Republicans Create Rider To Stop Net Neutrality

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF writes "Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) submitted a rider yesterday to a bill on military and veterans' construction projects. The rider would, 'prohibit the FCC from using any appropriated funds to adopt, implement or otherwise litigate any network neutrality based rules, protocols or standards.' It is co-signed by six other Republican senators. We all knew this was coming after the last election removed most of the vocal supporters of net neutrality and supplanted them with pro-corporate Republicans."

Comments

You thought the GOP/TP represented regular people.

[sethstorm]

Think again.

They just want more freedom to screw you over, lie to you about jobs, and bring back the days of Compuserve.

Not pro-corporate

[SuperKendall]

To call those against Net Neutrality as "pro-corperate" is a terrible mistake, because a lot of large companies back net neutrality - including Google and Amazon.

The reality is that companies want regulation passed that benefits that company - that is the point of lobbying after all. So that is why the only position you can possibly support if you are "anti-corperate" is no regulation at all.

Seeing as that is the position the Republicans are taking, those who claim Republicans are acting on behalf of corporations need to think about who THEY are actually supporting through these accusations, and what we lose when the truly open internet becomes beholden to the whims of the FCC.

Re:Not pro-corporate

[spidercoz]

I'd take the whims of the FCC over those of AT&T and Comcast any day.

Re:Not pro-corporate

[Anonymous Coward]

Google and Amazon don't control the pipe, though. Republicans are helping Comcast and TimeWarner. You may not like the idea of the FCC being able to enforce net neutrality but at least putting the FCC in charge gives the people someone to complain to. Try telling Comcast you don't like their draconian control, or at least their attempts, over the internet. They'll tell you to fuck off and to thank their dear friends, Republicans!

But I'm sure you liked warrantless wiretapping. The TSA pat downs are God's gift to man. Only corporations and Republican government can keep us safe.

Re:Not pro-corporate

[dkleinsc]

Yes and no.

First off, AT&T and other telecoms are larger campaign contributors than Google, Apple et al, so this is pretty much a done deal, will of the people be damned.

Secondly, all corporate players generally recognize that a net neutral Internet could become potentially democratic (small d intentional here), which is not in their best interest. They'd much rather the Internet be a somewhat more interactive broadcast medium like television than they would have it be a truly horizontal distributed network, because the more broadcast-like it is the easier it is to control what is said or heard on it, and the harder it is to compete with established players.

Thirdly, most Republicans and Democrats could accurately be described as pro-corporate.

Re:Not pro-corporate

[Edmund Blackadder]

The correct term should have been pro-telecom. And the republicans are acting on behalf of corporations, just not all corporation, only telecoms. Telecoms have the most to gain from destroying net neutrality and they can bring the most pressure on the senate, as they already have more ingrained lobbyists than the various internet companies.

Re:Not pro-corporate

[oGMo]

The reality is that companies want regulation passed that benefits that company - that is the point of lobbying after all. So that is why the only position you can possibly support if you are "anti-corperate" is no regulation at all.

False dichotomy; companies want regulation passed that benefits them, but this is not the only possible regulation. Therefore the only "anti-corporate" choice is not "no regulation." This is especially true since "no regulation" highly benefits another subset of companies (namely certain large ISPs like Comcast) who hold local monopolies, and already want anti-individual/customer/citizen measures which will raise prices and reduce quality.

Indeed, regulation that benefits individuals is "anti-corporate," or at least corporation-neutral and anti-monopoly-abuse, which is the real purpose here. Knee-jerk reactions to anything labeled "corporate" (or "regulation") aren't the answer. Preventing the abuse of individual customers is.

Re:Not pro-corporate

[dgatwood]

To call those against Net Neutrality as "pro-corporate" is a terrible mistake, because a lot of large companies back net neutrality - including Google and Amazon.

It's more accurately "pro-big-corporate". Sure, Google and Amazon kvetch about net neutrality, but the reality of the matter is that they are big enough that they aren't really affected. Comcast would never make YouTube unusable because their customers would burn the place down. And even in the worst case, YouTube et al are forced to mirror high bandwidth content using services like Akamai, which they can readily afford to do.

The folks who are penalized by lack of net neutrality are the small businesses---the next Facebook or Amazon or Google or YouTube. By limiting access to the free and open internet and essentially mandating the much more expensive distributed delivery of content, the entrenched big businesses become nearly unstoppable. Thus, although those big companies may complain about net neutrality, they're unlikely to do all that much to try to enforce it. After all, the anti-net-neutrality crowd is working in their best interests, too, at least when it comes to long-term profitability.

Don't get me wrong, in principle, Akamai is a good thing, particularly for multimedia content, as it reduces load on the backbones, reduces latency, and reduces jitter in data delivery. However, if non-Akamaized services are not merely less then ideal, but rather unusable, that tips the balance in a way that is completely unacceptable, and Comcast and cronies should be rightfully spanked with fines or, if the government is unwilling to do so, lawsuits.

Re:Not pro-corporate

[BradleyUffner]

Net neutrality gives more freedom to the few (the connectivity companies) and takes away from the rest (content providers, consumers).

It's pretty much the exact opposite of that. Net Neutrality gives power to the people who create and consume content, and prevents the people who provide the connections from tampering with it.

Re:Not pro-corporate

[spun]

AT&T and Comcast are companies with both natural and government-created monopolies. You are quite naive if you think that they are at the mercy of the free market.

Re:Not pro-corporate

[GameboyRMH]

So that is why the only position you can possibly support if you are "anti-corperate" is no regulation at all.

You realize that no regulation means no net neutrality, right?

But at this point the only solution that's anything more than the shoddiest of quick fixes is to take the Internet out of both government and corporate hands, to go to a community-run Internet. That means forking the infrastructure, switching to decentralized protocols and services, adopting universal encryption and ubiquitous support for anonymization, and replacing the IANA/ICANN with a democratic leadership:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1634334&cid=32019410

I thought net neutrality would be a longer-lasting fix, since I thought corporate control was the immediate threat and government control was a more long-term threat, but now government control is almost as close at hand.

Re:Not pro-corporate

[clarkkent09]

Not really true. In some areas there is more competition, in others less but most people in the US have several options when it comes to Internet access. I live in a moderately large city and I have 4 ways to get broadband access. I would prefer if there was more competition, sure, but the tradeoff of giving FCC a foothold in regulating the Internet doesn't seem worthwhile to me, especially since the whole throttling business is mostly a hypothetical problem.

Re:Not pro-corporate

[dpilot]

> Can you live without your cable/internet/cell/phone?

Yes, of course you can. It hasn't interfered with your ability to shove food in your pie-hole. But it very likely WILL interfere with your ability to efficiently pursue any sort of technology career. Yeah, you can live without that stuff - but trying to do so means a new kind of glass ceiling.

Re:Not pro-corporate

[spun]

Several different options, or several options that are remarkably similar, almost as if the small handful of monopoly protected telecommunications providers are colluding together?

Why are you scared of the FCC? Do you think that net neutrality will morph into its opposite, with the FCC mandating "equal access?" I'm guessing that is the dog whistle you are blowing here.

Re:Not pro-corporate

[Rockoon]

Why are you scared of the FCC?

Because the FCC was, and always will be, evil.

You young people dont remember. When I was growing up.. before this whole web shit...

The FCC was considered bad by hacks all over America because the FCC created and continues to create regulations that restrict FREE FUCKING SPEECH.

PERIOD.

For example, FCC v. Pacifica (1978)

Now you young folks idolize this organization that is against the very thing that you are fighting for. Its fucking crazy.

Re:Not pro-corporate

[clarkkent09]

Private companies use force all the time.
 
Really? Can you provide an example?
 
  Without force, the rich could not capture so much wealth without consequences. People would just take that wealth back.
 
See, this is your problem right there. You actually think that the economy is a zero sum game and if someone has more wealth, that means someone else must have correspondingly less. It is understandable given that we evolved as hunter gatherers and for 99% of our history the economy (consisting of a patch of berries) WAS a zero sum game. We don't do that anymore though. Of course we still use natural resources, but generally we don't pick wealth out of the nature, we produce it. When a person produces something and gets wealthy, that typically means that others have gotten wealthier too (just not as much as he did), not less wealthy. He did not take anything from them, he contributed to them indirectly. There is nothing to take back.

Re:Not pro-corporate

[517714]

Net neutrality will give and take according to the whims of those who claim the moral high ground and the term. It will be as effective at promoting true neutrality as our wars on drugs and poverty in their respective realms. The current opponents of what most /.ers think would be neutral will eventually embrace the term and subvert its meaning.

Re:Freedom doomed?

[KublaiKhan]

I think part of the reason why there are so many opponents to Neutrality at the moment is because of a mischaracterization--which may be the result of simple ignorance--of the FCC's actions as condoning government control of content-as-in-opinions, rather than content-as-in-format.

I've seen many people promulgating this notion (which, frankly, hasn't been helped by the FCC's past actions regarding, e.g., nipples and the superbowl) as being a 'government takeover' of the internet.

I like the idea of metagovernment, but sadly I don't think enough people are willing to put in the time and effort to make it work. Most people are lazy and content to let other people do the work of running the country, so long as it doesn't make their lives inconvenient.

Vocalize

[moeluv]

So contact your representatives and voice your opinion. If you don't have their contact info it's easy enough to look up online or if you happen to have an android phone download the "Congres" app. It will give you the contact info of your local congressional representatives. Part of the reason that lobbyists have so much power is that ordinary people don't inundate their reps with opinions and facts the way that special interests do. So contact them and express your opinion. They won't completely ignore it if enough of their constituency speaks up. So you can either bitch online or call the people who can have an impact. I've already contacted my reps concerning net neutrality, here's hoping anyone with an intelligent opinion here does the same. It's your government folks participate or don't bitch when you don't get what you want.

Re:Vocalize

[qeveren]

Part of the reason that lobbyists have so much power is that ordinary people don't inundate their reps with opinions and facts the way that special interests do.

Replace 'opinions and facts' with 'money' and you're getting closer to reality.

Re:Vocalize

[h4rr4r]

Bullshit, I used to call all the time. Not letters call. You get some staffer who does not care and an email that says they agree with you and support $the_opposite_of_what_you_said 100%.

These assholes are bought and paid for. They should at least wear patches like race car drivers so we can clearly see who they work for.

Kay Bailey Hutchinson

[Sonny Yatsen]

This is Kay Bailey Hutchinson proving her conservative bona fides after the shellacking she got from the 2010 Texas Republican Gubernatorial primary. Too bad she's decided to take sides against consumers to prove that she's a good party member.

Re:You thought the GOP/TP represented regular peop

[Surt]

Who on earth thought GOP/TP represented regular people?

Pro big donor

[spun]

The Republicans want absolutely no regulation of anything. Net neutrality is regulation. Without net neutrality regulations, the 'truly open Internet' becomes beholden to certain corporate interests. I would rather the Internet be beholden to the FCC, which is at theoretically accountable to US citizens, than to a few large media companies.

Regulations are like guns. They are tools. They can be used to protect or to harm. They are neither evil nor good, in and of themselves. We should never seek to get rid of all regulations, only the bad ones. Without 'regulations' the little guy is at the mercy of the rich and powerful. I support the right of the little guys of the world to band together and enact laws to protect themselves from exploitation.

You basically bring up the FCC as a sort of scary specter, "Ooga booga booga! FCC gonna getcha!" without saying what, exactly, you fear the FCC might do.

Net neutrality regulations are necessary to keep the Internet open. It will either be regulated by the FCC, or it will be controlled by a handful of huge media conglomerates. It will not stay the unregulated, anything goes wild west it is today. Either the landlords will move in and Enclose the open Internet, or we, the citizens, decide that we do not want to let them wall off the Internet, and we pass laws to stop them.

Re:Pro big donor

[h4rr4r]

Bullshit, ask them about corn subsidies.

Republicans love regulation, regulation that moves money into the welfare queen red states.

Re:Pro big donor

[mike449]

The Republicans want absolutely no regulation of anything. Net neutrality is regulation.
While they are at it, they should un-regulate the right of Cox to dig my property (private and public). If they want free market, let me name the conditions on which they can lay their cables.
So they actually want regulation, but only when it suits corporate interests and not public interests? This exposes them as shills and hypocrites.

Re:Pro big donor

[cdrguru]

Unfortunately the FCC has proven more often than not to be an advocate of communications rather than a regulator of it. Same as the FAA in many ways - if the airlines suffer the FAA isn't doing their advocacy job.

So it is very unclear what the FCC might actually do that would harm a major ISP like Comcast when there was a public outcry.

A large part of the problem is that the whole artifical monopoly which isn't tariffed like the telephone companies were but instead enforced through franchise agreements. There is no law that says there can only be a single cable provider but there are agreements in place that a municipality will contract with one and only one provider. The franchise agreements do get renewed but the scale of the physical plant that is required pretty much eliminates the possibility of a new player coming in and taking over the installed system - they would need to come in with a newly built head end. Sure, the municipality owns the cables, the nodes and the amplifiers (more or less), but the franchise agreement specifies how this equipment can be conveyed to someone else. And it isn't simple.

But nobody would make the investment in any of the physical plant without some sort of agreement that said how they were going to get paid for it all.

So whatever laws you might like are going to have to first of all not contravene existing franchise agreements. Nationwide. Each one independently negotiated with each municipality. Because should a law be proposed that nullifies some part of a franchise agreement in Chicago but not in Phoenix there is going to be nothing but trouble.

And you didn't think they would actually just pass a law forcing neutrality without things like must-carry and municipal access did you?

Re:Pro big donor

[Rakarra]

You basically bring up the FCC as a sort of scary specter, "Ooga booga booga! FCC gonna getcha!" without saying what, exactly, you fear the FCC might do.

I would very much worry about the FCC trying to screw up Internet content the same way they screwed up broadcast television. The FCC has a history of looking to expand its powers and influence, and I don't think, if it could get its hooks into the Internet, that it would stop at 'merely' Net Neutrality.

Re:You thought the GOP/TP represented regular peop

[spidercoz]

Nonsense. With Democrats you're just screwed. With Republicans, you're super-deluxe holy fuck screwed.

Re:Damned be these Republicans

[speedlaw]

Please. It's not even like they are a majority. They just have party cohesion which the Democrats lack. Indeed, with all three parts of the government, they STILL kowtowed to the Republicans, but really, as the Dems are also feeding at the same trough, there is little difference. The Dems don't apoligize to BP for inconveniencing them, like the Repubs, but it's still close.

Re:Freedom doomed?

[KublaiKhan]

Yes, I am fully aware of the dangers of non-regulated traffic shaping. Hell, I experience a variant on it every day--the place I work at has a very aggressive web filter; they recently put in a new rule that filters out anything mentioning some specific incidents that could be construed as critical of the parent organization.

It's just the slightest bit big-brotherish.

I would like a lot more competition in the ISP world, but sadly I don't think that's very likely either--so for the time being, I'm beginning to look at VPNs so that I can figure out how to route around content blockage, should my home provider (AT&T's the only game in town there) get overly frisky with the deep-packet-inspection.

And yes, I do realize that people can participate or not as they wish--but good luck getting the metagovernment platform adopted -without- broad-based support.

Still cant believe you guys have riders...

[citylivin]

KENT BROCKMAN: With our utter annihilation imminent, our federal government has snapped into action. We go live now via satellite to the floor of the United States congress.
SPEAKER: Then it is unanimous, we are going to approve the bill to evacuate the town of Springfield in the great state of--
CONGRESSMAN: Wait a second, I want to tack on a rider to that bill - $30 million of taxpayer money to support the perverted arts.
SPEAKER: All in favor of the amended Springfield-slash-pervert bill?
FLOOR: Boo!
SPEAKER: Bill defeated.

Can't believe you guys haven't fixed this yet. How can a completely unrelated thing be tacked on like that? is it really just a congressmans whim? Everytime i hear the word "rider" in american politics, i think of that simpsons skit.

Re:Still cant believe you guys have riders...

[iksbob]

It's worse actually. In the simpsons skit, they vote down the bill over the rider. Very few real life congress critters have the integrity to do such a thing, no matter how ludicrous or unrelated it may be.
Without riders, there would be no way for politicians to get their selfish and/or unpopular bits of legislation passed. Thus, the rider problem never gets fixed. Riders are a tool of corruption IMO. As long as corruption prevails, riders will continue to be tacked on to otherwise useful bills. Since governance is power and power corrupts (or at least draws the corrupt), I expect riders will be a problem until some form of major upheaval pushes these individuals out.

Re:You thought the GOP/TP represented regular peop

[Anonymous Coward]

Rebublicans are the kind of guys that would fuck a person in the ass and not even have the goddamn common courtesy to give him a reach-around.

Re:You thought the GOP/TP represented regular peop

[Maxo-Texas]

Aye. Jeez, they openly joked and boasted about the wealthy being "their base".

One guy a few days ago on a conservative talk show host said he was about to lose his unemployment benefits and with that, his house, car, probably family. Conversion story, right?

Nope-- he felt he did the right thing on principle to slit his own throat, even tho the wealthy will be walking away with $100,000 in tax savings alone.

It is going to take hard poverty to break these folks from the fox news and radio talk show host brainwashing. They literally identify with billionaires while they are losing everything and being tossed out to starve. When do they wake up and start voting in their own self interest?

Or will they just bypass that step entirely and go straight to violence in a couple years.

Re:You thought the GOP/TP represented regular peop

[commodore64_love]

I would say it's the opposite since, although they both like to spend, the Democrats spend far, far more.

Back to topic: The FCC's idea of "net neutrality" is not our idea of net neutrality. The FCC would impose all kinds of restrictions such as forbidding bittorrent, forbidding downloads of sex vids, pulling websites w/o due process of law (i.e. as just happened last month), require a license to post a personal website, tax ebay sales, and on and on. At least that's what I've heard - I'm still researching the FCC's exact plan.

I'm also wondering how the FCC can claim authority over the net?
- These are private cables owned by private companies. The FCC was
empowered by Congress to regulate the PUBLIC airwaves and that's it.
It's why HBO and other channels can show nudity/sex - because the FCC has no authority to stop them.

Re:Freedom doomed?

[KublaiKhan]

Since when have politicians started going so far as to read the bills they submit?

And you're asking for -thought- and -understanding-? Are you from a paralell universe or something?

Re:You thought the GOP/TP represented regular peop

[interkin3tic]

And the Democrats also want to screw you over, so I'm not seeing a really great shift in my level of screwed here.

Well, in the summary there was this "We all knew this was coming after the last election removed most of the vocal supporters of net neutrality and supplanted them with pro-corporate Republicans." At least some of those vocal supporters were democrats, specifically Rick Boucher, "Chair of the House Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet, widely recognized as one of the most tech-savvy and intelligent members of Congress, and long an advocate for consumers on a wide variety of communications and intellectual property issues"

I mean, sure, no one ever got modded down on slashdot for cynicism on slashdot, and rather than feeling dumb for not paying attention, you get that nice warm and fuzzy feeling of elitism when you just assume there's absolutely no difference between the two parties and no reason to care one way or the other, but in this particular case I'm really not seeing it. There was a corporate sponsored rage this election cycle which several republicans rode into power, and it will have real consequences. It hasn't even started yet and we're already seeing it.

Some democrats might want to screw you over, but their real danger is that even those that DO want to support the little guy, they're utterly and totally incapable of doing anything about it.

Re:You thought the GOP/TP represented regular peop

[Anonymous Coward]

On what planet do Democrats like to spend "far far more"?

You realize over 80% of the National Debt was run up by Republicans, right? That the Bush Tax Cuts combined with massive military spending (two wars) and massive unpaid-for entitlement expansion (Medicare Part D) are the reason we've got such a huge deficit, and national debt, right? Reagan TRIPLED the debt. Bush I doubled it. Bush II doubled it again. After Clinton, we were looking at surplusses as far as the eye could see, allowing us headroom to pay down the debt, and to prepare for rainy days. Bush utterly squandered it all, and now it's mountains of debt as far as the eye can see. And that often-cited meme that Obama "trippled the deficit"? Bullshit. That was Bushes. The first 1.x Trillion dollar annual deficit would have been identical regardless of who was in power (it consisted of both TARP -- passed by Republicans -- and the huge revenue drop caused by the finacial crisis -- another Republican failure).

The biggest lie ever told (and bought by too many people) is that Republicans are in any way financially conservative or fiscally responsible. Republicans spend FAR more, and far more IRRESPONSIBILY. And their latest robin-hood crap, asking those with the least to sacrifice so that those with the most can have more, is just downright immoral and disgusting.

At least when Democrats spend money, Americans benefit (through social safety nets, cleaner air and water, forward thinking investment, necessary regulation to protect consumers with safer food, and safer finances, etc). When Republicans spend money, they throw it down the huge gaping maw of tax cuts for the already super-wealthy, and the military industrial complex to kill foreigners half a world away.

And as for "At least that's what I've heard"... if you heard it from the Tea Party, from Rush Limbaugh, or from Glenn Beck, you can rest assured you heard wrong. Because they're pretty much wrong about everything. And paid to be so, by those that wish to distract, distort, divide, and inflame... in order to either protect their status quo, or to usurp power for themselves.

Re:At whose mercy

[spun]

Who says the little guy can't lobby? How did Obama get elected? It was the little guy. Okay, yes, Obama then proceeded to piss all over the little guy, but we DO have a democracy, and ultimately, the little guys control the government.

You act as if there has not been a problem that net neutrality will fix, that it is hypothetical. But that is not true, there have been several instances of companies throttling speeds to competitor's data. They have been reported right here, and I know you read Slashdot.

Re:You thought the GOP/TP represented regular peop

[interval1066]

"Who on earth thought GOP/TP represented regular people?"

I'm guessing the same pack of idiots who think the Democrats represent regular people.

Translation from the article:

[oDDmON oUT]

"They have promised to repeal regulations such as open-Internet rules that they say would harm the communications industry's growth and ability to create jobs."

Translation: "They are making good on promises to corporate campaign donors to foster legislation which allows wresting every farthing from an increasingly disenfranchised populace, continue outsourcing of any jobs to better the quarterly profit statement, while pay lip service that this benefits the public."

Nope.

[SuperKendall]

Net Neutrality gives power to the people who create and consume content, and prevents the people who provide the connections from tampering with it.

I know that's what you would like it to do. I know that's what many others think it would do. But that's not actually the effect that it has.

The effect that it has is in reducing spending on advanced cable networks:

http://internetinnovation.org/library/title-II/whatsaying

Regulation never "gives" power to anyone. It can only take away some power from those that already have it. If you take away the power to price some service according to use, then that service will go away or suffer loss of quality.

I am against network neutrality exactly because I want to see network access reach the largest number of people in the most open manner possible. Not a locked-down internet with the regulators eventually able to control blacklists that give the ISP's sites they cannot allow you to see. After all, the government already went after the DNS servers of some companies they deemed to be breaking the law. If the FCC had sway over ISP's why would the ISP's not also be told ti disallow access to those sites by IP as well?

Once you give the FCC power over ISP you open a lot of scenarios for what could happen.

Re:Nope.

[BradleyUffner]

Regulation never "gives" power to anyone. It can only take away some power from those that already have it.

You are right on that point. I should have said "Keeps" instead of "Gives".

If you take away the power to price some service according to use, then that service will go away or suffer loss of quality.

I don't have a problem with price being set based on use. But I paid my ISP for my connection, and Netflix paid their ISP for theirs. My ISP should not have the right to degrade the incoming connection from Netflix just because my ISP has their own competing television service, or feel that Netflix "owes" them money.

I am against network neutrality exactly because I want to see network access reach the largest number of people in the most open manner possible. Not a locked-down internet with the regulators eventually able to control blacklists that give the ISP's sites they cannot allow you to see. After all, the government already went after the DNS servers of some companies they deemed to be breaking the law. If the FCC had sway over ISP's why would the ISP's not also be told ti disallow access to those sites by IP as well?

That isn't net neutrality, but it is a nice straw man. Net neutrality is about preventing outside influence.

Re:Nope.

[SuperKendall]

My ISP should not have the right to degrade the incoming connection from Netflix just because my ISP has their own competing television service, or feel that Netflix "owes" them money.

They have't so why would tehy start?

Why should they NOT have the right to provide even faster service to Netflix if you (or Netflix) offered to pay them additional money?

You are also discarding beneficial use of tiered network access. As long as there is a decent base level of functionality, there is no issue.

Net neutrality is about preventing outside influence.

It's insuring all outside influence has to be run through the government first.

Re:Nope.

[BradleyUffner]

They have't so why would tehy start?

Did you forget about comcast and bit torrents already?

Why should they NOT have the right to provide even faster service to Netflix if you (or Netflix) offered to pay them additional money?

If I wanted to pay my ISP so that my connection was faster then it's perfectly fine, I am directly attached to my ISP and I am their direct customer. My ISP and Netflix have no direct connections. The connections are all handled by peering agreements which determine the price each ISP charges their customer.

If I pay for 20mb/sec service, and netflix is capable of sending 20mb/sec, why do you think my ISP should be able to charge twice for my 20mb/sec connection? I've already paid for it. If they can't provide the service for the price they charge me, then they should raise MY price. I am the one using the ISP's resources, not netflix.

Re:Nope.

[MonChrMe]

Companies have already tried screwing with net neutrality though.

Most recent example I can think of is Phorm, which replaced adverts on webpages on the fly with ones that paid the service provider.

Other examples would be Fox blocking viewers on Cablevision (yeah, weird reverse example), Comcast throttling video from outside its own network (they got a C&D over it from the FCC), and several examples from Canada (including one where the ISP - a phone company - was deliberately degrading VOIP traffic from competing services unless the user paid them an additional monthly tariff).

Companies like Netflix, using your example, can already get faster service through co-locating and using CDNs (essentially, data centres connected directly to the ISPs own infastructure). Net Neutrality doesn't prevent that - it doesn't stop someone taking steps to make their service faster, but stops people degrading base level service. It's an important distinction.

Don't Americans know when they're getting screwed?

[kawabago]

Don't Americans notice the Republicans keep throwing wrenches into all the worthwhile legislation and promoting issues that are not in the interests of the majority of Americans? It goes beyond pulling the wool over peoples eyes, you have to be out right stupid not to see that they are not acting in the interests of the vast majority of the American people.

R-Tex?

[jiteo]

Who else read that as "T-Rex"? Because raptors in Congress would be awesome - but Randall Munroe would piss himself.

Re:You thought the GOP/TP represented regular peop

[BergZ]

On planet Republican: Tax cuts for the rich and military spending don't count towards the deficit/debt; The military never wastes money and definitely does not count as part of the "big government".

Re:You thought the GOP/TP represented regular peop

[PopeRatzo]

You make it seem like the Democrats have something better

Historically, they have.

Look at the post-war period. The period of greatest economic growth at all levels of society occurred during a time when the Democrats controlled the Presidency and at least one house of congress. And the successful Republican presidents were ones that today would be thrown out of the party for being too liberal.

And you can point to the presidency of Ronald Reagan as the point where the "American Dream" for middle and working class Americans was blown the fuck up in favor of a "supply-side" economy where each generation could expect a little less than the previous, unless you were a member of the lucky 2% who did fantastically well.

And now we expect your mom and dad to work until they're 70 just so that top 2% won't have to pay the same amount of taxes that they did during the 90's (which was a great decade for the rich.

Ronald Reagan declared class warfare against every member of the middle and working class, and now the right wing cries "class warfare" because that middle and working class is starting to figure it out. Recent polls that showed some 67% of Americans believe that the top 2% should pay at least the same taxes that they did in the 90's also show that nearly 70% do not want cuts in government spending just to pay for tax cuts for the rich, and an even higher percentage do not want to see a rise in the retirement age or cuts in Social Security or Medicare. And a growing number, well more than 50% now say they want a public option for health care, such as a buy-in option for Medicare for everyone.

People are so angry that they want to vote everyone out of office. Don't make the mistake of thinking that Americans are suddenly turning conservative. If anything, long-term trends would seem to indicate the opposite. They'd gladly take a little "European-style Socialism" as long as you don't call it that.

The 0.3% of Americans who watch Fox News are in no way indicative of the American mood.

Re:Oh yah?

[thethibs]

I guess all those collapsing socialist governments in Europe just aren't doing it right, then?

Re:You thought the GOP/TP represented regular peop

[brainboyz]

So, what you're saying is he should be greedy and vote for whichever politician will give him the most benefits as opposed to who he believes will do the best job running the country and handle issues in a fair and constitutional manner (as much as can be expected from a politician, anyway)? Voters like you scare me. What do you plan to do when you run out of other peoples' money?

Re:You thought the GOP/TP represented regular peop

[fishexe]

Rebublicans are the kind of guys that would fuck a person in the ass and not even have the goddamn common courtesy to give him a reach-around.

Republicans are the kind of guys that would fuck a guy in the ass and not even have the goddamn common courtesy to admit to being gay.

Re:You thought the GOP/TP represented regular peop

[Monchanger]

AC was quoting "Full Metal Jacket."

You have the time to write whatever that gibberish you did was, but can't handle copy&paste into Google?

Re:You thought the GOP/TP represented regular peop

[Schadrach]

No, it's an almost completely different pack, because the pack that thinks the Democrats represent regular people simply won't listen to anything the Republicans say as a matter of principle, and the reverse is also true.

Re:You thought the GOP/TP represented regular peop

[Monchanger]

As you properly explained, it requires a train of though where putting something on a credit card isn't considered "spending", but paying off the card is.

"On what kind of a planet?"

A planet where children run free using a card daddy only pays off when Democrats get elected.

Sadly, the children got into the sugar jar again.

Re:Don't Americans know when they're getting screw

[hey!]

No. We're too busy worried about Obama's birth certificate to pay attention to things like corporate control over access to information.

Re:You thought the GOP/TP represented regular peop

[moortak]

The people who voted for them.

Re:You thought the GOP/TP represented regular peop

[Surt]

Bummer, I really wanted to believe they weren't idiots.

Re:You thought the GOP/TP represented regular peop

[NiceGeek]

NPR? Really? It's the closest thing we have to an unbiased news source.

Re:You thought the GOP/TP represented regular peop

[Anonymous Coward]

I would quite happily live in a world where 40% of my personal income was taxed and in return my children received healthcare (including preventative care), a good education (including a college education), and that money went to making sure that everyone in my community had access to infrastructure and basic services to be able to make a life for themselves (not necessarily everyone succeeding, but very few failing). Of course, I would not give that 40% to the US Government as it stands today, but I would like to see more people working towards that.

Re:You thought the GOP/TP represented regular peop

[Anonymous Coward]

> Look at the post-war period. The period of greatest economic growth at all levels of society occurred during a time when the Democrats controlled the Presidency and at least one house of congress.

Look at the rest of history. The period of greatest economic growth at all levels of society occurred during a time when we were on a real hard currency, and neither republican nor democrat congresscritters could give away money that wasn't theirs by asking the Fed to print it. During those times, prices went down while wages went up.

Markets create "neutrality" not the FCC

[SonofSmog]

The Net is "neutral" now. True "neutrality" comes from competition. Once the FCC steps in and says we want one size fits all pipes for everyone one the Internet and they can host x, y, and z, all pretense of neutrality is lost. Now you have the government (and those that control the government) dictating to you the consumer. Right now I have a choice of DSL (Verizon), FIOS (Verizon), Road Runner Cable (Time Warner), and I suppose Satellite. If I don't like the way my ISP is treating me I can switch providers. If I want to pay for the $190 a month for 150 Mbps/35 Mbps I can, and screw that the neighbor down the street is stuck on DSL. Enter "net neutrality" and you can forget ISP's making the substantial infrastructure investments required to get speeds like I am talking here (I have 35/35 Mbps right now) because part of the goal of net neutrality is to bring "everyone up" to a certain level of broadband. So now rather than a company like Verizon continuing to invest in speeding up installed infrastructure where it's profitable to do so they will have to act to make sure all of their customers have a certain "minimum" level of service, even if it's unprofitable to do so. It's a crock, totally unworkable in country the size of ours with many rural areas, and will just result in one size fits all pipes and plans. But what about the "blocking" of peer to peer for example you say? Again competition is the cure not regulation. Verizon doesn't block or slow peer to peer on their FIOS. In fact if anything they (wink) (wink) encourage downloading by reminding you that it only takes X amount of time to download an entire DVD on FIOS (from where again?) I'm sorry if a crappy cable ISP is you have available in your particular area, but further regulating the Internet (The FCC is already pining for the power to shut down websites without due process) is not the answer. I suggest changing providers or moving to a location with more competition, not regulating the rest of us that are happy with our broadband or slowing innovation. Companies only innovate to compete and this net neutrality rule does nothing to spur competition.

Re:You thought the GOP/TP represented regular peop

[Rockoon]

Need examples? Look at the FCC's history with regards to every other industry that it regulates, where it imposes restrictions on speech and expression in all of them. Yes. ALL OF THEM

Re:You thought the GOP/TP represented regular peop

[scot4875]

Voters like you scare me, because you think it's better to let the nation plunge into unemployment and poverty and let things sort themselves out through the private sector and free market.

You know how things are going to sort themselves out if it comes down to that? That dude that lost his job, house, and family might just take that gun that the conservative base convinced him that he needed to buy and use it to rob you at gunpoint. At best you'll get the police (apparently the only thing that *should* be publicly funded) to show up in time and hopefully not lose your shit or your life.

--Jeremy

Doesn't Matter If You are For/Against NN

[ThisIsNotMyHandel]

It doesn't matter if you are for or against net neutrality. The FCC creating the power to regulate the internet out of thin air is lose/lose. There are not 4 branches of government there are 3. Everyone should be against the FCC taking power away from the legitiment branches of government.

Re:You thought the GOP/TP represented regular peop

[Billly Gates]

I disagree. CNN did a poll that showed over 60% of Americans support the tax cuts for rich thinking they would provide jobs.

In the old days of 1987 the stock market would go down for something like a reactionary like Alen Greenspan being appointed to the Federal Reserve. He supported tax cuts to create jobs?! This guy is nuts!

Today the stock market goes down if the upper 2% tax break *might* not past. Wall Street considers Greenspan a liberal today and is a complete 180. If you are an economist who dare says anything against supply side economics you are laughed at as a radical socialist.

In teh 1980's economists today were called classic economists pre-Keynesian. Today they are economists and the Keynesians are called socialists and discredited for being left wing. Fox News is very popular and has altered American views of politics far to the right.

America is shifting far to the right. No republican will ever vote for anything that increases spending or does not include some kind of tax cut. Obama is powerless within his own party who is also buying this crap. Hannity himself admitted Reagan would not be electable among republicans because he was too liberal. Reagan's policies are considered left just not far left. It is crazy!

Check your stats on fox again? Try almost 40% watch it. Many are turning republican as a result. The fact that Obama is considered radical left by most mainstream Americans is outstanding and you can't deny America is not going further to the right as a result.

Re:Don't Americans know when they're getting screw

[Organic Brain Damage]

The Republicans noticed two facts:

1. The USA is a democracy and you hold power by getting most of the voters to vote for you.
2. McDonald's is the largest and most successful restaurant chain in the USA, yet the food is utter crap and kills the customers.

After they put these two facts together, they figured out that if they use mass advertising campaigns and catchy slogans to appeal to emotion with a pack of lies, they can hold power while simultaneously raping and pillage The Middle Class and The Middle Class would thank them and ask for some more. Ya gotta hand it to them, since Reagan started it, they've been remarkably effective while the Democrats have better, more honorable ideas, they are completely ineffective mass communicators.

Re:You thought the GOP/TP represented regular peop

[mike1210]

You realize over 80% of the National Debt was run up by Republicans, right?

Current unfunded liabilities for Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare are somewhere around $60 to $100 trillion dollars, depending on who you ask. Which Republicans pushed through those programs again?

Re:You thought the GOP/TP represented regular peop

[linguizic]

Reality has a pronounced liberal bias.

I'm a liberal (well, leftist libertarian) and I really hate hearing people say that. It's an easy thing to say, and an easy thing to believe, which is why everyone thinks the facts support their views. Please just don't say it, it's cheap. It walls off the possibility of being wrong and being able to change your opinion based on the facts, which is central to classical Liberalism. The correct way to put it is that "Liberalism has a pronounced reality bias."

Re:You thought the GOP/TP represented regular peop

[Maxo-Texas]

Anecdotally, crime is starting to go up. We've had multiple bank robbers lately. I hadn't heard about them for many years and suddenly about 30 locally.
likewise, several neighborhoods are seeing an increase in financially motivated crime (do not leave even a buck in visible in your car-- better to leave your car visibly and obviously empty).

I think people are getting desperate. Could be unrelated tho.