Slashdot Mirror
House Votes To Overturn FCC On Net Neutrality
suraj.sun writes with this quote from CNet:
"House Republicans voted unanimously today to block controversial Net neutrality regulations from taking effect, a move that is likely to invite a confrontation with President Obama. By a vote of 241 to 178, the House of Representatives adopted a one-page resolution that says, simply, the regulations adopted by the Federal Communications Commission on December 21 'shall have no force or effect.' 'Congress did not authorize the FCC to regulate in this area,' Rep. Rob Woodall (R-Ga.), said during this morning's floor debate. 'We must reject any rules that it promulgates in this area... It is Congress' responsibility to delegate that authority.'"
It's a good thing, then, that a House Resolution, by itself, also has "no force or effect". It seems our current House of Representatives thinks that it is good to waste time and money passing House Resolutions defunding or outlawing everything that they don't like, all the while knowing that each resolution they pass has no chance to get past the Senate or the President. Why are they wasting time with this? Isn't there a governmental shutdown deadline this Friday? Shouldn't they be working on the budget instead of killing time with small-fry legislation that goes nowhere?
My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
'Net Neutrality' doesn't mean what we think it means, the proposed bill doesn't satisfy nerds or corporations, and each side is in the hands of the big businesses anyway.
As an addendum:
- This isn't really an issue because there is no sign of tiered internet yet anyway
- Oh wait, there is
- But this bill wouldn't stop it even if it did pass
- F*ck.
For some reason, conservatives are equating or selling net neutrality as equivalent to the fairness doctrine. What is the connection? or is it just a talking point and they are paying back their supporters?
Hmm. I don't seem to remember giving Congress or the President the authority to exert military force without declaring war. Funny how that works.
Today, the House voted to adopt the resolution (H. Res. 200) that will allow it to consider the actual resolution to overturn the regulation tomorrow. Note the words "Providing for consideration" in the title of the actual vote.
Granted, the House is still likely going to vote for the measure, but saying it's already passed is inaccurate.
To all the people who go on and on about there being no difference between the Republicans and Democrats... SUCK ON THIS. (As if the Iraq War wasn't enough to point this put already.)
"Liechtenstein is the world's largest producer of sausage casings, potassium storage units, and false teeth."
this is a great video on why usage based billing is a scam.
They voted unanimously, with a vote of 241 to 178. Do I need my eyes checked? Am I reading this summary correctly?
It's a good thing, then, that a House Resolution, by itself, also has "no force or effect".
It doesn't need to have any force or effect because it's simply stating a matter of law: that the FCC is not a lawmaking body.
It's quite useful, though, for companies that are questioning whether or not they have to abide by the FCC rulings.
That group of sh*t-kickers don't understand tech issues, ESPECIALLY net neutrality. The FCC folks specialize in this field.
When I watch the seemingly flagrant way that Republicans seem to turn away from the Public Good these days, for example in network neutrality, financial regulation, or global warming, I am reminded of this quote
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
Isn't the regulation of an electronic communications medium the entire reason the FCC exists?
*Googles "Defund FCC"*
Oh. Right. Never mind.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Is the internet Closed or Open as a result of this?
How much have Comcast and Verizon payed out in campaign contributions to House members? Can somebody put together an approximate figure on what it cost to have rulings like this blocked by the house? It'll come in handy when I want them to create laws to benefit me.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
The "net neutrality" the FCC is spewing is NOT the net neutrality that /.'ers think they're getting. They're calling something completely different "net neutrality" so that they can regulate free speech on the net.
previously; indictments piling up, self-worship, ending other's lives, no longer fulfilling?
nothing neutral about the chosen ones holycost depopulation schemes?
now that the genuine native americans have expressed interest in our plight, we have choices again?
the regulations adopted by the Federal Communications Commission on December 21 'shall have no force or effect.' 'Congress did not authorize the FCC to stop lobby money coming into Congressional pockets in this area,' -- There, Fixed that for you. Everyone knows the world spins on the coin. Cash is king. Nuff Said.
"Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
I don't think this is the FCC's place, either. They already spend too much time & money deciding what can and can't go on our television and radio airwaves, for example. The FCC should be regulating communication so that providers aren't stepping all over each other's signals and that's pretty much it. Maybe I misunderstand the original intent of the FCC so please correct me if I'm wrong there.
On the other hand, I also don't want Big ISP regulating my internet connection, deciding what I can get and when I can get it. I want an internet connection without artificial limitations. I already pay Comcast far too much for their less-than-consistent service (and the reason I don't switch is because where I am the competitors fastest speeds aren't even close to as good as Comcast's slowest) and I don't need them practically filtering my connection based on how much the company I'm trying to connect to has paid them. I'm already paying Comcast! That's enough!
So... I guess I don't really know where I should stand on this issue. Any advice?
Allocation and protection of an inherently scarce resource, the radio spectrum, is the reason the FCC exists. Everything else is arguably beyond the scope of federal regulation, except that the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) of the Constitution has over the years been invoked in many ways to nearly nullify the reserved powers language of the Tenth Amendment.
Because that is exactly what you have without net neutrality. look upon my present and see your future! i'm on Cox (perfect name since they're dicks) and the caps are 36Gb residential, 76Gb commercial and the commercial line is nearly $200 a month, any going over? That's $1.50 per Gb please. Oh and Vonage, Linux and Mac updates? They all count against your cap. The "offerings" by Cox and Windows? they DO NOT.
So I hope you like walled gardens ala the old AOHell, because at $1.50 a Gb it doesn't take too many $200+ bills to put your ass in your place. And before anyone uses the old "vote with your dollars!" meme I'd point out my choices are Cox, AT&T DSL that MAXES at 756Kbps and which they've said they have NO intention of ever upgrading, or a WISP whose security is so damned bad you can surf the shares of everyone on a node through network neighborhood (and the head tech is so dim I never could get him to understand why that's bad, he still swears its a "feature") and who has a worse TOS than HughesNet.
So all you Time Warner and Comcast users, better be filling your boots, your time is running out. Once Cox rolls this out nationwide and the others see they get away with it? that's your ass Mr User, you are well and truly fucked. While the rest of the world surfs the information superhighway we are gonna be on the short bus to walled garden shittown. But hell the corps won't be happy until the USA is a third world country, so why not just pull the plug? More profits in walled gardens anyway!
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
'We must reject any rules that it promulgates in this area... It is Congress' responsibility to delegate that authority.'"
It is the citzen's responsibility to vote in people who actually represent what we want. It is Congress' responsibility to listen to and obey what their constituents want. If they are listening to big business and lobbyists, it is our responsibility to vote them out.
Does the regulation allow shaping for largely content-neutral reasons? I favor a little shaping to keep non-netflix flowing--Wikipedia and plain text should always work.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
While I feel very strongly that content and distribution must be split up somehow with regard to major media control over internet access (hello, intrinsic structural conflict of interest), I cannot speak much to the current round of those pushing for net neutrality legislation, in part due to the copious amounts of obfuscation going on on all sides of the public policy issue, and in part due to the hidden and underhanded way in which legislation is drafted in this country (last-minute riders, for instance).
That said, the FCC *is* the Federal Communications Commission, so I'm a bit confused about how the internet would not fall under its purview just by definition. Bringing up the FCC's past decision to classify the ISP business as different from telecoms seems moot to me -- regardless of whether that decision was right or wrong at the time, the circumstances have clearly changed, and the internet is now a vital communications technology without which the US economy simply couldn't function (without massive and likely painful changes). Properly reclassifying the internet as a telecommunication technology and then just applying the laws already on the books would seem the key -- but for the problems of regulatory capture in the US government.
Ah, well.
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
I hear the cha-ching sound of the lobbyists profitting on falsehoods.
data is not like tangible commodities, so usage does not make sense. Also, usage based billing is just about preventing us from cutting our cable and using netflix instead. I cannot explain as well as the video, but that is it in a nutshell
The constitution doesn't give the government the right to regulate pollution either, so let's go back to the good old days of flammable rivers and brown air.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
So, other than the radio spectrum, how are communications providers supposed to reach end users without placing their wires in a public space such as buried in a street or on a utility pole?
I just have one question. Where in the Constitution is the government given the authority to regulate the internet.
Answer: Nowhere in the Constitution.
At first, I thought you were trolling. Nobody could be that dumb, could they?
Then considered FOX news and its fan base, and decided probably so.
Here are a couple of things you might consider:
Next time, try to buy a clue, okay?
I have an idea. Any elected officials that vote against net neutrality should be forced to wait 24 hours before any of their e-mail, including staff, is sent or received, and make them wait wait at least 5 minutes for each web page they access. Further, if they are in a car, make them wait an extra 15 minutes to get a real taste of no net neutrality. Of course in Washington, D.C., they may notice an extra 15 minute wait in a car.
Why are they wasting time with this? Isn't there a governmental shutdown deadline this Friday? Shouldn't they be working on the budget instead of killing time with small-fry legislation that goes nowhere?
Because, along with a $6 trillion package of budget cuts, they're forcing the President and the Senate's hand to block them. Then, when they don't get exactly what they want, they can go back to their bat-shit-crazy core constituency and claim that the "liberal menace" is preventing any substantive change in the way the government operates.
Yes, except, they are. You can turn this on the "bat-shit-crazy core constituency" of the conservatives if you want to, but these very minor cuts are just a drop in the bucket compared to what actually needs to be cut to manage the insane spending over the last 2 years. Riddle me this, my little liberal friend, what have we gained in two years of outrageous and unaccountable spending. Not healthcare that anyone will be able to afford despite the ramming down our throats of the unwanted bill. Not jobs, which is what the nation craves the most. Not a balanced budget, even with a liberal majority for plenty of years now. Not an accountable government, Republicans included, that's why I consider myself a conservative. Not any kind of energy independence, and don't give me any of that Green Energy bullshit because everyone knows, whether they want to admit it or not, that carbon credits and the environment is just another excuse for the federal government to just spend money for party line votes. Hell, our prez will invest $3 million in Brazil's oil drilling, yet won't allow more than one permit to drill off the coast of America or even in her. We are a nation hell bent on making our people rely on the government for everything. Handouts, Handouts, and more Handouts. Frankly, I can get it myself without any handouts and have managed to do so my whole life. I'm sorry you can't do the same or would rather rely on social programs for everyone instead of actually working for a living. Do you have children, proverbialcow? Do you sleep well knowing the situation this administration is so kindly bestowing upon them? No jobs, Sub-par education system, unaffordable healthcare (worse than the old system with poorer Quality of Service), and a debt that is so massive that even their children can't afford. I don't want that life for my children or myself. I want to succeed and I want the same for my kids. I also want my kids and their kids and so on to enjoy freedom.
So, I'd love to hear your counter or any way for you to soundly justify the spending and the out of control government we are dealing with currently. Don't blame Bush and the Iraq War for the problems either, because obviously the current administration has no problems spending billions on war and "defending" America either. Bush was a poor example of a conservative president (as he wasn't conservative), however, I'd much rather have him right now than Obama, Reid, Pelosi, or any other "bat-shit-crazy" member of the left, if you will. Simply put, the left is too involved in the daily lives of the American. We want our rights back, our freedom back, and our government back. You had your chance and clearly have been found unable to do the job. Look at the facts. A majority of Americans reject the failed policies and the outrageous spending of this socialist regime.
Enjoy.
Searching for the FCC's charter turns up no apparent hits. Searching more specifically turns up what seem to be charters produced by various committees within the FCC, as opposed to something covering the FCC as a whole. This page seems to be the most relevant listing of charters and regulations, but again nothing seems to cover the whole FCC, aside possibly from the extremely dense FCC Rules and Regulations links list.
There are a few pages on the FCC site that touch on the internet and the FCC's regulatory role, which mostly just say the FCC doesn't regulate the internet or ISPs, with no explanation for why. Other pages like this one describe future goals of the FCC with regard to specific sub-areas of internet policy.
In the admittedly brief bit of searching I've done so far, though, I can find nothing that either resembles an overall charter for the FCC as a whole, or that lays out the FCC's regulatory scope with explanations for why things are or are not included therein.
According to the About the Federal Communications Commission page on the FCC's site:
... and the Internet Policy Working Group intro page:
From these, I find myself still puzzled as to why the FCC can and does regulate telecom companies, preventing them from engaging in any traffic-slowing, redirecting, filtering, throttling, or other technical hobbling of competing services, and yet this same FCC is not allowed to similarly regulate ISPs.
I do find an explanation in the sleight-of-hand committed in the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which classified ISPs as providing "information services" instead of "telecommunications services" (some background here), apparently formalizing some of the FCC's policies to protect little-guy ISPs from big-guy telecoms (more here). This Act seems to have been based on 1) the understanding of the internet at the time, given the early date and the non-technical backgrounds of pretty much anyone in Congress then, and 2) business interests that were very keen to not have to play by the stricter rules applied to telecoms.
While this may have had the intended effect of protecting the little guy and incentivizing innovation in internet services, the rise of media conglomerates that have been allowed to buy up everything from content production through to online delivery services despite the clear and present conflicts of interest, and that have since begun to see what kinds of anti-competitive behavior they can get away with, strongly suggests that this distinction between "telecommunication service" and "information service" might need revisiting -- or at the very least that the FCC (or some other entity) should rework the ways in which these "information services" are regulated.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
The condescending tone of your comment most likely negates the point you're trying to make in the minds of most people. I'm sure you think you're smarter than everyone else, but do you have to be such a magnanimous jackass about it?
Stupid Republicans.
"If it harms noone, do what you will" shall be the whole of the law.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
unanimous is now defined as any damn vote count value one way or the other. further, there's actually a fantastic chance that the reported story on the vote isn't really what the vote was about.
example:
"by overwhelming unanimous vote today of 14 to 13, the house of georgia voted to pick the pineapple as their state fruit" reports Jonny Hoohah during today's consideration of whether to get quiznos for lunch, or subway.
-d
I am assuming the Congress critters are earning their pay from the private sector.
Let's say your only options for Internet service are to buy it from one of two companies, each of which is also a content provider.
Let's say that you buy your content from an online streaming provider, such as Netflix, and decide not to buy content from your ISP.
Let's say your ISP gets pissed and decides to meter your Internet service, except of course data traffic from their content farms.
This effectively kills all online streaming providers except for theirs. We're dealing with this here where AT&T just put caps on their DSL service in our area. We can no longer effectively use Netflix for movies as it only takes about 5 movies to exceed our cap.
Of course, we can buy cable TV from AT&T UVerse if we want...
See how that works? Net Neutrality, from what I understand, forbids ISPs who are also content providers from making moves such as this, right? Or, do I have it wrong?
Just thought I'd share this in case you run into any anti-neutrality people. Net neutrality is the regulation of corporations, not content. Net neutrality rules seek to bar corporations from tampering with content.
Has President Obama ever met a resolution he couldn't roll over in front of?
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Ralph Waldo Emerson
no, assholes, market forces do not solve all problems in the world. you need REGULATIONS, backed up by enforcement, that you WANT to pay for, if you properly understood the costs of no regulations. regulations whose effects are to make the market FREE. no, that's not a contradiction if you understand the fucking subject matter. no intellectual charity for you: figure it the fuck out on your own time, retards
if you don't understand how regulations make the market free and fair STOP YAMMERING ABOUT A SUBJECT MATTER YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
It's called Freedom, bitches!
Antitrust legislation to encourage competition is the answer.
15TW = 15,000 Nuclear Reactors. (Approx. one accident a month.)
See subject-line above, & these "prime examples" below via links to the originals of WHY hairyfeet shouldn't have gone to "ITT Tech" (because he clearly doesn't even understand how HOSTS files benefit you for added security, speed, and even to a degree extra 'anonymity' online):
---
Static vs. Dynamic Adbanner addressing (lol, "according to hairyfeet"):
(Which even BestBuy Techs know!)
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35681060
---
DNS Client Cache turn off for HOSTS, a TECHNICAL Blunder by Hairyfeet:
(Which even BestBuy Techs know also (just like the one above!))
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35686054
---
Hairyfeet's single solutions SECURITY FAILURES? See inside:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690260
---
Your sources on "security" vs. mine (actual security people) (AND myself, a source on it):
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690328
---
Lastly, as to your LIBEL of myself (w/ arstech):
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35668740
---
The defeat of hairyfeet by APK (video analogy - hilarious, BUT, apt):
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690536
---
They say it all, & usually vs. hairyfeet's own words quoted! I wouldn't pay him too much heed, especially after you read the above b.s., lies, changing figures, & even LIBEL of others that hairyfeet likes to do. After all - he's from "ITT Tech" (student).
APK
P.S.=> Personally though - because hairyfeet is only a "techie"? I suspect he doesn't want people to know about HOSTS files' added LAYERED SECURITY benefits to the end-user: Why?? Because if users stop getting so much "malware-in-general" which layered security (and HOSTS) give you added layered protection against, he's out money...apk
There's too much competition. I live in a small, rural town of 28,000 souls, and we have 12 (count them!) facilities-based ISPs and more non-facilities-based ones. ISPs know that if they do anything that riles customers, those customers are history.
On the other hand, every government that's gotten control of the Internet in its country has censored it. Without exception.
Um...sorry but "unanimous" in English means:
1. (of two or more people) Fully in agreement
2. (of an opinion, decision, or vote) Held or carried by everyone involved
So for that particular to vote to be unanimous it would have to be 419-0.
See subject-line above, & these "prime examples" below via links to the originals of WHY hairyfeet shouldn't have gone to "ITT Tech", in his TECHNICAL BLUNDERS, & more (regarding HOSTS files):
---
Static vs. Dynamic Adbanner addressing (lol, "according to hairyfeet"):
(Which even BestBuy Techs know!)
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35681060
---
DNS Client Cache turn off for HOSTS, a TECHNICAL Blunder by Hairyfeet:
(Which even BestBuy Techs know also (just like the one above!))
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35686054
---
Hairyfeet's single solutions SECURITY FAILURES? See inside:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690260
---
Your sources on "security" vs. mine (actual security people) (AND myself, a source on it):
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690328
---
Lastly, as to your LIBEL of myself (w/ arstech):
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35668740
---
The defeat of hairyfeet by APK (video analogy - hilarious, BUT, apt):
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690536
---
They say it all, & usually vs. hairyfeet's own words quoted! I wouldn't pay him too much heed, especially after you read the above b.s., lies, changing figures, & even LIBEL of others that hairyfeet likes to do. After all - he's from "ITT Tech" (student)...
Worst part of ALL, here?
Hairyfeet just clearly doesn't even understand how HOSTS files benefit you for:
---
1.) ADDED Reliabiility (vs. DNS going down, or being 'poisoned', & even DNSBL (DNS Block Lists))
2.) ADDED "layered" Security online (vs. known bad sites &/or servers (botnet C&C) + maliciously scripted adbannners by BLOCKING them out)
3.) ADDED Speed (not loading adbanners, and hardcoding your fav. sites into it)
4.) Even more ADDED 'anonymity' online (vs. DNS request logs)
(Even server admins might NOT mind having the load on their DNS servers lightened up also, bonus!)
---
APK
P.S.=> Personally though - because hairyfeet is only a "techie"? I suspect he doesn't want people to know about HOSTS files' added LAYERED SECURITY benefits to the end-user: Why?? Because if users stop getting so much "malware-in-general" which layered security (and HOSTS) give you added layered protection against, he's out money...apk
(read: after the next election cycle) before the massively destructive and venal actions of the GOP and their corporate buddies finally penetrate the thick trogoldytic hide of the average US voter.
As near as I can tell, the FCC gained authority over wired communications by court decision, not by being granted the authority directly. Arguably, congress had a legitimate interest in establishing the ground rules for a commons such as radio waves, although I think allowing the homesteading style ownership of a channel by being the first to use would have been better. There's a reasonable argument that the federal government does not have the legitimate authority to regulate purely local wired communications, despite the current state of the law.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
I think I just read was. wah wah wah, that is mine not yours, even though I am not doing anything about it, but that is mine, mine, mine, mine, mine wah wah wah, Sounded like my old job, a guy would always complain that something didn't get fixed. I coded the fix and he would back it out because that is his job and not mine and then i would get in trouble for it. (there was a total of 20 developers at this shop) a tribunal of federal judges in DC already though out a case that challenged this notion that FCC doesn't have power and threw it out?
As near as I can tell, the FCC gained authority over wired communications by court decision, not by being granted the authority directly.
Interesting. I haven't delved into the history, and assumed it was an outgrowth of their radio regulatory role.
Arguably, congress had a legitimate interest in establishing the ground rules for a commons such as radio waves, although I think allowing the homesteading style ownership of a channel by being the first to use would have been better.
The recent round of auctions makes it clear that this commons is not open to little folk. Perhaps homesteading would have been a better model.
There's a reasonable argument that the federal government does not have the legitimate authority to regulate purely local wired communications, despite the current state of the law.
I certainly agree with you here, though thinking it through, I'd imagine the definition of "local" might need some hammering out -- Is it local only if I have a dedicated line between points A and B (and the line doesn't cross any state lines)? Is it still local if I'm using the phone company's lines to make a local call, only the nearest exchange is a few counties over? Etc., etc.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
You voted them in. Now suck it up.
One would think voting in Bush twice would have taught you something.
Well, let's see. Comcast has been spending mucho money to defeat this Federal COMMUNICATIONS Commission mandate on net neutrality.
That right there makes me want to lean towards the FCC, if I have to make a choice.
As for authority, we are talking about the Federal COMMUNICATIONS Commission... which should have something to do with Communication... and the internet is nothing if not Communication..
As for Congress thinking that only they have a right to "delegate that authority", I don't see that. Hell, Congress can't get it's head out it's ass long enough to pass a frickin budget, for heaven's sake. And lately, they've been doing EVERYTHING wrong anyway. I don't Want Congress to have any authority to delegate anything about the internet. I already pay plenty for it, and you're corporate friends are already rich and don't have to pay taxes as it is.
I say, Congress is FIRED.
As for the internet, make one rule, if you can. The Rule being: Everyone leave it alone.