# President Obama and Net Neutrality **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 10, 2014, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obama-and-net-neutrality/704283 "2014-11-10T23:19:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2014, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obama-and-net-neutrality/704283/21 "2014-11-12T18:37:24Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > … is this part of a general pattern - along with executive orders, legal reinterpretations, non-enforcement of laws etc. - of a president who is unusually reluctant to accept limitations on his own power? Are we “just asking questions”? ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2014, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obama-and-net-neutrality/704283/22 "2014-11-12T19:25:06Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > There’s nothing but unsubstantiated rumors that Verizon, Time Warner, or Comcast were ever intentionally slowing Netflix traffic. You misspelled [“hard evidence”](http://www.extremetech.com/computing/186576-verizon-caught-throttling-netflix-traffic-even-after-its-pays-for-more-bandwidth). ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2014, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obama-and-net-neutrality/704283/23 "2014-11-12T19:59:26Z")
FWIW, it’s not necessarily true that Netflix is the only company with a direct pipeline: > **[What Everyone Gets Wrong in the Debate Over Net Neutrality](https://www.wired.com/2014/06/net-neutrality-missing/?mbid=social_fb)** > > Even Sunday night HBO watchers are worried the Federal Communications Commission will soon put an end to net neutrality. Earlier this month, on the HBO comedy news show “Last Week Tonight,” host John Oliver went on a 13-minute rant against the new... > [@](#): > > The only trouble is that, here in the year 2014, complaints about a fast-lane don’t make much sense. Today, privileged companies—including Google, Facebook, and Netflix—already benefit from what are essentially internet fast lanes, and this has been the case for years. Such web giants—and others—now have direct connections to big ISPs like Comcast and Verizon, and they run dedicated computer servers deep inside these ISPs. In technical lingo, these are known as “peering connections” and “content delivery servers,” and they’re a vital part of the way the internet works. > > “Fast lane is how the internet is built today,” says Craig Labovitz, who, as the CEO of DeepField Networks, an outfit whose sole mission is to track how companies build internet infrastructure, probably knows more about the design of the modern internet than anyone else. And many other internet experts agree with him. “The net neutrality debate has got many facets to it, and most of the points of the debate are artificial, distracting, and based on an incorrect mental model on how the internet works,” says Dave Taht, a developer of open-source networking software. > [@](#): > > Does this give companies like Google and Netflix a potential advantage over the next internet startup? Sure it does. But this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. In fact, this rewiring has been great for consumers. It has allowed millions to enjoy House of Cards, YouTube, and Kai the hatchet-wielding hitchhiker. It’s the reason why the latest version of high-definition video, Ultra HD 4K, is available for streaming over the internet and not on some new disk format. > > Plus, although Google does have an edge over others, not every company needs that edge. Most companies don’t generate enough traffic to warrant a dedicated peering connection or CDN. And if the next internet startup does get big enough, it too can arrange for a Google-like setup. Building the extra infrastructure is expensive, but making the right arrangements with a Comcast or a Verizon is pretty cheap—at least for now. (also I wouldn’t say that Wired is a cable industry shill - it seems like this debate is far more complicated that it would seem at first glance) ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2014, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obama-and-net-neutrality/704283/24 "2014-11-13T17:23:51Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Are we “just asking questions”? Well my position is as you suspect, but it’s a highly subjective judgment and I don’t really have much to add beyond that. I thought others might have some more substance, but the discussion has focused on the merits of net neutrality itself rather than Obama’s taking a strong public position on it, so that didn’t pan out. ---
**Author:** ![Stealth\_Potato](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Stealth\_Potato](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stealth_Potato)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2014, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obama-and-net-neutrality/704283/25 "2014-11-14T01:31:13Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Comcast is so far playing (mostly) nice and not being a gatekeeper and charging fees because if they run around looking like a big bad guy now they will spur resistance. Comcast playing nice? All I know is I’m happily stockpiling torches and pitchforks for the yet-hoped-for angry mob when people finally get fed up with Comcast throwing their weight around in local politics to make real broadband competition illegal. If a Comcast executive were to be, say, bitten to death by rabid pygmy marmosets, I’d dance on his grave. I make a prayer to the rabid pygmy marmoset god every night. Not that I’m bitter or anything. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2014, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obama-and-net-neutrality/704283/26 "2014-11-14T01:42:15Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > You misspelled [“hard evidence”](http://www.extremetech.com/computing/186576-verizon-caught-throttling-netflix-traffic-even-after-its-pays-for-more-bandwidth). Except that isn’t hard evidence, and makes a lot of unsubstantiated claims about Verizon’s network and uneducated suggestions about net neutrality. While I used the catch phrase myself, net neutrality does not actually mean “treating all packets equally.” It means treating all _like_ packets equally. What do I mean? I mean that under any promulgation of net neutrality I’ve seen no one has a problem with prioritizing VoIP, IPTV, or etc traffic over a protocol where degradation in service quality has less of an impact (I’d argue for example most people would rather an FTP download take a bit slower versus their Netflix video become a stuttering, buffering, down-scaled mess.) The Verizon users utilizing VPN don’t really prove anything except that it’s likely that VPN traffic could be prioritized above other protocols–and it should be. VPNs are typically used for people who are connecting to their jobs and thus have a pretty high importance to users relative to other protocols that are less important. Deciding how to balance different protocols has no guaranteed right answer. For example for most people VoIP probably isn’t amazingly important because they have a cell phone. But there are probably still some grandmothers who have been switched to a VoIP landline as their only phone, and for them that’s their only access to shit like 911 and etc or just plain contact with the outside world (since they probably don’t browse much.) But just saying “it’s faster with VPN” doesn’t prove anything. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2014, 11:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obama-and-net-neutrality/704283/27 "2014-11-14T11:31:16Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > 1. Netflix being slowed down isn’t so straight forward, and I suggest the string of posters that clearly do not know much about the Net Neutrality issue and are just reading talking points educate themselves a bit further. There’s nothing but unsubstantiated rumors that Verizon, Time Warner, or Comcast were ever intentionally slowing Netflix traffic. Instead what looks a lot more likely is that as Netflix traffic increased, those companies intentionally refused to expand connections with the third party services that served Netflix’s content up. Netflix CEO Reed Hastings in what I think is a disingenuous position then demanded direct connections to the ISP networks (which actually involves physical Netflix hardware in ISP data centers, paid for and managed by the ISP) for free. Instead the ISPs insist on being paid for those direct connections. Ultimately Netflix came to a deal with a few of the ISPs for the direct connection. What you described is exactly the same thing. If they intentionally did not expand connections with the third party services that served up Netflix content, they were not being neutral towards Netflix, and would ultimately result in Netflix being slower. To single out a specific service with which you will not expand connections is inherently an attempt to slow down the connection of that service. Netflix’s offer was an attempt to prove the disingenuousness of their tactics. It costs too much money to upgrade? Fine. We’ll give you the stuff you need to upgrade for free. That way you can no longer say that we cost you too much money due to our unequal bandwidth usage. I also note that, in your most recent post, you ignore most of the article and focus on the one part you have an answer for–the part about VPN traffic being faster. How about the fact that Verizon deliberately leaves certain connections unhooked and runs at a lower capacity? That’s the same problem I mentioned earlier. Not that what you say about VPNs is all the convincing. Yes, you can argue that most are used for work and thus are “more important.” But they also tend to not be very bandwidth dependent. RDP runs fine at 1Mbps, and files being used locally are usually documents or other smaller files which will download quickly. Plus, there’s the factor that higher bandwidth connections are very often specifically advertized as being better for video. The article has the Netflix connection being three times lower than you could get on an 1Mbps connection, while he had a 75Mbps connection. That’s less than 1% maximum capacity. ---
**Author:** ![woodstockbirdybird](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/woodstockbirdybird/32/7905_2.png) [@woodstockbirdybird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/woodstockbirdybird)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2014, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obama-and-net-neutrality/704283/28 "2014-11-14T22:12:15Z")
Thankfully, Ted Cruz is on the case to [call Obama out](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/13/1344716/-After-nonsensical-comments-on-Net-Neutrality-conservatives-rage-against-Ted-Cruz?showAll=yes%3Fdetail%3Dfacebook&utm_content=buffera2b9c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer#). ---
**Author:** ![Stringbean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Stringbean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stringbean)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2014, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obama-and-net-neutrality/704283/29 "2014-11-15T03:07:58Z")
> [@woodstockbirdybird](#): > > Thankfully, Ted Cruz is on the case to [call Obama out](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/13/1344716/-After-nonsensical-comments-on-Net-Neutrality-conservatives-rage-against-Ted-Cruz?showAll=yes%3Fdetail%3Dfacebook&utm_content=buffera2b9c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer#). What a scum-sucking piece of garbage. I’m glad he got called out for it. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2014, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obama-and-net-neutrality/704283/30 "2014-11-15T14:07:38Z")
From what I can tell Ted Cruz doesn’t have any policy positions, but rather positions where he can say things precisely tailored to fire up the base of Tea Party types that put him in office. It’s kind of sad because given his background he’s almost certainly smarter than he acts, which means he’s literally playing a character to curry favor with dumb voters (and they fall for it.) Given how much trouble he made for Senate Republican leadership when they were the minority party I wouldn’t be surprised if he starts so much nonsense in the next legislative session that he’s all but outcast from any/all decision making. But since he’s only in the Senate to get name recognition that he’ll parlay into the 2016 Presidential election I doubt he cares. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2015, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obama-and-net-neutrality/704283/31 "2015-02-26T18:47:34Z")
The FCC, all five of whose commissioners were appointed by President Obama, by a 3-2 vote has embraced net neutrality: [FCC adopts historic Internet rules](http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/26/technology/fcc-rules-net-neutrality/index.html) ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2015, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obama-and-net-neutrality/704283/32 "2015-02-26T18:58:31Z")
Looks like [a victory](http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/us-regulators-vote-to-set-new-tougher-net-neutrality-rules/ar-BBi032r) for Net Neutrality and Obama! Regulators at the independent FCC voted 3-2 today on party lines to adopt strong neutrality rules to prevent preferential service to content providers, essentially treating the internet as a utility and making sure everyone gets equal service. This means that ISPs like Verizon will not be able to give faster internet to, for example, Netflix if they have a contract and give Hulu a slower connection. No surprise, the Dems voted to keep the neutrality and the Reps did not. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2015, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obama-and-net-neutrality/704283/33 "2015-02-26T19:02:53Z")
Technically, they voted to adopt rather than keep it since we haven’t had it for a (short) while. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2015, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obama-and-net-neutrality/704283/34 "2015-02-26T19:59:23Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > The best resolution to net neutrality is technical, where everyone gets a connection that is so fast that the practical difference between premium-channel content and regular-channel content is at most a few seconds that nobody will notice anyway. Beside what **Grumman** said, I’ve been on the Net from before the beginning, and it already is nearly infinitely faster than the old days. But content providers will continue to increase the size of stuff to send over the pipe. And more people will use these faster connections. And bandwidth will never be as fast as you want it to be. Might as well say that the solution for world hunger is to grow enough food per acre to feed everyone for free with plenty left over. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2015, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obama-and-net-neutrality/704283/35 "2015-02-26T20:03:37Z")
This is something to celebrate. I don’t think people appreciate just how close we were to losing the internet as we know it. Putting the future of the internet into the hands of some of the worst companies in the country would’ve been a real and significant detriment. We dodged a huge bullet here. We’re lucky that other elements of the plutocracy on our side, the people would’ve never won on their own. It’s only because internet companies like google, amazon, etc. could throw around their weight to counter the bribes of telecom companies that people could be the tiebreaker. ---
**Author:** ![DigitalC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ebca7d/32.png) [@DigitalC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DigitalC)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2015, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obama-and-net-neutrality/704283/36 "2015-02-26T20:56:14Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > We’re lucky that other elements of the plutocracy on our side, the people would’ve never won on their own. It’s only because internet companies like google, amazon, etc. could throw around their weight to counter the bribes of telecom companies that people could be the tiebreaker. Yeah, basically we are just lucky that the corporations that were on our side beat the ones that weren’t. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2015, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obama-and-net-neutrality/704283/37 "2015-02-26T21:34:46Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > From what I can tell Ted Cruz doesn’t have any policy positions, but rather positions where he can say things precisely tailored to fire up the base of Tea Party types that put him in office. It’s kind of sad because given his background he’s almost certainly smarter than he acts, which means he’s literally playing a character to curry favor with dumb voters (and they fall for it.) But he plays that character very well, we have to give him that. ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2015, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obama-and-net-neutrality/704283/38 "2015-02-26T22:42:46Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Beside what **Grumman** said, I’ve been on the Net from before the beginning, and it already is nearly infinitely faster than the old days. But content providers will continue to increase the size of stuff to send over the pipe. And more people will use these faster connections. And bandwidth will never be as fast as you want it to be. Well that is true. So I’m perfectly sure that the next step is for ISPs to start charging like other utilities do - ie, by usage (maybe x amount for every 50GBs you use or something). Though at least in that way the folks that use Netflix 4K (or 8K or whatever comes after) will be paying for their own broadband usage rather than having everyone subsidize the big data users. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-obama-and-net-neutrality/704283.md?page=1)