Obama promises Net Neutrality law

Barack Obama has promised that he will deliver a law mandating Net Neutrality if he's elected:
Affixing his signature to federal Net neutrality rules would be high on the list during his first year in the Oval Office, the junior senator from Illinois said during an interactive forum Monday afternoon with the popular contender put on by MTV and MySpace at Coe College in Iowa...

He went on to explain the issue briefly: "What you've been seeing is some lobbying that says that the servers and the various portals through which you're getting information over the Internet should be able to be gatekeepers and to charge different rates to different Web sites...so you could get much better quality from the Fox News site and you'd be getting rotten service from the mom and pop sites," he went on. "And that I think destroys one of the best things about the Internet--which is that there is this incredible equality there."



  1. Last time I checked presidents don’t pass laws — legislatures pass laws. Presidents sign laws.

    And you misspelled “Barack.”

  2. I think it unlikely that Obama will win the nomination. It’ll probably be Hillary. A Hillary-Obama ticket would be a winner and as VP, Obama could do a lot for net neutrality.

  3. It’s certainly refreshing to hear intelligible tech-speak from a Senator! Not a “tube” in the whole talk!

  4. “incredible equality”?
    I like “decentralization” and “deregulation” more.

    If one agrees on flawed network provider contract in which he gets different output on different sites/services… it’s his problem.
    He can refuse it, get other provider and push perp out of the market.

    And if contract says one thing, service delivers other – it’s criminal offence already isnt’ it?

  5. the problem, Peterus, comes into play when you realize how few broadband providers there really are. For so much of the country, a person’s choice comes down to “My way or the highway” with Time Warner, Comcast, or other serving up the (potentially) flawed contract. When I was living in LA, I ran into some problems with Comcast customer service, so I switched to Adelphia. Fair enough; the better company got my business….Then, of course, the two of those merged into Time Warner, and then all hell broke loose. Time Warner customer service was worse than either of the other two companies, but then I had no other options for cable internet. Sure, I could have probably signed up for Verizon DSL, but not at nearly the speed of the cable.

    Even if you do have multiple broadband options where you live, is not each of those companies campaigning against Net Neutrality? Do you really expect that there is going to be one “good guy” ISP out there that refuses the lucrative contracts made possible by a lack of Net Neutrality, when the opportunity comes along?

  6. KIPESQUIRE is correct, a president can’t promise that he will deliver a law.

    A law must first got through congress which, like a bong, has two chambers.

    But the blurb from the article states correctly that he is not promising a law as the title suggests, but he is promising affix his signature to some [proposed] rules.

    A president can sponsor, lobby, encourage, threaten, sleep with, etc. to get a law passed, but he can’t arbitrarily pass one by himself.

  7. A legislator can’t guarantee a law either.

    Presidents have quite a lot of clout when it comes to getting laws past.

    It’s cheering to have politicians trying to cater to us.

  8. Yay to complete anarchy in the tubes of the interwebs!

    It would be terrible if my broadband provider could actually guarantee me a minimum of X bandwidth a second to do as I please and Y bandwidth for IPTV and Z bandwidth for Voice over IP, that just wouldn’t be neutral! I would hate to be able to pay for a particular service that requires consistent access to the data line, I want them to have to run multiple lines to my house to get reliable service! All of this non neutrality talk just doesn’t sit well with those of us who have no idea how packet shaping can be used for good.

    Yay to talking about stuff we don’t really understand!!

  9. @Alux
    Conviniently none of availible providers in my area does this… so well… i don’t know how it goes.

    However there’s some extra prize for “the good guy” that cracks all really-free market monopolies. The one to break the circle get’s it all. It may be profitable to abuse users for each company. They may even make secret agreement to “go for it”. But… if one “backstabs” his comrades he’ll get a head start in reshapeing whole market. People bothered by this flaw won’t cry about leaving previous providers.
    As long as there’re no unlawful ways to keep “partners” in line, circle is bound to break.

    And… well… isn’t it our freedom to choose “sponsored” wire, which favours some companies, but is cheaper becouse they have to pay for this “advertisment”?

  10. KipEsquire, A president can’t pass laws but Obama promised to only appoint a FCC Chairmen that supports Net Neutrality.

  11. Why doesn’t Obama author a NetNeutrality law and propose it in the Senate, one of the two places Federal legislation is dealt with? Why do we need to elect him President so he can work on laws, instead of leaving it up to Illinois to decide if he gets to stay in the Senate?

    Really, Net Neutrality is a red herring and its silly to see it co-opted into Presidential politics.

  12. It’s bizarre that Obama is promising this bill upon his election to president, which is the moment that his present ability to introduce bills to Congress ends.

  13. Right. And presidents have no influence on the legislative agendas their parties and administrations pursue.

  14. Guys, the Republicans are very opposed to Net Neutrality, and Bush has promised to veto it. So, Obama isn’t going to waste his time and effort on a law that would be vetoed, and doesn’t have enough support to override the veto.

  15. Kipesquire posted: Last time I checked presidents don’t pass laws — legislatures pass laws. Presidents sign laws.

    And you misspelled “Barack.”


Comments are closed.