I'm curious, does classifying the Internet as an utility make it easier or harder for the government to spy on it?
On one hand it should be easier since they'd have much more control over it, on the other, it's already pretty damn easy to get all the ISP data through a firehose directly to NSA's data-centers. Plus, there's the Post Office, which actually has much more privacy protections than the Internet right now. So I guess it's still totally dependent on the laws we make, and whether we let them spy on it or not?
How certain are you of this. My understanding is that regulating the telecommunications industry did make it easier to order both tap-and-traces and pen registers and that it helped to hold open the legislative door for CALEA, the Stored Information Act and others. Furthermore, much of the Bush-era expansion of internet surveillance apparatus was done by legislating internet communications under telecommunication law.
> Net neutrality isn't a blanket term for "anything the government does relating to the Internet", it's focused on a specific issue.
Of course.
> I guess you could argue that net neutrality would make it easier to pass pro-surveillance laws, but I'm having a difficult time connecting the two.
The argument wouldn't be that net neutrality itself would make it easier. The argument would be that the regulation - especially if the folds ISPs under telecommunication laws or equivalents - could result in the import of large portions of legislation pertaining to communications access programs.
Much of this has actually already been done at the ISP level and the (surveillance) struggle seems mostly focused on the application layer.
So I guess I might agree that it may not bolster surveillance capabilities - if only for the fact that ISPs have already been mostly captured.
"If a consumer requests access to a website or service, and the content is legal, your ISP should not be permitted to block it."
Are ISPs permitted to block illegal content currently? It would seem that this distinction shouldn't be left up to the ISP. Does this mean that my isp would be able to block me from visiting The Pirate Bay? Or could my ISP have blocked me from reddit when "The Fappening" was going down?
The way its been worded its implied that ISPs are permitted to block illegal content but not legal content. I'm just curious if its been that way all along or if this is something new.
To me the most interesting part is this line: ...while at the same time forbearing from rate regulation and other provisions less relevant to broadband services.
As I understood it the rate regulation is a critical component of what Mr Obama describes as an obligation not to exploit the monopoly they enjoy over access in and out of your home or business. If most broadband providers are still monopolies, how can the FCC effectively prevent them from abusing that monopoly without some form of rate regulation?
Hopefully, this has some real impact. This issue isn't going to be subject to a vote by congress, so this is a place where the president can have some actual clout.
This issue isn't going to be subject to a vote by congress, so this is a place where the president can have some actual clout.
That's never certain: The FCC regulates by way of Congress' authority, and Congress can change that authority any time it likes (and the President concurs) through the normal legislative process. They can also make trouble for future FCC appointments, call FCC members in for hearings, and otherwise make the FCC's life miserable.
It's absolutely one of the things that limits the FCC's freedom of action.
IMHO, this is simultaneously a political move (nobody loves Comcast), an ideological move (President Obama almost certainly believes that additional regulation in this area will be good for consumers) and a negotiation tactic (the more the broadband providers are worried about Title II, the more willing they'll be to support FCC neutrality regulation short of that).
On one hand it should be easier since they'd have much more control over it, on the other, it's already pretty damn easy to get all the ISP data through a firehose directly to NSA's data-centers. Plus, there's the Post Office, which actually has much more privacy protections than the Internet right now. So I guess it's still totally dependent on the laws we make, and whether we let them spy on it or not?