Net Neutrality Will Be Repealed Monday Unless Congress Takes Action (arstechnica.com) 166
With net neutrality rules scheduled to be repealed on Monday, Senate Democrats are calling on House Speaker Paul Ryan to schedule a vote that could preserve the broadband regulations. From a report: The US Senate voted on May 16 to reverse the Federal Communications Commission's repeal of net neutrality rules, but a House vote -- and President Trump's signature -- is still needed. Today, the entire Senate Democratic Caucus wrote a letter to Ryan urging him to allow a vote on the House floor. "The rules that this resolution would restore were enacted by the FCC in 2015 to prevent broadband providers from blocking, slowing down, prioritizing, or otherwise unfairly discriminating against Internet traffic that flows across their networks," the letter said. "Without these protections, broadband providers can decide what content gets through to consumers at what speeds and could use this power to discriminate against their competitors or other content." The letter was spearheaded by Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), and Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii).
Paul Ryan is a weasel (Score:2, Insightful)
He'll do whatever his leash-holders say. He's a bitch.
Re: (Score:2)
Flame, Troll, Funny I can see. But modded Informative?
He is a bitch. Now I know!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
We can only hope.
Re: (Score:1)
Must of been hard as a liberal to admit that there are no good front-running Democrats who could win against Trump.
I think liberals have turned pessimist because so many Americans are now OK with despotic tyranny.
It's like neo-cons all dropped their trousers to get fucked by the alt-right and tea party. Half of the GOP revealed themselves to be whores that do not stand by their own principles of family first and honor to God and country.
God Bless our Armed Forces. May they defend us from our enemies, foreign or domestic.
Talk to Trump last (Score:5, Insightful)
Whatever happens the person who can influence Trump to keep net neutrality intact must make sure to be the last to talk to him before he decides. That usually seems to do the trick.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately I do not know Ivanka's phone number, I might be able to convince her that net neutrality means she can reach more working moms like herself, but she needs to act now.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Trump decided to do exactly the contrary.
Well, he likes to be the smartest man in the room.
Re: (Score:2)
While many in our society live by the mantra "surround yourself with brilliance" in order to be a most effective leader ...
That is something which requires the ability to put aside one's ego for the greater good. People who can't do that are insecure, and tend to surround themselves with people who they aren't threatened by, and who are by extension unlikely to be competent, let alone brilliant.
Re:Talk to Trump last (Score:5, Interesting)
Get me 20 minutes and we can also tackle global warming by telling him the hotter weather will reduce his crowd sizes.
Re: (Score:2)
You should watch a clip of Ali G trying to con Trump back in 2005. He figured Sacha Baron Kohen in ten seconds. They must have been so impressed they decided to include the footage anyway.
You'd do better than to automatically assume that a man who turn nearly everyone around to elect him President is a complete dumbass.
Re: (Score:2)
there is a new dawn in America: the jobs are through the roof, the economy has reached 4.8% growth
Trump's trade war will end this.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump had nothing to do with this. Politics rarely have a significant effect on economics, and the economy was already growing when Obama was still in office. Besides, it's not only in America that the economy is going through the roof. And I don't think Trump is responsible for the econimic boom that's happening in Western Europe at the moment.
And Nothing will happen.... (Score:2)
Yawn.
Congress should pass comprehensive net neutrality (Score:5, Interesting)
Instead of relying on the FCC using a shakey legal foundation to enforce net neutrality, Congress should pass an actual law laying out exactly what should and shouldn't occur, and assign an agency to oversee. The problem with the approach from the past few years is the FCC or FTC trying to assume this responsibility without Congress having specifically authorized it. Congress never passed laws granting the FCC to authorize ISPs under Title II, etc.
Congress should pass comprehensive net neutrality regulations and lay out exactly what needs to happen, and assign responsibilities. There's too much hemming and hawing over the FCC rather than going through the legislative process. I believe people should stop asking the FCC to change it's mind since the FCC (not backed by legislation to oversee NN) can just change it's mind in the future when the next administration comes in. Legislation is the right approach to this, not bureaucracies.
Re:Congress should pass comprehensive net neutrali (Score:4, Interesting)
Just so.
Note that one good thing about Trump as President is that it MIGHT make Congress stop abdicating its responsibilities to the Executive Branch. They've given the Executive the power to wage war, and entirely too damn much power to (effectively) make laws over the last half century or so. About time they reclaimed some of the Legislative powers they've given away....
Re: (Score:2)
I think that the majority party have show themselves to be completely craven towards Trump. They are not going to rein in Trump and his administration unless a revelation (perhaps from Mueller) forces their hands.
Re:Congress is run by Republican self-denying swam (Score:5, Insightful)
Well that's how democracy works. We elect representatives to pass legislation. If they don't pass legislation, then that might reflect the actual wishes of the voters. New reps can be elected (and will be in a few months), and those priorities can change.
Just because legislation isn't passed doesn't mean you can subvert the legislative process with unelected bureaucracies assumed responsibilties that aren't theirs.
Drug legalization is happening across this country NOT by bureaucracies or Supreme Court decisions, but by the legislative process. That's the way it should happen in a republic.
Re: (Score:2)
Spend 100 years using speech to persuade then short circuit it at the last moment by having a judge decide the will of the people has changed rather than elected representatives.
I have a soft spot in my heart for taking freedom by force if necessary, or even available, and judicial rulings like for gay rights pass that test.
I have much less sympathy for judicial activism that increases the power of government to begin controlling things in new or unanticipated (by Congress) areas.
Both sides seem to think it
America is not a democracy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Citizens United proved that - corporations are citizens and can dump money into politics. Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump had massive corporate backings. Studies say the US is an Oligarchy if not Plutocracy. You need to go back to Truman to get a "poor" president, as in net worth under 1 million. No president since I've been alive has been anywhere near that poor.
Re: (Score:2)
You need to go back to Truman to get a "poor" president, as in net worth under 1 million. No president since I've been alive has been anywhere near that poor.
It would be very surprising to me that we would elect a poor president. We want our presidents to be highly-capable people, and highly-capable people tend to rise to well-compensated leadership positions and to manage their money well. $1M is a pretty low bar, too. You should have quite a bit more than that saved by retirement age, and since most presidents are at least in their 50s not being worth at least $1M would be a pretty big red flag that they don't think about the future and/or don't know how to l
Re:Congress should pass comprehensive net neutrali (Score:4, Interesting)
Instead, Tom Wheeler short-circuited the entire process and unilaterally declared that net neutrality must be the law of the land. Net neutrality isn't the only possible solution to this problem. The problem is actually government-created - local governments granted service monopolies to cable companies. These companies, assured that their customers cannot flee to another ISP, then intentionally degrade online services like Netflix to extort payments from Netflix to restore service.
The way it should work is some areas try net neutrality, some areas try rescinding these government-granted monopolies and allow multiple ISPs to compete, some areas try some different solution that we haven't yet thought of. Let these different solutions play out for a few years. Then we can study actual empirical data, and decide what's best for the entire country. And only then do we pass a national law with a solution to the problem.
The knee-jerk reaction method used to get net neutrality implemented via the FCC is totally the wrong way for government to operate. Heavy-handed decisions like this without first exploring possible solutions is what nearly saddled us with GSM. The original GSM spec was built on TDMA - each phone takes turns talking to the tower. Europe mandated GSM, and most of the rest of the world followed. The U.S. refused to require it, which allowed a competing service based on CDMA to develop. When phones started being used more for data than talking, suddenly the achilles heel of TDMA reared up. TDMA requires each phone to get a full timeslice even if it has little or no data to transmit. This wastes a huge amount of bandwidth. CDMA on the other hand allows all phones to transmit at the same time (they see each others' transmissions as noise, thus reducing the signal-to-noise ratio), and bandwidth is automatically allocated in proportion to how much each phone is transmitting. No wasted bandwidth. Within a year GSM threw in the towel, licensed CDMA, and added wideband CDMA to the GSM spec [wikipedia.org] for data services. If the U.S. had gone along with the "sensible" decision by bureaucrats to impose GSM, then CDMA wouldn't have happened, and our cellular data speeds today would probably down around 1 Mbps. And many of the services we enjoy on our phones today wouldn't yet exist.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is actually government-created - local governments granted service monopolies to cable companies.
Can you name one such municipality? I honestly don't know of any, but if you know of one, I'd be happy to hear about it. Most of the time I've found that the reason why there is only one provider in a market is because another provider simply doesn't want to compete. They'd have to build out all the infrastructure and then convince everyone who had cable TV/internet/whatever to switch.
I know for a fact in Columbus, OH there is no service monopoly for cable because I can switch providers. Anyone can prov
Re: (Score:2)
Have you looked much into Google's Nashville lawsuit (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/01/att-and-comcast-finalize-court-victory-over-nashville-and-google-fiber/)? From what I recall the monopoly is more implicit due to intense bureaucracy around attaching wires to poles. Whatever you want to call it, rents are being sought and granted.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
> Congress should pass an actual law
That is the correct solution instead of what Obama did which was to order the FCC to create more government regulations, barriers to entry, and more expensive to interpret rules. He should have instead taken action when the Democrats had the supermajority in the Senate, majority in the House, and the White House. By not doing so, he showed he doesn't think this is an important issue.
Re: (Score:1)
Even though Obama hurt small businesses with his oppressive regulations, he was still right because of his intent.
Re: (Score:1)
As someone that works for a small ISP "barriers to entry" is correct. Obama add more rules and regulations that weren't clearly defined so we had to hire an expensive law firm. Because of how ridiculous and vague Obama's rules were, we had to spend a lot of money to try to divine his intention.
Re: (Score:2)
As for your s
Glad I live in a blue state (Score:1)
Re:Glad I live in a blue state (Score:4, Insightful)
I am absolutely so glad I left America with no intention of ever going back. I now live in a country with so many political parties that none of them have the ability to do anything based on party lines. They actually have to sit, discuss and convince others that what they are doing is the right thing to do...not for the people or for the party or for the corporations... they have to convince each other that it's actually the right thing to do.
That said, just like in America, the politicians are uneducated frigging idiots that lack the knowledge to make decisions on what they're supposed to decide and they believe that the experts are the people who dress and speak like they do... which leaves them extremely poorly informed and therefore prone to believe the right thing to do is the idiotic thing.
For the most part though, they are relatively harmless because they can't sign any bills of any real importance into law because no one will ever agree on a large enough level to do so. As such, they have no power and cannot fuck things up too badly.
You on the other hand live in a blue state which means that at a state level, decisions are generally made by a club who all agree with each other because of the team they play on as opposed to on the issues themselves. The same would go for red states.
After all, why would you need to take the time to understand the issue and consider how it would affect the people when you can just vote on party lines and be frigging idiots. Heaven forbid the politicians took the time to understand what net neutrality actually means.
Here's one for you... make a simple case with simple drawings and gartner graphs to explain this :
Revoking net neutrality in the U.S. would make several American corporations stronger, but would make America as a whole weaker. It would hurt the schools, the military, the space program, the content producers, the politicians... it would actually hurt almost everyone except the few companies positioned to better exploit higher tariffs. And because non-US countries that all have net neutrality are not effected, it will give them an edge in every category upon which the U.S. claims to want dominance. Revoking net neutrality would basically place the U.S. on equal footing with Turkey.
Re: (Score:2)
Blue...Red... they are false choices. They share the same donor base. It may be true that many politicians are idiots who should have never been put into office, but you forgot the most corrupting influence of them all: money in politics. In the land where money is speech, you see that politicians are not required to reason or understand experts' opinions, or even have a real party platform. They are merely required to carry out instructions from their wealthy donors.
People are delusional if they think majo
This is one of the reasons Ryan cashed out (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
He quit because of Net Neutrality?
Logic lesson for today: When someone says "One of the reasons", they are telling you that the thing they're about to describe is a reason, but that there are others as well. This in no way implies that the reason described would produce the same decision if it were the only reason.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Except of you read what net neutrality does instead of the talking points, you would know its much more than bandwidth being 'neutral'.
Sadly, no one wants to read it. There is a reason the document is over 300 pages long.
Re: (Score:1)
Except of you read what net neutrality does instead of the talking points, you would know its much more than bandwidth being 'neutral'.
Sadly, no one wants to read it. There is a reason the document is over 300 pages long.
Why don't you tell us then, Nostradamus? Tell us about the horrors contained in that vast, 300-page tome.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, but before Net Neutrality, remember when ISPs blocked VOIP, P2P, and video services that competed with their own? Why do you want to radically change things and return back to that world?
Re:I hope so. Net neutrality isn't. (Score:5, Insightful)
The internet became ubiquitous WITH net neutrality, which was enforced at the beginning by two factors: the telecoms that owned the last mile were regulated by Title II as common carries for the phone service they provided, and internet piggybacked on that phone service; and because internet was piggybacking on phone services, ISPs did not own the last mile but rather offered a service on top of it, so it was much much easier to start a competing ISP without having to run new line, and that competition forced them to behave.
With the advent of phone companies themselves, and cable companies, BECOMING the ISPs, you suddenly had regional duopolies directly offering something that was not phone service and so not regulated by Title II. Then they started doing away with the until-then-defacto net neutral practices. Then laws started being passed saying they can't do that, and those laws were overturned because internet service was not categorized under Title II, so the FCC went ahead and made it that way, which it should have been all along. And now that's been reversed in turn, and this bill is just Congress ordering them to put it back.
TL;DR: This bill is Congress ordering the FCC to classify ISPs the same way that phone companies were always classified and thus how the dial-up internet was classified in the beginning, to make sure that things stay the way they always were and not how the new-ish local monopolies want to make them.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
So you replied with misleading info, then I replied with the truthful info, and you took offense.
Nice.
Re: (Score:2)
No. (Score:3)
No, it fucking isn't. Right now, me and our company have exactly two ways to connect to the Internet (AT&T & SpectrumTimeWarner). Both are awful. They're trying to merge, so then we'd have exactly *one* for-profit company to purchase Internet access through. The Internet is not doing damn fine, and we desperately need some strong regulation in place to keep it from becoming AOL v2.
Re: (Score:1)
The Internet is doing damn fine as it is.
No, it fucking isn't. Right now, me and our company have exactly two ways to connect to the Internet (AT&T & SpectrumTimeWarner). Both are awful. They're trying to merge, so then we'd have exactly *one* for-profit company to purchase Internet access through. The Internet is not doing damn fine, and we desperately need some strong regulation in place to keep it from becoming AOL v2.
Ok, just so I understand your point.
You don't care that the internet is ubiquitous enough that it reaches refrigerators. Or that developing countries are skipping wired networks. Or that phones are more powerful that laptops of a few years ago. Or that you can use your phone to access just about all current data. You don't care that the Internet drove all of that and much more. You want MORE and STRONGER government regulation because you live in a place with shitty internet access.
Ok. That makes sense
Re: (Score:3)
You're describing a while bunch of gadgets that use the Internet. That's nice, but as far as I can tell, completely unrelated to this discussion. The problem that I'm describing is related to net neutrality. Namely, that if we all have to rely on a single unregulated for-profit corporation for Internet, that service will certainly not improve.
Re: (Score:2)
"You don't care that the Internet drove all of that and much more."
That's how it's related to our discussion. Do you think we would have the iPhone if it wasn't for the internet? Or self-driving cars? Or any reason to have more powerful phones than slightly older laptops? The Internet drove those things. Just because you have shitty internet access is not a good reason for the government to implement stringent regulations.
Do you honestly think getting the government to impose stringent regulations woul
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the Internet is a good thing. That's why I'd like to see it regulated.
Do you honestly think getting the government to impose stringent regulations would make it better? Really?
Yes.
Look what the government does. It literally fucks up everything
No, it literally doesn't. My government regulated electricity works great. My government run roads work great. My government run public schools are great.
Imagine the governmen
Re: (Score:2)
Service would improve and cost would go down. Just like our cheap, reliable electrical grid. Just like our cheap, reliable mail service.
I didn't think you were interested in a serious discussion. Now I'm sure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I hope so. Net neutrality isn't. (Score:4, Informative)
Can you name one industry where the government has not needed to intervene to ensure companies act in the best interest of the public?
I sure as hell can't. Cars keep getting more power, faster, new materials, new bells and whistles - and they are kept accountable by a Gov agency. Televisions got more popular to the point where each home often has more than one, all content via radio/satellite/cable is regulated by the Gov. Electricity? Gov regulated (though often local monopolies). Gas/Water? Also Gov regulated. What happens when a Corporation isn't held accountable? You get another Ma Bell, exactly what we are seeing with Comcast, Google, Time Warner, and others.
I don't believe for a second that ANY corporation won't screw people over given the opportunity. Without net neutrality we *could* end up paying for "Social Media" internet packages to speed up access to FaceBook, or "Streaming" packages to get faster access to Netflix or Hulu. I'd rather pay my ISP for a one-size-fits-all x mbps, NOT a-la-carte based on my browsing habits.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Cars keep getting more power, faster, new materials, new bells and whistles - and they are kept accountable by a Gov agency.
Safety is. Cars aren't. The government, ARBITRARILY mind you, just set unreachable CAFE standards. Just set them to what they wanted. You think your powerful and faster car with more bells and whistles will hit those standards? Nope. It'll be a one ton box of tissues that gets crumpled when a car from the 70's hits it. The car industry is FIGHTING the government's capriciousness.
Televisions got more popular to the point where each home often has more than one, all content via radio/satellite/cable is regulated by the Gov. Electricity?
Do you think TV technology is where is is due to government FCC regulations? Are you kidding me? The FCC has little if
Re: (Score:1)
Where do you get your "facts" from? Fox news?
https://www.autoblog.com/2018/... [autoblog.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You actually read that article, yes? That article doesn't say what you think it says.
Oh and BTW, you realize exactly how slanted this little nugget is right? "At the time, the federal government, California and the states that follow its standards, and the automakers were all on the same page."
Obama unilaterally decreeing that all cars have to have 50 mpg by 2025 is like the federal govt decreeing "all phones have to have 30 hours of continuous battery life by 2025." It's capricious and you are extremely
Re: (Score:2)
The only way your reading is correct is if you discount some of what it says because it is "slanted".
Try this one:
https://www.cbtnews.com/why-th... [cbtnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You read your article correct?
CA is pushing for their standards. Automakers are currently sticking with the more stringent standards until things are settled. You are foolish if you think automakers are willingly going along with 50 mpg standard in 7 years because they want to. You see the cars that are being built now, yes? Do you honestly think buyers and automakers would prefer to buy and sell, respectively, the equivalent of the Ford Focus?
Re: (Score:2)
You really are a sucker for misinformation, aren't you.
I would add you to my foes list, because your posts are clearly devoid of facts, but unfortunately /. only allows 200 friends and foes and my foes list is already full of people who have drink the Fox news/Breitbart cool-aid.
Re: (Score:2)
You really are a sucker for misinformation, aren't you.
My mistake. On the same day, not the same time. As if that makes the gallon limit any better. https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/05/31/california-drought-jerry-brown-sets-permanent-water-conservation-rules-with-new-laws/
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch... [snopes.com]
Mostly False, sucker.
I may have been wrong, perhaps, you don't get your "facts" from Fox news, instead, it's Zero Hedge.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I did cite the ultraconservative "Mercury News."
BTW, I didn't say "illegal." You did.
Re: (Score:2)
Safety is. Cars aren't. ...The car industry is FIGHTING the government's capriciousness.
Cars are subject to a lot of regulations - Emissions standards, Mileage requirements, safety, dimensions (there are maximum widths and lengths), Lights (brightness, signals, colors, etc...). The current fight is the mileage requirements, but industry will always fight change.
Do you honestly think government regulations are why a 60" 4K TV is $500 now? Really?
Nope, that's a result of mass production and decreasing materials cost. Television broadcast is regulated for things like language/content, as well as the frequencies that those signals are broadcast. The gov doesn't really do a hell of
Re: (Score:2)
"The Internet is doing damn fine as it is. It became ubiquitous without net neutrality. Keep the government out as much as possible."
Yes, let's keep the government out of DARPA project.
Re: I hope so. Net neutrality isn't. (Score:1)
It became ubiquitous by ceasing to be a closed DARPA project. Get a clue.
Re: (Score:2)
It became ubiquitous without net neutrality.
Actually it is the other way around.
The "net was always neutral", until some fucktards tried to charge extra or prohibit things, and then suddenly "net neutrality" became a term.
Luckily I live in countries, mostly Europe, 1/3rd - soon 2/3rds, in Asia, where we do not need the term "net neutrality" because no idiot comes to the idea he could block certain traffic and charge extra to unblock it.
Re: (Score:3)
You're asking whether it's a good thing or a bad thing that a single political party would have control over a specific issue.
Shouldn't you instead be asking whether there is a much deeper and more fundamental problem with the political system when it's possible for a single political party to make unilateral decisions on anything.
Newt Gingrich is possibly one of the greatest American patriots of all time. This is a man who loves America more than almost anyone else and he do
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't that strike anyone as odd?
It does strike me as odd... that you think nothing has changed since the explosive growth of the internet and now.
In other news we don't need to worry about posting speed limits because cars aren't fast enough to actually be of danger when driven at top speed through the city centre.
Re: (Score:2)
The "FTC should handle it" argument is indistinguishable from a clever plan to bury any possibility of net neutrality in red tape for a long time:
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to misunderstand the problem with the FCC. The FCC shouldn't be involved in content, and you've provided a clear example of that. However, it does not follow that because the FCC is involved in things it shouldn't be, that the FCC shouldn't be involved in anything.
The FCC does a pretty decent job of boring technical issues like making sure radio signals don't interf
Only at the federal level. Push NN in your state (Score:3)
Contact your state representatives and have NN enacted at the state level.
Re: (Score:2)
Contact your state representatives and have NN enacted at the state level.
Yes. Please do. It'll make my state more competitive against yours.
What? (Score:2)
Unless Congress Takes Action
And abandon their long-term strategy of not doing anything or being responsible representatives (or even adults)?
Good. (Score:2)
Finally (Score:2)
It's over.... (Score:2)
The only hope of having any form of net neutrality is a change in American politics.
It's dead Jim....