Slashdot Mirror
House Democrats Shelve Net Neutrality Proposal
crimeandpunishment writes "A compromise on net neutrality appears to be as likely as Google and China becoming BFFs. House Democrats have pulled the plug on efforts to work out a compromise among phone, cable, and Internet companies. House Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, who shelved the proposal late on Wednesday in the face of Republican opposition, said, 'If Congress can't act, the FCC must,' and called this development 'a loss for consumers.' Internet companies and public interest groups say the new regulations are needed to keep phone and cable companies from playing favorites with traffic, while those companies insist they need flexibility so high-bandwidth applications don't slow down their systems." The net neutrality debate seems to have fallen victim to the extreme polarization evident in the larger political culture.
It would really, really help if we'd explain to my conservative friends just what "Net Neutrality" is. They are convinced that it's some form of Fairness Doctrine for the Web that will limit content.
(The fact that such a "fairness doctrine" might limit Mother Jones and Salon just as much as it does FrontPageMag and World Net Daily, depending on the party in power, doesn't seem to occur to them, either.)
I try to explain to them that it simply means that, if I visit YouTube, I don't want my ISP to limit their bandwidth because Microsoft (or someone else) has paid a premium for priority for *their* bandwidth.
We geeks have several flaws, and one of them is our love of catchphrases and acronyms. We just *assume* that everyone knows what "free software" and "net neutrality" mean. But when you start dealing with the Body Politick At Large(tm), that's not necessarily so. A few minutes to carefully explain just what we're actually talking about will go a long way ...
Cogito, igitur comedam pizza.
"pulled the plug on efforts to work out a compromise among phone, cable, and Internet companies"
That right there is a perfect example of what's wrong with Washington. This debate, like so many others, doesn't consider the interests of the public, but simply the interests of the industry players directly affected by the new law.
There is absolutely no legitimate reason why the US government should be negotiating with AT&T (or Time Warner, or Comcast, etc). None. If the US government wants AT&T to do something, they can pass a law and/or issue a regulation that says AT&T has to do it. No negotiation required - if AT&T doesn't do it, the US government can then bring them to court. That's what makes the government different from a corporate partner of AT&T, and AT&T is subject to the government of the US as long as it's operating in the US.
However, there's an illegitimate reason why the US government negotiates with AT&T: AT&T is in the running at least for largest campaign contributor in the country.
I am officially gone from
As far as I understand it, this ESPN3 issue isn't a choice of MS nor ISPs. This is a choice of Disney/ESPN themselves charging for access to their services. Basically, providers have to pay ESPN for access. If they don't pay ESPN, no ESPN3. This has nothing to do with ISP's deciding what to and not to allow you to see.
Watch it when you mention "backroom deals." Those things are what got us the 1976 copyright extension act, 1998 Mickey Mouse/Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act, DMCA, DMCA2, ACTA (thankfully not ratified yet but just watch them slip it through in the dead of night).
We can just bet that the real reason this is being "delayed" is that the Senate right now is busy passing the "Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act" (aka the "Fuck Consumers In The Ass Act") under a "fast-track" by the corrupt party in power (as opposed to the corrupt party OUT of power).
They want to have the authority to shut down any website they see fit by accusing it of "piracy." Not only that, they want the ability to order US ISP's to "black out" access to overseas websites they accuse of "piracy."
How long till this starts to be a tool for political repression? Seems the Democrats have taken a page from their funding backers over in China. Maybe in a few years rather than needing Tor to get news out to people inside China, we'll be needing it just to survive the Great Firewall of America...
Fine. Let them charge the content producers by bandwidth.
You must own an ISP, because that idea is bullocks. I pay my ISP to pipe content from my provider to my computer. If the content provider is paying, why should I?
If your system doesn't have the bandwidth to serve your customers, you need to invest in infrastructure. If you can't get a return on your investment you need to get the hell out of the business.
The phrase "taking you coming and going" springs to mind. This kind of nonsense really pissses me off. IMO the "troll" mod should have been "flamebait", but at least it's a downmod.
Free Martian Whores!
Ah but the point is that you didn't PUT the content on the net did you, you just consumed it. People like you shouldn't have to pay, and THAT'S what the FCC needs to regulate.
The point is, I used the bandwidth.
Home of The Suki Series
Wait... so you're saying that people who produce and provide need to penalized? That sounds awfully familiar...
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
You got that one wrong, you meant to write Republicans (homophobic, racist, anti-middle class...).
As opposed to Democrats, who keep people in what is basically slavery, lie about trying to "improve education" while doing their best to make sure it is never improved for their voting base, tax the fuck out of people to pay for deadbeats (my city is now 13bn in the hole thanks to demofucks on the city council and the mayor's office not doing shit to get the Katrina Debris out: those lazy assholes are STILL demanding government payouts and housing/welfare checks with no plan to ever go home) and endorse the evisceration of the First Amendment, Second Amendment, and anything else in that pesky "Constitution" thingy that gets in their way?
Who voted against the repeal of DADT? Republicans
Also most of the joint chiefs of staff... who are not republicans.
Who voted against a more comprehensive anti hate crime law?
I believe the word you really mean is "thoughtcrime law", which many of us of a libertarian bent view as a Bad Thing.
Who sleeps with the religious right bowing to its will? Republicans.
Funny. Ever seen black preachers in action, poverty-pimping the slaves back to the Democrat for another round of uninformed, uneducated, "voting"?
Who voted against tax breaks for small businesses 2 weeks ago? Republicans.
What else was in the bill? Oh yeah, another round of TARP-crap that would have been WORTHLESS to small businesses. But you're too busy being a partisan fucktard to notice.
Who voted against tax breaks for corporations who keep jobs in the U.S. less than a week ago? Republicans.
See above...
Who created a $13 TRILLION hole in the government finances? BUSH thank you very much, he's a republicans.
Who voted for every bit of that spending legislation? Oh yeah, the DEMOCRATS... including Obama, every time since 2004...
As for the last 30 years, actually I beat you, let's do 60 years, under Democrats the income of the middle class has steadily increased by 3%/year and that of the upper class by 2%/year, under Republicans the increase has been around 1% for both.
Do you mean under a Democrat president or Democrat congress? Because the two are fundamentally different due to the lack of a line-item veto. The strongest growth was actually 1994-2000, when it was Clinton in the President's chair (holding the Republicans in check when he wasn't too busy getting blowjobs from interns) but the Republicans at least being sort-of fiscally responsible in the spending bills which Clinton only got a veto/pass vote on.
If we had a line item veto, I'd say fuck it, just make sure that no party gets hold of House, Senate, and Presidency all at once. As it stands, I'm more comfortable with a Republican congress and a Democrat president to hold them in check, thanks.
The problem is NOT one side or the other. The problem is Americans are too fucking stupid and uneducated these days to recognize that in order for our system to work, we have to have some goddamn checks and balances. The system, as stated, is not to rely on the goodness of men, but rather, ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
If there's a Democrat in the oval office, I vote Republican for congress. If there's a Republican in the oval office, I vote Democrat for office. Every time we've had one party controlling it all - Carter, Clinton's first two years, Bush's first six (and fuck it, his last two as well, since he was a wimpy-ass lame-duck RINO retard who didn't veto even ONE THING that Pelosi and Reid sent his way in 2006-2008), America suffered for it.
That's the reality. Now grow up and get your partisan head out of your partisan ass.
No, what he's saying is that if you make >$75K and you're whining about being asked to contribute +$2K, then you perhaps need a little more critical perspective because, get this, you're already quite rich in relative terms.
He's not expecting to be given extra earnings, he's saying you should count yourself lucky that you are making more, rather than making $40K or less instead of expecting sympathy from the majority of society because you're so hard done-by. As a more wealthy person you, by default, use and benefit more from society, so you, as the the more wealthy person, should foot more of the bill for it.
Don't like it? Want to keep all your money? As tired a cliche as it is, perhaps you should move the Somalia? That way you'll only ever have to pay for your own needs, such as the private police force you'll require to maintain the law and order that allows you to keep the money you make.
--srj/mmv