Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
United States Government Mozilla Security The Media

Aftermath From The Net Neutrality Vote: A Mass Movement To Protect The Open Internet? (mashable.com) 132

After Thursday's net neutrality vote, two security guards pinned a reporter against a wall until FCC Commissioner Michael O'Rielly had left the room, the Los Angeles Times reports. The Writers Guild of America calls the FCC's 2-to-1 vote to initiate a repeal of net neutrality rules a "war on the open internet," according to The Guardian. But the newspaper now predicts that online activists will continue their massive campaign "as the month's long process of reviewing the rules begins." The Hill points out that Mozilla is already hiring a high-profile tech lobbyist to press for both cybersecurity and an open internet, and in a blog post earlier this week the Mozilla Foundation's executive director sees a larger movement emerging from the engagement of millions of internet users. Today's support for net neutrality isn't the start of the Internet health movement. People have been standing up for an open web since its inception -- by advocating for browser choice, for open source practices, for mass surveillance reform. But net neutrality is an opportunity to propel this movement into the mainstream... If we make Internet health a mainstream issue, we can cement the web as a public resource. If we don't, mass surveillance, exclusion and insecurity can creep into every aspect of society. Hospitals held hostage by rogue hackers can become the status quo.
Meanwhile, The Guardian reports that it's not till the end of the FCC's review process that "a final FCC vote will decide the future of internet regulation," adding that however they vote, "court challenges are inevitable."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Aftermath From The Net Neutrality Vote: A Mass Movement To Protect The Open Internet?

Comments Filter:
  • by whoever57 ( 658626 ) on Saturday May 20, 2017 @11:55AM (#54455279) Journal

    Tristani was allowed to sit in the media area but said she was not allowed to move from there during the meeting. Other protesters were allowed only in an overflow room that had a video feed of the meeting.

    It speaks to the current atmosphere,â she said of Washington after President Trump took office. âoeItâ(TM)s a Trumpian atmosphere not only with the press but with anybody who has a different view.â

    This is Trump's legacy: thugs employed by the government feel immune to any restraint. The stories just keep on coming about this type of behaviour from government employees, for example, the abuses committed by ICE.

    Look at the assaults committed by Erdogan's bodyguards. Yes, Erdogan has immunity as head of state, but his bodyguards don't. Why hasn't anyone been arrested and charged?

    • I'll believe Trump is finally on his way out, willingly or not, when I see a Washington Walmart that has a huge lineup of rats trying to buy life jackets.

  • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Saturday May 20, 2017 @12:44PM (#54455431)
    if we want Net Neutrality back. I know it's not popular to bring up politics (which is odd, since this discussion couldn't get any less political) but the ruling party has always been opposed to NN. Their arguments are pretty straight forward: It's undue and unnecessary regulation that stifles innovation. Let the Market sort it out.

    There's plenty of counter arguments that I want get into. I don't want to get off track anymore. Bottom line is this: The Republican party is ideologically opposed to Net Neutrality. It is, after all, a massive government regulation. It just so happens to be one that's popular with techies. Said it before, say it again: If you elect a party that takes as a central tenet that regulation is usually unnecessary, bad and a drain on Free Market principles you're going to have to accept the results. Net Neutrality is fundamentally incompatible with that ideology.

    TLDR; Vote in your Mid Terms.
    • by guises ( 2423402 )

      The Republican party is ideologically opposed to Net Neutrality. It is, after all, a massive government regulation.

      This isn't accurate. As is always the case with politicians, you have to look at what they do and not just what they say: Republicans love regulations, just not all of them. For a related example to the topic at hand, Republicans in many states have passed or attempted to pass regulations prohibiting the establishment of municipal ISPs. Ensuring that once net neutrality is dead, no one will have access to an open internet.

  • Base the whole thing on Wifi, and a very few strategic tunneled internet hops?

  • Mozilla is already hiring a high-profile tech lobbyist to press for both cybersecurity and an open internet

    When your so called democracy has paid high-speed lanes, what do you expect from your Internet service?

    • When your so called democracy has paid high-speed lanes, what do you expect from your Internet service?

      Well, given that you can get Gbit internet some places if you're willing to pay more for the connection, I'm not sure I'm seeing much difference really.

      Except that lack of Net Neutrality laws will allow ISPs and such to be sued for the content they prioritize/deprioritize. That's what this is all about, ultimately. Net Neutrality protects ISPs from (some) lawsuits. It won't after this change goes throu

      • When your so called democracy has paid high-speed lanes, what do you expect from your Internet service?

        Well, given that you can get Gbit internet some places if you're willing to pay more for the connection, I'm not sure I'm seeing much difference really.

        Except that lack of Net Neutrality laws will allow ISPs and such to be sued for the content they prioritize/deprioritize. That's what this is all about, ultimately. Net Neutrality protects ISPs from (some) lawsuits. It won't after this change goes through. If it goes through.

        The problem is that what we had was regulations, not laws. Laws would provide the ISPs reliably with that protection in court, and given that the MAFIAA and co have been moving to going after ISPs, the odds are likely very good that ISPs will not fight a law that gives them those protections even if Net Neutrality is explicitly intrinsic to getting said protections.

  • by Areyoukiddingme ( 1289470 ) on Saturday May 20, 2017 @03:39PM (#54456121)

    It's time to start seriously talking about the Sherman Antitrust Act. It has been illegal since 1890 for monopolies to leverage their monopoly status in one line of business into another line of business. ISPs breaking the Internet by violating Net Neutrality are a posterchild for illegal activity. And this isn't difficult to understand. Let's look at the text of section 1, in its entirety:

    15 U.S. Code 1 - Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty

    Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.

    Obviously Comcast doesn't give a damn about a piddling million dollar penalty.[1] But Comcast executives might care a little bit about a federal felony conviction.

    There's 38 sections in 15 U.S.C., half a dozen of which have been repealed. Section 15c is an interesting one. That's the one that says State attorneys general are allowed to sue to enforce this law. It does not require a federal prosecutor. There's an aggressive New York state attorney general who might be interested.

    Section 15 is also interesting. That's the one that says, "any person who shall be injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws may sue therefor in any district court", and recover triple damages plus attorney's fees. And since corporations are persons... Netflix needs to grow some balls and sue Comcast in federal court. They qualify. It's black letter law, with zero difficulty proving damages. The dollar amount Comcast extorted from them is the amount of damage they suffered. It's trivial to prove Comcast is an interstate monopoly. Done and done. I just wish Netflix had a lawyer like NewEgg's general counsel.

    ISPs might be more interested in Title II protections after a few felony convictions. Eric Schneiderman, are you listening?

    ----
    [1] Obviously the law needs to be inflation-adjusted. That penalty cap should be at least $25,791,700 [in2013dollars.com]. Still a drop in the bucket. I would argue it needs to be 10 times the inflation adjusted amount.

  • If there is one thing social media is good at, it's stirring people into a frenzy, and previous frenzies have worked to boycott companies that are deemed offensive. Hit a corporation in the money bags, and it'll adjust. Talk is cheap and politicians can be bought, but corporations fear loss of revenue more than anything else.
  • Amusing pair of Slashdot stories today.

    • Aftermath From The Net Neutrality Vote: A Mass Movement To Protect The Open Internet?
    • UK Conservatives Pledge To Create Government-Controlled Internet

    Sometimes the jokes just write themselves.

  • As more and more people become disenchanted with the Internet, don't you think that the money that is made with it will drop? (Money speaks louder than perverted laws!!)

Avoid strange women and temporary variables.

Working...