockwise above the equator.
?
not the only cynic here, I see
watertiger is upstairs!
Late Night: Sarah Palin, Political Kingpinhead
I was about ready to think positive thoughts, but you seem to be saying this is just another bait-and-switch. Oh sigh oh sigh oh.
Thanks for posting that, I had just read this earlier this evening, this is a PERFECT place to share that info!
Again, thanks . . . holes like this open doors to enable any NUMBER of controls of content and opinion to be implemented by the big corps who control the pipeline access and pipeline flows.
Censorship lies this way, as does charging for things that are now free, therby imairing the poor’s access to the internet . . . .
Ground Hog Day in the White House
It’s always good know what Obama is a big believer in.
Unfortunately since 1/20/09, he’s a complete failure in standing up for anything other than capitulating to lobbyists, blue dogs & republicans.
We really need net neutrality so that we can watch Rahm play Bill Murray’s role in that movie – in high resolution broadband.
Oh, goodie. One more thing he’s going to fuckup.
Don’t tell me Mr.Prez show me.
Anyone saw that piece on HuffP:Where the DNC spent $450,00000 running ADs for Ben Nelson.Defending his position against the Public Option.
Go Figure…….Dem Leadership think we are idiots or sycophants…..can’t say what I would like to say as it would offend some……err..grr..ah.
Now,why are we not out in the streets again ??? I am getting sick…..and I can’t afford health care….sigh..
Sounds good, but in fairness, support from Obama (or almost any pol) means nothing. Only actions matter.
I. Am. Not. Reassured.
Didn’t Obama express strong support for FISA?
I won’t pretend to expertise, but I do kind of keep up with the techie web sites and I can tell you that there is no unanimity of opinion on the current “net neutrality” legislation. People who make their livings and ply their expertise on the net have many, knowledgeable, opinions on the bill and they are not all in favor. “Net neutrality,” like Patriot Bill, sounds so good who could oppose it; however, the devil is in the details and some net experts don’t like the details. Let’s not fall for the word grift, again. Just because something has an appealing label doesn’t mean the contents are good.
Well, looks like I’ll be investing a bunch of money in the telecoms and major ISP’s. I already made a killing investing in the banks that Obama was a strong supporter of regulating, the insurance companies he was a strong supporter of competing with, and the pharmaceutical companies he was a strong supporter of using government size to negotiate prices with.
Ever since he took office that’s been the entirety of my investment strategy on my short positions, and so far I’ve nearly quadrupled my initial investments.
Amen. :(
Amen. Only Obama’s incredible ineptness can possibly save us.
when and IF Big Zee-R0 does NOT sell us out …
this 99% probably lie / sell out does not warrant another hopey mcchange t-shirt rahmclinton-0
rmm.
Exactly my thoughts.
When he publicly affirms strong support, he’s actually gonna kill it.
All this is fine and dandy but what happens when Comcast, AT&T and Time-Warner open their now unconstrained campaign spending wallets? Are we looking at the next public option?
While there really cannot ever be true net neutrality because guys with bigger pipes and more hardware will always prevail on the server side, the big new profit area would actually be in the area that the majority of the discussion has studiously avoided – the connection provided on the client side. The ability to shape the speed and packets just after they enter Road Runner’s domain is where the real money would be made. The technology already exists but there is no profit or legal framework around doing it because vendors cannot legally extort that cost without providing a physical service. With this changed they add an additional handling fee or simply slow down packets for those that do not pay the additional processing cost. The real goal of getting rid of net neutrality is to have a credit card-like fee paid to get a bigger bump inside Comcast. So long as the discussion revolves around whether web site owners have equal access to potential hits the argument can always be made that it is not reasonable nor practical.
More interesting, if net neutrality is eliminated the only obvious immediate change will be that sites without deep pockets will simply perform so poorly from the client side that they will be winnowed out over time. If all a particular site does is pay for a little more throughput at their local pipe it won’t matter. The uncontrollable constraint will be at made by the management of the people working for companies like Comcast.
The winners will almost certainly not be ISPs that only provide web servers and certainly not those site owners with shallow pockets. Whenever you see this conversation being about the ability of web server owners to buy more speed from the ISP you can be sure that they are intentionally misrepresenting the argument. Server speeds will always be constrained by their own hardware costs and the amount of pipe they can afford, that is how the market has always been and alway will be.
This is about the packets that the client receives which are currently neutrally unconstrained by their internet provider.
Also because the verbiage can get in the way of the meaning. When anyone including Obama speaks about an “open Internet” they are not dealing with the issue. If the entire Internet is open, which of course isn’t actually possible, but the packets within the Internet providers realm are shaped and controlled separately then the fact that the Internet is open has almost no importance with respect to client performance.
great job of keeping everyone updated on all issues
Maybe. but see how much easier it is to spy on us this way than tap the phones and emails. We’re probably/certainly all on a list somewhere in one or more of the spy agencies.
However, I consider it my duty a person of conscience to keep it up. It’s far too late to stop by now anyways.
I have yet to encounter anyone who doesn’t like THE CONCEPT of a free and open Internet, and there is no doubt that it is an economic engine.
It will also be essential for bringing down costs for local government and a host of industries (some who now use iPhones or other mobiles for data transmission).
From things as simple as tracking a UPS package to downloading a book, people rely on the Internet the same we way wall rely upon roads.
As you state, the devil is in the details — and there are tons of details!
Google’s Public Policy Blog is a good resource for anyone interested in this issue. Here’s how they covered his interview.
And man, the negativity on this thread is just awful.
I personally don’t expect Obama to be a Messiah and solve all the problems of life; I do, however, find a moment to be grateful that Ted Stevens didn’t hand the Internet lock, stock, and barrel over to the telecoms in June 2006 — for which you’d need to thank Harry Reid in large part, if it didn’t kill you to admit it. And I’m also grateful to have President who can speak in complete sentences and isn’t a tool of Dick Cheney.
Does that mean Obama gets a free pass?
No.
But it does mean that I don’t have to wallow in negativity, and that I can at least appreciate the man recognizes the economic implications of the concept of NN.