What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
All-time Low Fares for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up. Nifty all-airline calendar identifies absolute cheapest dates to fly.
68 Comments
- sleepless, on 10/12/2007, -4/+54Below is the transcript of the podcast:
Podcast Transcript
Hello, this is Senator Barack Obama and today is Thursday, June 8th, 2006.
The topic today is net neutrality. The internet today is an open platform where the demand for websites and services dictates success. You've got barriers to entry that are low and equal for all comers. And it's because the internet is a neutral platform that I can put on this podcast and transmit it over the internet without having to go through some corporate media middleman. I can say what I want without censorship. I don't have to pay a special charge. But the big telephone and cable companies want to change the internet as we know it. They say they want to create high-speed lanes on the internet and strike exclusive contractual arrangements with internet content-providers for access to those high-speed lanes. Those of us who can't pony up the cash for these high-speed connections will be relegated to the slow lanes.
Allowing the Bells and cable companies to act as gatekeepers with control over internet access would make the internet like cable. A producer-driven market with barriers to entry for website creators and preferential treatment for specific sites based not on merit, the number of hits, but on relationships with the corporate gatekeeper. If there were four or more competitive providers of broadband service to every home, then cable and telephone companies would not be able to create a bidding war for access to the high-speed lanes. But here's the problem. More than 99 percent of households get their broadband services from either cable or a telephone company.
So here's my view. We can't have a situation in which the corporate duopoly dictates the future of the internet and that's why I'm supporting what is called net neutrality. In the House, the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Judiciary Committee reached different conclusions on network neutrality. Judiciary Committee members voted to protect net neutrality and commerce voted with the Bells and cable. That debate is going to hit the House floor this Friday. In the Senate, Senators Snowe and Dorgan are leading the fight for net neutrality and I've joined in that effort. Senator Inouye, the ranking Democrat of the Commerce Committee, has joined us in this effort as well and he's working with Senator Stevens to put strong network neutrality into any Senate bill that comes before us. There is widespread support among consumer groups, leading academics and the most innovative internet companies, including Google and Yahoo, in favor of net neutrality. And part of the reason for that is companies like Google and Yahoo might never have gotten started had they not been in a position to easily access the internet and do so on the same terms as the big corporate companies that were interested in making money on the internet.
I know if you are listening to this podcast that you are going to take an intense interest in this issue as well. Congress is going to need to hear your voice because the Bell and cable companies are going to be dedicating millions of dollars to defeating network neutrality. So I'll keep you updated on this important issue and I look forward to talking to you guys again next week. Bye-bye. - msafar, on 10/12/2007, -7/+53Bravo Obama. From Chicago, I say: Obama for President.
- sleepless, on 10/12/2007, -6/+38I second that motion. Obama for President.
Check out some of his other podcast. It's actually very good. - TheChance, on 10/12/2007, -7/+38Finally, a Senator that actually makes sense of things.
- unklefudd, on 10/12/2007, -6/+27Obama Rules.
Young, smart, charismatic...
He should run for Prez in 08. - kronik, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22I would love to see Obama as president. There's finally a contender who just... just... gets it!
- joewo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20The horrible legislation that will allow the Internet to be ruined is in the works and has big big money behind it. Lawmakers are being bought by the corporations right and left. All we have is our vote. Obama made the point quite well. WE MUST send the above transcript to all of our lawmakers regardless how they have stated they will vote. The news report ALL say it is a party line vote...Republicans want to remove net neutrality and Democrats WANT to keep the net as is. Contact your representative regardless of party and regardless the way they have voted so they know what YOU want
http://senate.gov/
http://www.house.gov/
http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2006/06/30/1701702.htm
http://www.internetnews.com/infra/article.php/3617356 - MiloMindrbindr, on 10/12/2007, -5/+21Second that, Obama kicks ass. He's got my vote already.
- sleepless, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16Because of his cultural backgrounds and a skeptic of religion, he is a great bridge builder for people of various cultures. He doesn't wear his faith/religion on his sleeve.
"I said that we live in a pluralistic society, that I can't impose my own religious views on another, that I was running to be the U.S. Senator of Illinois and not the Minister of Illinois."
Too awesome. - Braamer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15A friend of mine, who is an Obama supporter, and a group of 7 or so people were standing outside the restaurant where the senator was celebrating his last birthday, protesting his somewhat moderate stance on the Iraq war.
Within 20 minutes of their arrival, Mr. Obama invited them all into the restaurant and engaged in what was described to me as a very constructive dialog for about an hour. After hearing the protesters opinions, he explained his position, the limits of his power, and his longer term goals regarding the war in Iraq, and then queried the protesters for their ideas on how to solve the current problem.
It is not so often one hears of state senators taking time to meet with people demonstrating outside their birthday dinner, and certainly not without press around. It is my opinion that such willingness to hear concerns directly from the mouths of the people contrasts sharply against the common consensus that our politicians can be bought. The fact that he is supporting the concept of "net neutrality" naturally reflects on his dedication to the people which he represents.
Armed with his charisma, I would like to see this senator become the seed of a political Renaissance, bringing back the idealism of democracy, and ushering in a new era of honest, competent, political representation. - ffingers, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19Being from Chicago, he is one of the most charismatic politicians I have heard. Add to that, he has a good stance on topics and seems to "get it" and he's a strong contender although I have heard they are grooming him for '12. I don't know though.
It would be a trip to have Clinton/O'Bama running. A women pres and a black veep. My god, the conservatives would literally implode. Upon finding out they won, people across the US would just *pop* out of existence....ahhhhh....to dream, to dream. - ferrix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14... and bring balance to the force.
- crashflow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Support network neutrality. Better yet, tell the US government how you want the internet to work!
http://digg.com/tech_news/The_Internet_needs_YOU!
email DNSTransition@ntia.doc.gov - JohnboiWaltune, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14This guy's a genius compared to that Ted Stevens douchebag. I wished I lived in Illinois so I could vote for Obama. I believe Obama is in his early forties. Maybe after a couple more terms as a senator, he will be ready to run for president. And by 2020, a sizable number of people who grew up in an overtly racist society will have died of old age. That will be important as Obama is an African-American.
I hope as we get more younger people into the government, more of them will be like Obama... people who come from humbler beginnings (his father was an immigrant from Kenya) and honestly care about representing the people. Not taking money from corporations to do their bidding. - Mordechai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11" I can say what I want without censorship or without having to pay a special charge... Everyone who cannot pony up the cash will be relegated to the slow lanes."
I doesn't sound like he's making censorship his main focus, but rather adding it for emphasis. And he correct on both counts. While this isn't outright censorship, by making it harder to access those who don't pay up, what you end up with is still a form of censorship. - macewan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Our government it seems has too much green in their eyes. Shame on them for not representing the people.
- synaesthesia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9This speaks volumes about the man's character to an extent that even this podcast didnt quite manage. I greatly doubt if he ever runs for President, but feel strongly that he is exactly what America needs, now more than ever.
- birch25, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11obama delivers once again! it's strange to be proud of my senator, but it feels good :)
- Allistairr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8For you people not in IL.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama
Really, the guy is pretty good. Seems to think things out, I thought it was impressive he started his own PAC so early. - Mordechai, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7It's not often that I agree with Sen. Obama, but this time he's on the money. (As opposed to others who seem to be a little too much in the money...)
- Arcadian, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11I too will vote for Obama.
- Trunks4191, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7i think Barak is the only one who can unify the democrats.
- Universal, on 02/10/2008, -0/+6[from the future]
He is :-) - MikeRaff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5If Obama is going to run, he should do it in '08. The Dems need a star to get behind and honestly, hes the only viable option. Everyone hates Hill, and I don't think Gore has the stomach for another run.
Besides which, the reason he plays so wel right now is because hes an outsider who doesn't appear to have been jaded by the ugly world of Washington. Give him a few more terms to "season" in the Senate, and he'll just be another one of the crum bums and fat cats on capital hill.
I'd vote for a McCain/Obama ticket in a heartbeat. - mckirsch, on 03/02/2008, -0/+4Snopes already debunked the Trinity *****. http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/church.asp
The rense.com article is just some rant by a doucebag making speculation.
Back under your bridge troll boy. - dootisterhans, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4To censor means to keep from being published or transmitted.
So if publishing something on the Internet becomes cost prohibitive due to a lack of neutrality, haven't I been censored? - alexdagrate, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Ted? Is that you?
- unklefudd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@cheapskate
I don't believe you have a good grasp at what the concept of Net Neutrality is about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality - vandalet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Ive been listening to his net-casts for a few months now, and i am highly impressed. I really hope he sticks around and runs for president in the near future.
- MikeRaff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4This is a nonsensical reply that belies a complete misunderstanding of the topic at hand.
Consumers, CHOOSING to pay more for PREMIUM service is nothing like the telcoms forcing higher connection fees to businesses for STANDARD service. - williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yeah, especially in Illinois.
What's next? Pennant for the Cubs? - DiggLive, on 03/12/2008, -0/+3Just visiting from the future. I'm here to tell you that Barack Obama is going to win the Democratic nomination over Hillary Clinton in 2008. He will be going up against John McCain, no more senator terms needed.
You heard it here first! - wonderboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'm also hoping that people won't vote for Clinton for the sake of having a woman in office.
- DavidGX, on 02/10/2008, -1/+3ron paul collects millions of dollars from a fanatical bunch of people yet fails miserably and doesn't capture even one single state. Just another little blast from the future.
- chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Funny, after I wrote his office on June 21 (2 weeks after this podcast) he hadn't made up his mind, though he is leaning toward net neutrality:
"One of the central debates in telecommunications reform is over %u2018network neutrality%u2019 in physical networks, such as telephone and cable networks. Independent application and service providers, such as voice and video companies, are pressing for preservation of the Internet as a service that does not discriminate against any given website creator or provider of a service such as music, e-mail, or voice over IP. These companies claim that without network neutrality they will not be able to innovate and meet the needs of consumers. On the other hand, physical network providers argue that they have sunk huge up-front costs into the underlying structure of broadband networks %u2013 telephone lines, cable lines and the like. They say that to mandate network neutrality would discourage them from building out more networks in the future, and would be an inequitable distribution of income away from their businesses.
I look forward to playing a role in the telecommunications reform debate as it proceeds in this 109th Congress and the next. I am not on the Senate Commerce Committee that will make most of the decisions on these topics, but I have begun a dialogue with the Commerce Committee Chairman and Ranking Member on these issues, and will continue my engagement with them in the future. While it is too early in the dialogue to make final decisions about each of the issues involved, I can tell you that my overwhelming concern is to extend critical digital technology to as many people as possible, in as efficient and equitable a manner as possible. I am disinclined to support proposals that would discourage innovation and competition, and I am strongly inclined to back provisions that help working-class Americans have better, cheaper access to technology."
Sincerely,
Barack Obama
United States Senator - wonderboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Even though I don't agree on everything with Obama, he seems like a guy you can trust in office. More politicians on both sides should be like him.
@bartboy
Hilary, ugh. - SQLserver, on 02/10/2008, -1/+3RON PAUL LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO
PAUL 08
PAUL 08
PAUL 08!
Just giving all you guys a blast from the future! - williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"Lucid" hawk??? I think you better check the mushrooms in your morning omlette.
- unklefudd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I can hear the popping now....lovely...
;-) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1As a follow up to my earlier post, my stance does against net neutrality does not mean I'm for the telco's and cable companies using the power of the State to get what they want, which is also not a free-market. Their incentive is to use the legislature to protect their turf. In other words, they want a State-granted monopoly (via regulations, etc that render entrepreneur and upstarts unable to compete). As Russ960 says, we need a true free-market, as a free-market is completely voluntary trade, and when it is all voluntary, it will always be a win-win situation, otherwise a trade would never occur. Don't confuse this free-trade with what politicians claim is free-trade, such as NAFTA, and the such. If there is documents that are thousands of pages long to outline trade, then that is not free, get it?
- spengy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6I don't care if you're 'conservative' or 'liberal,' Clinton as president would be a nightmare.
Having a woman president for the sake of having a woman president is a bad idea. Especially her. - JiMiThInG, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Living in IL I can proudly say I voted for Obama. Its great to have a rep who seems to really 'get' a lot of important issues. As has been said I think '08 is to early for him to run for the big office. However I would be shocked to not see him on a prez ticket someday. But what us Dems really need is another strong guy from a southern swing state. I gov really, as its so hard for a senator to win. In fact maybe 08 is the right time for Obama. I think the senate taints people, and at the very least the long voting record they have is usually used against them in the race..who knows. In any case Obama is prob the future tour ch barer for my troubled, but loved party.
- inactive, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1That site is a nice find. Thanks, sleepless.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It comes down to property rights, which so many people misunderstand these days. It is the 4th of July, and if there is any day that it should be clear, it should be today. Freedom is logically impossible without property rights. With that said, how does that relate to net neutrality? What Obama and other economically ignorant leaders want is control of the internet. Their idea is anything but neutral or free. Irishfreakout brings up a key question, "would this bill prevent major telecoms from putting in upgraded infrastruture?" Well, let's take a look at this logically. What are the incentives? If you were a company that wasn't allowed to charge for services and products it created, would you continue to upgrade them? Of course not. It is important to bear in mind what makes such innovative activity possible: private property and the free market. Proponents of net neutrality hail companies like Google and Microsoft for having made the Internet what it is today, and claim that higher ISP fees would impede the innovation of such companies. But the ISPs that made web access fast and affordable made the Internet as well. Being able to freely charge prices for services is what makes innovation possible at all. To stifle the free market is to stifle the potential for innovation.
- dkdevine, on 09/27/2008, -0/+1flip flop!
http://news.slashdot.org/news/08/09/22/0526237.sht ... - irishfreakout, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I totally agree with keeping the internet neutral and not punishing start-ups. I also do not agree with any company acting like a "tollway" for traffic or for charging more based on the content provided.
However, I'm confused... would this bill prevent major telecoms from putting in upgraded infrastructure and charging more to access that? That seems fine to me. Verizon just put in FIOS near my house and I'll happily pay more for the speed boost over my DSL. Google already pays a lot to ensure all people can access its servers quickly... so I'm not really sure what the difference is here. Can anyone help me out here? - Edmundo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2So is this the next generation Democrat who's supposed to appeal to the Gen X and Gen Y crowd? Did he vote for the McCain-Feingold bill which censors political speech?
- Mordechai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"'Everyone who cannot pony up the cash will be relegated to the slow lanes'
Hmmm, internet access is already like this. Want faster speed? Pay more."
Net Neutrality is mostly about two things:
1. It's OK the Charge based on the amount of bandwidth and not what the bandwidth is used for; and
2. You can bill your customer and not someone else's.
While I'm sure the first point is obvious, the second may need some explaining. Joe User pays his ISP who in turn pays for it's connection to the Network Backbone Provider A. Likewise, Ed's Widgets pays Frank's Server Farm, who in turn pays Network Backbone Provider B. There is also a deal between NBP A and NBP B where A pays B for how much data he sends through B and B pays A for how much data he sends through A. All of which is fine and how it is today. Where the problem comes in is when, for example, NBP A, who already has a deal with NBP B, wants to also charge Ed's Widgets because, being so popular, they use a lot of NBP A's bandwidth even though Ed's already paying NBP A indirectly through NBP B. - Himself, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1alternate article title: "Racist, marxist weighs in on net neutrality misses digital boat"
- ffingers, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5hahaha....this is hilarious. 'Someone' is obviously anti-O'Bama. Not two minutes ago, every pro-O'Bama comment was 1 digg more than they are now. That's great....especially, us "liberals" got bashed for ripping on Coulter. I guess those who are anti-any certain agenda feel that they can just mod everyone down without justifying it. Hell, if I mod you down, you're gonna know why. Funny even more, the non-pro-o'bama comments went untouched.
Wow...Digg fly-by-mod-downers!!! neat-o! -
Show 51 - 68 of 68 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is