FCC To Vote On Net Neutrality On December 21

GovTechGuy writes "The FCC just released its tentative agenda for the December 21st open meeting, where the Commission will vote on whether to adopt rules to preserve net neutrality. According to the agenda the FCC will consider 'adopting basic rules of the road to preserve the open Internet as a platform for innovation, investment, competition, and free expression.' House Republicans have already promised to oppose any solution put forth by FCC chairman Julius Genachowski."

Comments

There it goes.

[geminidomino]

Well, we're boned.

(No, I have no faith that the Right Thing(TM) will be done given the number of asshats involved. It's only a question of where it goes wrong)

Re:There it goes.

[commodore64_love]

Instead of fighting Republicans, the FCC should just re-designate the internet lines as "phone lines" and apply existing common carrier rules.

Re:There it goes.

[dkleinsc]

You've been seriously misinformed about what "net neutrality" actually means.

Net neutrality basically means that ISPs can't throttle traffic for any reason other than maxing out a connection at the advertised download/upload rate. It says nothing about the content. It gives no extra power to the FCC or any other government agency. What it takes away is the ISPs ability to censor content, or say something like "that's a nice website, real shame if it were unable to be viewed by any of our customers."

Re:There it goes.

[DJRumpy]

FCC doesn't care about content in and of itself, but rather how it's treated, which is the entire point. It doesn't matter if the 'content' is outside of the US. What matters is how your local ISP treats your connection to said content. It's also not strictly about blocking content (although that is inherently a part of the larger picture as some will threaten exactly that, like Comcast has threatened with Netflix.

It simply requires that an ISP will treat all content equally. That way they can't discriminate against a competing firms 'content' by reducing the quality of service for that content, while increasing the quality/bandwidth of their own offerings. It levels the playing field.

This wouldn't be as big an issue if content providers were not subsidiaries of telecom providers and vice versa. The first step that should be taken is to separate the internet provider from any content. It is a conflict of interest and spells nothing but trouble for the end user.

I just wish they would regulate internet like they do utilities. it has become an integral part in peoples lives. It is not much different than phone service in that regard.

Re:There it goes.

[Enderandrew]

I'm not sure this the case here.

I think most Republicans in the Senate have no clue what Net Neutrality really means. McCain said in the Presedential debates that he didn't understand the issue completely, but he was against more government regulation of business.

This is more ignorance than evil.

Overall I believe both parties support big business. There isn't a political party that doesn't love money.

The massive difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats want social freedoms, but want to regulate the hell out of everything else. Republicans want financial freedoms, but want to regulate social issues.

It seems the public just wants freedom period, and neither party is really interested in delivering that.

Re:There it goes.

[haapi]

You have it backwards. Nobody is imposing fees on ISPs. Net Neutrality is to protect ISPs from imposing fees on content providers.

Cue gangster voice:

"Nice content you have here.. Would be a shame should anything untoward happen to it during delivery over our networks."

Re:There it goes.

[rezalas]

House Republicans have already promised to oppose any solution put forth by FCC chairman Julius Genachowski."

Yes, because our tax dollars need to be pissed away into the wind fighting anything and everything one person suggests 'just because'. I'm always amused that politicians talk about intelligence and maturity and wisdom but then they act like a three year old who would rather rip the head off a doll than share it.

Re:There it goes.

[fredrated]

" they oppose the FCC Chairman because they think he's trying to yank rushlimbaugh.com, glennbeck.com..."

Really, someone throws out an excuse and you suck it up like chocolate milk?
They oppose the FCC because that is what defines the Republican Party: all opposition all the time, let there be no successes under Democrats. They are insane and it works because there are enough stupid people to believe their lies.

Re:There it goes.

[spun]

Funny thing is, the states that vote Democrat tend to pay more in federal taxes than they receive in federal spending. It is the poor rural red states that are the leaches off of the rich blue states. The Democrats "base" tend to be more educated and affluent than the Republican base. The Republican base are the ones actually receiving entitlements like farm subsidies, and "homeland defense" for small towns of 400 who get more money than New York City.

Read this report on taxes versus spending per state. Note which states receive more federal spending than they pay in taxes, and which pay more than they get. Republicans should stop accusing others of being leaches, when all the evidence shows that they are leaching off of the very people they call leaches. Must be nice living in a Red state, getting all the dirty liberal commies to pay for your farm subsidies and other benefits, and still getting to believe that you are the productive citizen and they are the leaches. Denial is alive and well in America.

Re:There it goes.

[hedwards]

A couple of things, one the Republicans are not the Democrats. And the Democrats of today are not the Democrats of the 50s. Secondly, The Republicans have been fighting tooth and nail against whatever the President has wanted to do since their exile. It's got nothing to do with what's good for the country it's about screwing over the Democrats. That didn't happen during the Bush administration. You can claim that however like, but the reality doesn't fit the facts. President Bush made precisely zero effort at including the Democrats and regularly went out of his way to pick a fight with them. In spite of that he regularly got votes from Democratic politicians even on controversial items like the Patriot Act.

I realize that a lot of people on the right have a hard time understanding things, but President Bush got 6 years of softball questions from the press, nearly a full year before anybody blamed him for anything. And you're full of it if you're seriously suggesting that Obama has gotten even a small fraction of that support. The more realistic observation is that the Republicans don't love this country or are at least so mind blowingly incompetent as to believe that screwing over the citizens is the best way of expressing ones patriotism.

At least in recent years the Democrats have been trying to do the right thing, the Republicans at this point aren't even bothering to pretend like they care about the country, it's more important to screw over the Democrats and win the Presidency in 2012 than it is to enact good legislation. It's really, troubling that it's coming out of their own mouths without any prompting by left wing operatives.

Re:There it goes.

[spun]

Must be nice living in a Blue state and getting all those benefits and food of the farm subsidies to the Red States.

You fail to see the bigger picture and are more interested in the us vs. them mentality.

You mean, the socialist farm subsidies used to pay farmers NOT to grow food? And that is just part of the welfare the red states get. What about all the homeland defense spending on states with no real targets?

Re:There it goes.

[T.E.D.]

Wait, the Republicans are dead-set against that too. Now I'm way confused...

That's really kind of a contorted way to look at things in order to make Mitt Romney-style health care setups look evil though.

I'm not a huge fan of the fine myself, but I think it makes sense. If you are not going to buy insurance at all, that means whenever you (or a certian percentage of folks like you) get really sick (which is more likely, since you'll be avoiding those full-price doctors), you'll end up at a really expensive emergency room, since they can't legally deny you treatment. Then you'll most likely declare bankrupcy when you get the >$10,000 bill, effectively sticking *me* and everyone else with insurance with your bill. It seems perfectly fair to me for there to be an extra fee on *your* tax bill to recoup some of the extra costs you will be incurring.

why havsn't Obama called out the republicans yet

[vxice]

This is one of my major problems with our president. He barely calls out republicans for stuff like "House Republicans have already promised to oppose any solution put forth by FCC chairman Julius Genachowski." They are not looking at the issues they are rejecting it without looking at it. Not that dems have never ever done this but Obama ran on a platform of ending this kind of thing and only seems to bend over backwards continuing to let republicans to run him over.

So why?

[rakuen]

Are the Republicans promising to vote it down because they're opposed to Net Neutrality, or because they're opposed to a Democrat? Serious question.

Re:So why?

[M. Baranczak]

Mostly the latter. If a Republican administration did the same thing, then a few of them would complain, but they'd go along with it.

Re:So why?

[s73v3r]

Only idiots think that. There is nothing in any Net Neutrality proposal that does anything close to that. If you are parroting those ideas, you're either an idiot who had them told to you, or you're just spreading FUD to defeat something the Democrats are trying to do.

Re:Not even there's to legislate.

[wurble]

The FTC handles monopolies, not the FCC. The fact that you are forced to a single ISP is either due to a poor choice of location (e.g. some place only one provider is willing to spend the money to give access) or due to local government enforcing a monopoly (e.g. most towns in New jersey which enforce cable monopolies). None of these are the FCC.

Yet more blatent hypocrisy from the Republicans

[l0ungeb0y]

For as much as they rile up their constituency about how America has lost all it's jobs, the economy being in the tank and how China is taking over, they do their best to constantly oppose new job creation and assist large corporations in stifling competition and innovation. Opposing Net Neutrality shows that the Republican party is against innovation, against American competitiveness and only seeks to put more money in the hands of their friends and contributors, the Nation and the people be damned.

But hey, when your core voter base is a bunch of pisswater guzzling, bible-banging, NASCAR fans who get their news from Glenn Beck and social opinions from Reality TV, I guess you don't even need to attempt to hide your hypocrisy since the majority of retards who voted for you are too dumb to think.

Net Neutrality assures more jobs, more innovation and continued competitiveness in an open marketplace. Opposing it will only benefit Comcast, Verizon and AT&T while preventing new startups who can't pay the extortion fees if they aren't blocked all together for daring to compete with their own "premium services"

America is already falling far behind in internet infrastructure. Asians can get Gigabit lines for what we pay for standard DSL, yet AT&T and Comcast are still stumbling around dragging their feet with IPv6 and it's taking an act of Congress to FORCE them to get internet access speeds to 1/10 of what Japan has today by 2020! Yet they have spared no expense suing municipalities who wanted to offer free wifi services and opposing Google's plans for municipal WiMAX offerings. Opposing Net Neutrality will only insure this situation grows exponentially worse.

Re:Yet more blatent hypocrisy from the Republicans

[D Ninja]

But hey, when your core voter base is a bunch of pisswater guzzling, bible-banging, NASCAR fans who get their news from Glenn Beck and social opinions from Reality TV, I guess you don't even need to attempt to hide your hypocrisy since the majority of retards who voted for you are too dumb to think.

Wow. If that isn't blatant typecasting if I have ever saw it...

Time for a true story...
The night that Obama was elected into office, I was downtown in a major US city. The moment that it was announced, a woman working a local convenience store turned from the TV she was watching and shouted, "Obama is elected! Everything is going to get better now!" Her coworkers cheered. She then proceeded to go back to her TV and cigarettes and not worrying so much about doing a good job. You see, the problem with your typecasting is that it can work both directions. In my case, I saw someone who was relying on another person to fix their life for them. It made me sad, actually. I ended up not even buying what I wanted to get because I just wanted to get out of there.

The fact of the matter is, there are a lot of smart people and a lot of dumb people living in the US, and a lot of people in between. However, we're all just human, and classifying a group of people as you did does nothing to actually solve the problems of this nation that we live in and only exacerbates the divide between political lines.

Or maybe I just don't know what I'm talking about. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go back to swilling a Bud while I read 1 Corinthians and yell at the driver's on TV (and hope for a good crash).

Re:Why?

[pitchpipe]

What does the FCC have to do with this, again? Last I checked, internet was not transferred directly over the air like traditional television, so they have no more jurisdiction over internet than cable TV.

God damn there outta be an IQ requirement to post here! What part of "Federal" or "Communications" or "Commission" equates to only "over-the-air"?

Here is a formula for figuring out whether things will pass in the US: Does it pander to a moron's sense of morality? pass Does it benefit only the super-rich? pass Does it look like it benefits the middle class but really does nothing or actually just benefits the super-rich? pass Does it do something to really strengthen the US? fail

Ask yourself: what does not having net neutrality do? It benefits the super-rich. Net neutrality laws will fail. No matter what you do. No matter what you think. No matter how many "middle class" do-gooders you have on your side. It will fail. The super-rich will somehow convince the silent majority (morons) that it is somehow in their best interest that net neutrality does not succeed. Don't believe me? Just watch.

Re:Not even there's to legislate.

[commodore64_love]

>>>So the same governing body that allows me to be forced to a single ISP

What the hell are you talking about? The FCC is part of the national government, and it's your *local* city or county government that gave Comcast a monopoly. Wakeup man. We live in a federalist system which means power lies at different levels.

You can't blame the national FCC for something controlled locally. Go to your townhall meeting and bitch at them about the monopoly they've created.

Re:An ounce of prevention

[dwandy]

Net Neutrality is a bit of a red-herring: as long as the last-mile is owned by the retailer there will never be competition in the market.
With true competition there would be no need to discuss net neutrality as those that offered unimpeded access to the web would be the ones people would use. More specifically, there would always be a competitor who offered up neutral access for those of us who cared.
Like streets, communication access is a natural monopoly (oligopoly at best) and should be either directly state owned (like our streets) or set up as a non-profit stand-alone with a mandate to maintain and upgrade the wires. Retailers would then connect and be charged for connection + (time-of-day?) bandwidth. Retailers would be free to make price plans as they see fit.
Fighting for net neutrality is working on symptom and failing to cure the problem.

Want a free/libre internet? Take back control of the last mile.

Re:Comcast's overreach might help the cause

[Richard_at_work]

Except that Slashdot overreacted to that story, in typical Slashdot style - the Comcast-Level3 issue was not net neutrality related, it was a case of Level3 exceeding their already existing peering relationship with Comcast by taking on Netflix CDN traffic (replacing Akamai), and turning down Comcasts offer to include it under the same terms as offered to Akamai.

It was Level3 trying to position this as a net neutrality story when infact it was a breach of already existing commercial peering arrangements - Level3 expected Comcast to take more traffic than formally agreed to and Comcast said "no".