GOP Senators Move To Block FCC On Net Neutrality

suraj.sun writes "Seven Republican senators have announced a plan to curb the Obama administration's push to impose controversial Net neutrality regulations on the Internet." "The FCC's rush to take over the Internet is just the latest example of the need for fundamental reform to protect consumers," says Sen. Jim DeMint, who I'm sure truly only has the consumer's needs at heart — since his campaign contributions list AT&T in his top five donating organizations.

Comments

WTF

[bigstrat2003]

The FCC's rush to takeover the Internet is just the latest example of the need for fundamental reform to protect consumers.

The FCC is trying to protect consumers, you fuck. Honestly, do these people believe that anyone will swallow lies like that?

Re:WTF

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Honestly, do these people believe that anyone will swallow lies like that?

Given the hysteria that greets any attempt at ensuring net neutrality, the answer to your question appears to be "yes." And I'm not just talking about telecom industry shills and their bought-and-paid-for politicians, either. Read any story that mentions net neutrality on Slashdot -- where people really ought to know better -- and you'll see that many people have swallowed the propaganda hook, line, and sinker. There are a lot of people, including many technically literate people, who actually believe that (a) net neutrality decreases broadband users' freedom of choice, (b) telling telcos that they can't discriminate based on packet origin will somehow morph into forcing discrimination based on content, or (c) some combination of the above. And it seems that there is simply no amount of explanation of what net neutrality actually is, and how it works, which will get through to people who think like this.

Re:WTF

[KarrdeSW]

The FCC's rush to takeover the Internet is just the latest example of the need for fundamental reform to protect consumers

Oddly enough he still uses the words "fundamental reform", which would imply a piece of legislation.

DeMint probably supports McCain's Internet Freedom Act of 2009. Which prohibits the FCC from placing any regulation over the internet.

Of course, not to be confused with the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009. Which is the actual net neutrality bill that asks the FCC to enact consumer protections.

Though neither bill is technically aptly named, since in both cases the "freedom" of one body is going to limit another. Consumers and corporations just have competing interests here. That's how it goes.

Re:WTF

[Daniel Dvorkin]

How can you describe this as anything other than the government deciding what's allowed and what's not allowed on the Internet?

Well, you can start by realizing that net neutrality has nothing at all to do with "the government deciding what's allowed and what's not allowed on the Internet," and go from there.

Re:WTF

[jandrese]

What? The whole point of net neutrality is to prevent ISPs (and the Government) from selectively blocking/degrading certain content. This is the government "deciding what's allowed" on the internet only in the sense that they're saying they aren't allowed to say what's allowed on the internet. Where are people getting these crazy conspiracy theory notions of what Net Neutrality is?

Re:WTF

[kenj0418]

Can you give me an example of government regulation that did not end up favoring entrenched incumbents in the industry more than potential competitors or consumers?

Telephone number portability

Re:WTF

[TubeSteak]

Are we better off with the FCC calling the shots?

The Federal Communications Commission would seem like the right agency to be "calling the shots" when it comes to the internet.
Would you like to suggest a different agency?

The trouble is that if they do maneuver themselves into Internet Regulator status, we will never see the alternatives.

::facepalm::
What alternatives?
Self-regulation by the industry?
Because that's obviously going to lead to a fair and open market place?

The FCC imposes fines for broadcasting nudity, right? Even half-a-million-dollar fines for accidental nudity on live broadcasts (superbowl halftime show...) that must later be thrown out in appeals court, right?

Uhhh... Newsflash: this moral panic was brought to you by social conservatives. You know, people who almost always vote Republican.

Re:WTF

[gorzek]

Somebody is going to be in control of it, one way or another. Better that it be a government agency that's at least theoretically answerable to the voting populace than a corporation that is only beholden to its investors.

Re:WTF

[gorzek]

Guess what? You just argued in favor of regulation. If you want consumers to have choices for broadband, then you are talking about forcing companies, through regulation, to make their infrastructure available to everyone.

Thanks for making my point for me.

Re:WTF

[Fauxbo]

Because if the ISP can't say:

"Oh a packet from Google... that's a nice packet you got there Google, be a shame if something were to happen to it. Gimme $100 and I'll make sure it get's where it's going real quick... unlike "lucky Bing" over here"

That hurts my profits.

Re:WTF

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Can you give me an example of government regulation that did not end up favoring entrenched incumbents in the industry more than potential competitors or consumers?

The Superfund cleanup projects. Breaking up Standard Oil. The limitations on media homogenization.

Re:WTF

[ATMAvatar]

Your analogy is flawed.

The grocery stores are the content providers (those creating websites). Net neutrality deals with the roads connecting those stores.

It may be really easy to drive to a different grocery store when one charges too much or lacks what you want, but depending upon how the roads are laid out, you may be stuck driving over the same few stretches of road regardless of which store you go to. What's worse is that the existing roads were largely subsidized with public money, and building new roads to compete with the old ones is often times difficult to impossible due to a variety of reasons (e.g. zoning).

Re:WTF

[gorzek]

You don't seem to have any idea how cable monopolies were established in the first place.

Cable companies struck deals with local governments in order to get permission to lay their lines on public land and on private property. It was completely infeasible for cable companies to lay their lines without the cooperation of the local government, as private properties are not contiguous enough to permit it and it's far too much hassle to ask every single property owner for permission to lay cables on their land.

In exchange for building this infrastructure, cable companies got their monopolies. At the time, nobody realized they would eventually be used for the breadth of data services we have now. In retrospect, it wasn't a great decision but it was the best option at the time.

Now that the cable monopolies are fully entrenched, the only way you're going to get fair competition is to socialize the infrastructure--which cannot be done solely at the local level. For it to work, it has to be done nationally, otherwise you just wind up with varying degrees of local/regional monopolies, which we already have.

If government at all levels just steps away from the whole thing and leaves everything status quo, you will not see more competition. The cable companies will still have their local monopolies because no one else can get in unless the local government allows someone to lay cables on public land again--which would start this whole process over and we'd be left with the same problem in the end.

Re:WTF

[uniquename72]

Do you really want the precedent to be that the internet is to be ruled by a revolving door of figureheads?

No, I want to precedent to be that I can use the Internet in any legal way I see fit without my provider telling me what sites I can and can't view, or slowing down my access to certain sites.

If the government needs to step in to ensure that I have this freedom (and the obviously do, or Comcast wouldn't be throttling) then so be it.

Without net neutrality, there's nothing stopping a site like Amazon from paying Comcast to slow traffic to any other retail site. Similarly, there's be great disincentive for network owners to allow access to bandwidth-hogging sites, so YouTube, Hulu, and most other video sites would never have been created, let alone new ones allowed to thrive.

Net neutrality means that access remains free (as in freedom). Lack of it is a massive gift to network providers at the expense of free information. When the government abuses their power, then it's time to get your panties in a bunch. This bill abuses nothing, and grants no powers that the government doesn't already have.

Re:WTF

[ultranova]

Sure there is, it's called negative user feedback. Amazon would backpedal so fast your head would spin. Look at what happened when Blizzard tried to make all their users use their real name on their forums. They reversed course the next day due to the overwhelming negative response.

Negative user feedback requires both consumer choice and consumer awareness. Amazon and Comcast could simply keep their dirty dealings secret.

Unlike the current administration, businesses realize that if they piss off their customers, their customers will go elsewhere.

They have nowhere else to go. The businesses understand this very well, which is why they cry out against Net Neutrality.

The competition between Comcast and whoever else may be scant in some areas, but it does exist.

No, it doesn't exist. There have been numerous stories on this very website discussing htis matter. But even if it did, the profit potential by abusing customers is simply too great in a market with such high barriers of entry for losing the lucky few who can choose to matter.

Net neutrality means nothing of the sort. Net neutrality tells the providers that they can't charge for tiered access, something they already do. So your $40 per month cable bill will instantly go to over $100.

This is in an outright lie. Net Neutrality means that an ISP may not throttle or block traffick based on what remote machine it's going to or coming from. Of course they can still offer different connection speeds for different pay.

If they have to give the same quality of service to everyone, you can bet your ass that they're going to make sure you pay for it.

I already pay for bandwidth. Net Neutrality simply makes it impossible for the ISP to try and make the other endpoint of my communications also pay.

This bill removes the freedom we all enjoy right now.

This, again, is a lie.

I'll take throttled traffic over a tripled bill any day of the week.

This is a non-sequitur based on your earlier lies.

You're either an astroturfer being paid to spread lies, a libertarian spreading lies due to ideology, or a moron who has no idea what you're talking about. Which one is it?

Ends don't justify...

[MozeeToby]

I like that the FCC is trying to ensure net neutrality but I have two problems with it.

First and foremost, if you're being honest with yourself, these kinds of decisions are too important to leave up to people in non-elected positions. Just because I agree with the decision they made doesn't make it right to try and do an end run around the politicos to get their way. Imagine if the FCC were doing the opposite, and trying to encourage a non-neutral net.

Secondly, this wouldn't be a law on the books. All it would take for this policy to change would be a new management at the FCC. That means both that businesses couldn't count on it staying the same for any kind of long term and that the next election cycle could see it thrown out the window without so much as a vote in congress.

Put it through congress the way these kinds of policies were always meant to be. At least give the American people the chance to pretend that they can still influence their congressmen and make it a bit more difficult for the policy to be overturned when the political winds change.

Re:Ends don't justify...

[betterunixthanunix]

Unfortunately, our elected representatives no longer represent our interests. Case in point: both democrats and republics in congress are taking a stand against net neutrality regulations, and there just are not enough third party representatives right now.

And who will protect consumers from comcast &

[unity100]

huh ? especially when these and 2 other companies hold almost all american backbone infrastructure in their own hands ? and for some reason, they are acting in unison. gee. i wonder why that is.

really. who will protect the consumer from their stranglehold ? 'invisible hand' of the market ? fairies ? what do you do when 4 companies hold an entire nation hostage, act together ? wait for 4-5 years for a new backbone provider to come up ? do you have that time ? and dont bullshit me about 'competition' by the way - it has never been a reality in between mega companies at the very top. they always act in conjunction.

Oh yes

[adamwright]

Oh yes, they believe that people will swallow them. I'm making a kind of personal anthropological study of the changes to the US right (which, to most of the Western world, is becoming the "far right", or possibly "So far right, it's in danger of wrap around"). These people truly seem believe that *any* kind of government is an evil threat to liberty (how these people can draw a salary as a government employee is an excellent example of living with cognitive dissonance - *my* government job is OK, *my* farm subsidy is an exception to the rule of free markets). There seems to be a growing group who would prefer that the sum total role of government would be to issue all newborns with a bible and a gun, then vanish for all eternity.

I caricature, of course. Not all republicans are this far gone. Unfortunately, It's getting hard to find any vocal examples who are not.

Re:Let me get this straight...

[chaboud]

I imagine that this is why Obama is trying to do this with the FCC (and not congress).

That said, I'm fairly convinced that Julius Genachowski and his crack squad of broadband-all-the-time lawyers and business types have no friggin' clue how the technology works or how to address problems of scale.

Net Neutrality, yes, good. Massive hand-over of wireless spectrum to private wireless providers instead of building up a national infrastructure? Dumb.

Hold the Spin

[The Altruist]

And READ THE -~=*FRIENDLY*=~- ARTICLE. All of it.

DeMint's received contributions from ATT: $37,500. Total Funding Received: $6.33M
As far as Candidates receiving funds from Computer and Internet Industries: DeMint ranks #35.
Telecom Services & Equipment: #20.
Both of those rankings are WELL below several names of Democrats.
If DeMint's in anybody's back pocket it's Old People. Retirement. Insurance. Real Estate. Securities and Investment.

Quoted:
"In theory, many Democrats favor Net neutrality. President Obama recently reiterated through a spokesman that he remains "committed" to the idea, as have some Democratic committee chairmen.

But theory doesn't always mesh with political practice. More than 70 House Democrats sent a letter to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski instructing him to abandon his Net neutrality plans. A majority of Congress now opposes Genachowski's proposals. "

I'm sorry, what were we talking about again?

they do swallow his lies

[circletimessquare]

in the united states, you have people who will vociferously fight even legislation that is good for them and increases their rights, like common sense healthcare reform, because they would rather believe demagogues on the radio and propaganda outlets on the television that report "the news"

behind these demagogues and propaganda outlets are big business concerns, who have realized they can pay to have opinion swayed in their direction by demonizing brain dead obvious common good legislation that costs corporations money. they have convinced the idiots to fight for the reduction of their own rights. they call legislation in the name of the common good "socialism," "liberalism," or any number of demonized words whom those who oppose "socialism" or "liberalism" don't even really understand

all they know is "socialism is a bad word." well, what does socialism mean? "its means bad stuff." could you define it ideologically please? "it's anti-american." would you like to know the 19th century american history of labor rights- "shut up you communist fascist terrorist"

this is what intelligent americans are up against: corporations whipping up the low end of the iq curve into a rabid hysteria

americans: go to europe. ask a european about socialism. you will find out the word is boring and just common sense. europeans have a much higher standard of living then you, dear propagandized low iq americans. they also have much higher taxes... but they DON'T PAY FOR SERVICES YOU PAY A LOT MORE FOR

truth, idiots: you're still taxed, whether for health care or oil or broadband, but by corporate boardrooms instead of uncle sam, and you are taxed a heck of a lot more! idiots: you are being manipulated by trolls in the employ of big business to think things against your own self-interest, and you are too stupid to see it. wake the fuck up

rest of the world: i apologize that the american experiment in democracy has been warped by corporate influence. there are still americans who recognize the threat and would like nothing more than to remove that corporate financial influence from our democracy. unfortunately, it is very difficult to fight billions of dollars in lobbyists and media buys. but we're trying. wish us luck. if we fail, then the usa becomes nothing more than a slave state to corporate interests, and any slave who dare suggests big business should pay more for the care of their slaves is "unamerican." unbelievable