Slashdot Mirror
US Democrats Introduce Bill To Restore Net Neutrality
New submitter litehacksaur111 writes "Lawmakers are introducing the Open Internet Preservation Act (PDF) which aims to restore net neutrality rules enforced by the FCC before being struck down by the DC appeals court. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) said, 'The Internet is an engine of economic growth because it has always been an open platform for competition and innovation. Our bill very simply ensures that consumers can continue to access the content and applications of their choosing online.' Unfortunately, it looks unlikely the bill will make it through Congress. 'Republicans are almost entirely united in opposition to the Internet rules, meaning the bill is unlikely to ever receive a vote in the GOP-controlled House.'"
...to see just how in the pocket of huge corporations the GOP is, and yet people continue to vote for them, against their own interests.
What will it take to wake people up? I fear it may not happen until it's too late, if not already.
It's not Net Neutrality, but "Republicans want to take away your Netflix..." People dislike losing something tangible much more than gaining some important, but hard to quantify item. Change the debate; just like the natural food industry who says "The government wants to take away your vitamins..." to the opposing argument of "We want to be sure you aren't getting ripped off by spurious claims..." Guess which one wins?
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
republicans. is there anything you DON'T fuck up?
seriously. how could you, with a clear conscience, be against fairness in network access?
I can't understand why people support the republican agenda. they are always (the last 20 or so years) on the wrong side. they are anti-women, anti-gay, anti-immigrant (unless its cheap h1b labor), and anti-choice. and like racial segregation from the 50's, history will show the republicans to be on the wrong side of history, too.
a thorn in our side in progress. this is the part of my country I really hate; the fact that we have idiots keeping us back from making progress the rest of the world already enjoys.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
As opposed to Canadian Democrats? Or French Democrats?
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Just like encryption, you can't have it unless it's broken growing into the internet, you can't have it unless all aspects of innovation are quashed and ideas can be stolen.
For a bunch of people that complain they are the minority voice, they sure don't understand that the laws there promoting can completely stomp out their voice online altogether. What happens when telecoms push everyone through to NBC.com instead of fox news you jackasses?
Just reclassify ISPs as common carriers. Creating a separate bill would probably open up the doors for more abuse, not less.
What is needed is not a reestablishment of the "rules" the FCC set up for what they called "net neutrality", what we need is for the FCC to declare the internet common carrier and to make all ISP's honor that.
This bill not that. When these policies were in place at the FCC before being struck down, there were huge loopholes that companies (especially wireless) could drive giant trucks full of money through.
We need the internet classified common carrier now!
Business sat down and discovered it had a big lump in its pocket, upon inspecting the pocket found it contained the GOP.
Nothing new here.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
If this is purely a Republicans versus Democrats issue as it presented here, then how come the Democrats did not pass it from 2008-2010 when they controlled the presidency, house of representatives, and the senate (by filibuster proof majority). They could have passed it without a Republican vote.
A petition of the White House to `Restore Net Neutrality By Directing the FCC to Classify Internet Providers as "Common Carriers" just attained the 100k signatures required for a response.
I'm sure a number of you would have liked to have known about that and signed it at the time... but the story submission was declined. Guess there were too many terribly important climate change stories or something.
Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
Remember when the GOP stood for unfettered liberty, not only for economy but also for you, when your personal liberty was paramount?
Today, it's a breeding ground for cronyism, where the ancient creed of the free market has been replaced by a corporate mantra of "who pays the most can have the most rights". Mix in a bit of backwards conservativism without substance (aka "new stuff - bad") to appeal to the change fearing mouth breathers and, well, there you have it.
I kinda wish some of the old GOP heads were alive today, I'd really like to hear what they think of the crooks that run it today, and what they think of the direction it took.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
AT&T and other ISPs have been greasing those wheels with flatbeds of lobbying(bribing) money for far too long. Net neutrality was the single largest issue that made me turn from the Republican party in disgust. They crap all over the free market in the name if the free market and endanger free speech in the name of free speech. It's pure madness.
There is no "come in and under charge" when there is only one line of service.
To any congressman, Congressman's aid, or anyone sleeping with a congressman. Here is the solution to net neutrality.
Append a rider to an existing bill that modifies the Telecommunications Act and redefines a data provider as a common carrier.
If it's not fixed in congress or elsewhere such as using common carrier status regulation, entrepreneurs will "vote" with their feet...
Being someone who usually votes conservative, I find that net neutrality among conservatives is largely misunderstood. I continually hear that it requires content to be neutral. Meaning that if one opinion is present on a web page, all opposing opinions must be present as well to maintain neutrality. Everyone here should understand that is false. The source of that misinformation seems to be that the bill could be interpreted to let the FCC dictate content requirements. If the FCC were to do something crazy like that, it wouldn't hold up in court due to free speech, so it's not a reasonable concern.
To prevent misinformation, here are the two views to net neutrality.
1) Pro Net Neutrality: Internet Service Providers (ISP) should not dictate which data sources are allowed, how much bandwidth is allowed from each data source, or charge differently for data sources. For example, Netflix creates up to a third of internet traffic in the evening hours. As a result, ISP's are temped to reduce bandwidth allowed from Netflix to free up resources. Net neutrality would not allow this. This is usually the consumer point of view.
2) Anti Net Neutrality: The ISP's own their equipment, pay for their bandwidth, and can do what they want with it. If they want to shape network traffic to make overall service better, it's their right. This is usually the business point of view.
There are lots of details associated with either option. There can be a hybrid approach taken by the FCC as well. For example, if YouTube traffic gets so bad that I can't load a web page in a reasonable amount of time, then limiting YouTube would be in my best interest. In the rare cases such as that, bandwidth limiting is a good idea. Illegal activity such as child pornography could reasonably be blocked as well.
Here's the wikipedia article.
Marketplace monopoly is the problem. When the majority of access is controlled by a handful of ISP's there is no option to simply "Go somewhere else". It's a moot point tho, as the money flows, so shall the votes.
The democrats do something useful for once. Of course both parties are corrupt. The republicans just happen to be less corrupt. Why can't we ever get a 3rd party canidate in office since a lot of them seem to be better than the Democrats and Republicans combined
while
In a grocery store, the store makes the manufacture pay for product placement. If you want your product to get placed in the middle of a shelf, you have to pay the store money for it.
Without neutrality, the Internet will be the same way--those that cut sweet deals with the provider (cut him in), will get the best bandwidth for their services.
We need non-discriminatory municipally owned cable. Such a service NEEDS to be content-neutral, because of the constitution.
Should have called it the Net Equality bill. Then if Republicans dare oppose it, Democrats could roast them for opposing equality. Neutrality doesn't have the same ring to it.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
Wait'll the balance of power shifts again. The U.S. political landscape is about as stable as my Aunt Ethel's spastic colon - by design.
Yeah, there's plenty we don't fuck up - we don't fuck up the shit the Democrats have already fucked up. We let the Democrats keep screwing up their shit while we Republicans screw up different shit. That's why we have a two-party system - and when both parties decide to fuck with the same thing, it's glorious.
You left out slavery and segregation.
I mean they will leave the US entirely for more technologically free regions of the world...
What about Democrats? Rep Debbie Wasserman-Shultz, now chairman of the DNC, was a cosponsor of SOPA. She was acting entirely in the interests of the people, right? Democrat Patrick Leahy introduced PIPA in the Senate.
You need to wake up. Both parties are in the pockets of huge corporations, just different corporations, with a bit of crossover. Sometimes their interests line up with ours, that's all.
Also, whitehouse.gov petitions are worthless. When it first opened up we immediately suggested legalizing something that would revitalize the economy and empty our prisons, but it was shot down without even being taken seriously.
At least with elections they pretent our votes count.
I believe Network Neutrality legislation will do more harm than good. Quality of service and IP transit costs are governed by complex market forces today. It is easy for individuals and organizations connecting to Internet edge networks (most of us) to take these forces for granted and get swept up in language about fairness and capitalism and equality. In reality, as you move to the core of the Internet, there already is no such thing as network neutrality and to try and 'preserve it' is meaningless. ISPs, Tier 1s, and major content providers already enter into peering arrangements, both paid and unpaid, that improve end user experience and help drive down IP transit costs. Depending on the ISP you use, you obtain the benefits of their peering arrangements, which are as strong as the number of eyeballs they have and their negotiating skills. Some ISPs have better peering than others and so in reality there is no such thing as a 'neutral ISP'. The concept of an ISP 'holding their users hostage' as they try to obtain concessions from content providers is not unique to Comcast. Everyone in the space is playing the same game of leveraging the strength of their numbers and their negotiation and personal networks to get any advantage they can. The decisions about 'who should peer with who' are and should continue to be governed by organizations freely entering into paid or unpaid agreements with one-another. As soon as the emotional/idealistic notion of 'neutrality' is stipulated, then the technical reality of peering and the unplanned forces governing the core of the Internet will begin to centralize and calcify. What will be unfortunate is when this slows or even reverses the dramatic deflation in IP transit costs we have seen over the last 15 years, going from well over $1200 per megabit to under $1 in some regions. I highly recommend 'The 2014 Internet Peering Playbook' by William B. Norton.
Is believing the Democraptic party is any different than the establishment GOPs... The only difference is the lies they tell...
Come on, are you really dense enough to believe either party (at this point) isnt bought and paid for by some corporation!??!? You do? I bet you also despise the tea party based on all the info spoon fed to you by your local news station..
Please contact ASAP; I have an escalator connected to the moon I need to sell.
I worry to much about Democrates they are worthless and Bill will fail to pass, we shall see...!
The GOP has always been anti American. They care not for the nation nor it's citizens, they care only for corporations and the money they receive from them.
This idea that the Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority from 2008-2010 is a myth.
I believe that the problem is that Al Franken wasn't sworn in until well after that session was well under way, Senator Ted Kennedy was missing for many votes due to his brain cancer, and Arlen Specter didn't switch sides until much much later. There were a few other Democratic Senators who were either out or "Blue Dog" and "DINOs". The Democrats had the seats, perhaps, but nothing more, for a total of 72 days.
Add in the wrinkle that the Republican definition of "compromise" (as a sibling post notes) became "my way or the highway" - candidate Richard Mourdock of Indiana as a vocal, but failed, example of that. Republicans who followed him went on the record unwilling to take even $1 of new taxes for $10 of cuts, and the Speaker of the House is generally unwilling to bring a bill forward until he has a majority of his party behind it - aka "The Hastert Rule", which Dennis Hastert himself disavowed.
Due to the sickness of Ted Kennedy, and contested Senate seats, the Democrats did not have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate for more than a couple of months, not the two years you are claiming. During that couple of months, there was a very active fight over Obamacare which basically sucked up their attention.
The idea that the Democrats had a total majority for two years but did nothing with it is a common "talking point" for republican politicians, but it is basically a lie. Go look it up...
It would be better if they made the infrastructure public and let the carriers compete. Why? Because regulation of public utility infrastructure is something they've done before. If you have absolute 'net neutrality, that might mean no QoS for your Skype packets. Do you want to try to explain that to these guys and get it into a bill? NFW. They'll botch that, and a number of other things that I probably haven't thought of or aren't even aware of myself.
ARMED & BLOODY REVOLUTION!
or an emp to make them look up from their glowing palms.
Feinstein and others who value democracy are at least doing something. They finally learned that removing guns from the nut jobs keeps schools from being shot up.
Venezuela learned this lesson last year too. The guns were removed from the proles and their crime rate is 1/1000 of what it was in 2012.
So the Dems are doing something... Saving children's lives at a minimum.
sig: sauer
under GOP plan people may do that to be able to see an doctor / get stuff that the ER does not do.
In the past some people where better off on the jail / prison health care plan then being a free person.
Replying to AC troll, not for the troll's benefit, but because too many people are developing this perspective.
Propaganda works. Sorry.
Indeed - just look at the way the summary writer uplifts Democrats while lambasting Republicans, even though any objective observer will tell you they're essentially two sides of the same, evil coin.
My guess is you vote libertarian--because that's the same rhetoric I keep hearing from them, which is in reality nothing more than a rebranding of the extreme right wing of the republican party. Same party different name.
There are different types and degrees of Libertarians out there. There are some that are just as crazy as the irrational religious zealots and the tree huggers. The media is largely allied with the Democrats, and most of those that aren't are allied with the Republicans. Thus, there is a perverse incentive to cast all Libertarians in same light... as the enemy.
The truth is, sane libertarians exist, and are very centrist in their positions. They agree with Republicans on some issues, and with Democrats on others.
(disclaimer: I'm not a Libertarian, but a Republican who likes a few of their ideas. Not most, but a few.)
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
I'd prefer an Internet that was more Chaotic Good.
3 Important attributes of a law that lawmakers want you to confuse:
Its facade (what they want you to think it does).
Its goal (what they wanted it to do).
Its consequences (what it actually does).
Evaluate for all 3, determine their deltas and vote accordingly.
www.facebook.com/DareDefendOurRights
www.fairtax.org
Let's says that with mod points:
"It can be +1, but still be -1 and/or -2."
Makes. No. Sense.
I come here for the love
ya gotta wonder if those hammerheads in Congress even know what a "net" is.
Not Proven.
I don't think there is sufficient trustworthy evidence to show that you are wrong, but there certainly isn't enough to show that you are correct.
What is clear is that the US Govt. either knew, or should have known, about the attack (though perhaps not its specifics) in advance. This is a very different statement.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Vietnam was started by Eisenhower. Neither party represents the interests of 99% of the population.
Learn to love Alaska
The Demos can claim they offered something they know will never pass because of the big, bad Repubs.
Both sides get what their funders want, the folks that elected get the usual.
Or they could surprise everybody and do the right thing.
(It would be kind of fun for the Repubs to get see Mr. P squirm and have to sign the thing.)
I still say providers should be forced to tell the whole truth in blinking lights on the first page of their contracts: WARNING! You know your monthly fee to Netflix? We are demanding a cut of it from them or else we will wreck your service using them, regardless of your data and bandwidth agreement with us. You know YouTube? Same deal. Sign below to be a customer of us.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
No they won't. And this isn't about where companies are located, it's about where customers are located. And the US has a lot of customers willing to pay a lot of money for services in the Internet.
If it was about lack of freedom as opposed to customer base, all of these companies wouldn't be bending over backwards to get into the Chinese market.
Unless the President decides to implement the law, in contempt of Congress? He did say that he supported net neutrality.
SOPA melted their phone lines with irate voters! Voters may be fools but they can remember a few BIG issues come a election day and SOPA scared the shit out of all the politicians. The sponsors of SOPA quickly ran out to denounce their own bill before it ruined them.
With the internet big players reminding the public for FREE, they couldn't distract the issue from voter's on election day. It didn't matter that the public was entirely against it-- they don't care if 90% of their voters are against their policies, they only need to worry about suckering enough votes and if you can distract people with 1-3 issues THEY CHOOSE then they win.
They will NOT pay a political price come election day; it'll be forgotten or lower priority because the usual 1-3 issues will be all that matters (usually the same few issues over and over.) Whether a representative ACTUALLY represents the voters is NEVER a campaign issue - when that really should be the #1 issue. Whether they follow constitutional principles is also not a big issue; even when cities ban free speech it usually has to be handled in the courts (free assembly forget it.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Net neutrality as it's described here seems like a good thing. Net neutrality as the government would implement it is not necessarily a good thing. From day one I've found the whole thing to be murky and have trouble understanding why it's inherently a good thing. The impression I get is that one group of corporations profits from it going one way and another group profits from it going the other way. If we operate from the assumption that they're all looking out for their own bests interests, then the people are screwed either way.
The ridiculous thing I'm seeing here on Slashdot is the persistent claim that ISPs are exclusively in the pockets of Republicans. They're equally strong supporters of Democrats. Late last year a Comcast executive held a fundraiser for Obama, which he attended and gave a speech at. Doesn't seem like Comcast is a company afraid they won't get their way. And typically contributions fluctuate between whichever party is in power. Only the ignorant masses, who also feel betrayed when an athlete leaves their favorite team, remain fiercely and irrationally loyal. It's fascinating how effective propaganda in America actually is.
After all, we don't allow corporations to own real bridges to important places.
I know that a lot of people diss both Detroit and Canada, but I think any bridge that transports 25% of all merchandise trade between two first-world nations is pretty important.
Now, the Ambassador Bridge is a good illustration of your point in spite of this, since it's a good example of why we shouldn't. While it has some competition from a tunnel which is owned (via a shared LLC) by the two city governments that it connects, that hasn't stopped it from fighting tooth and nail to prevent any other, better bridges from being built to compete with it.
The owners have poured money into the hands of legislators and opposition candidates and into ballot initiatives to try to stop the bridge, have run political scare ads, and have tried to tie up the project in the courts for years -- to the point that the head of the company was put in jail for a short while for contempt of court for failing to obey court orders related to the construction contracts. All to protect a bridge that ends in surface streets on the Canadian side over a bridge that would directly link two highways.
Just a modern day baron trying to protect his inefficient little fief at the expense of the public.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Way to completely misstate the ruling.
The ruling stated that because the FCC refused to classify ISPs as common carriers, they could not regulate them as common carriers.
Government in charge of the internet, nothing could ever go wrong with that.
to see just how in the pocket of huge corporations the GOP is,
You have got to be kidding!
The Democrats are the party in the pockets of:
The Insurance industry (see: Obamacare and mandatory purchase of the most expensive plans(
The Movie Industry (see: backing extensive punishment for copyright violators)
The Oil industry (see: extensive campaign contributions to Obama and many other Democrats).
See also many, many sweet government handouts to companies with huge campaign contributions to Democrats.
Are the Republicans better? Not nessecarily but at least a FEW are. The Democrats vote in lock-step these days.
The Net Neutrality thing especially, is so backwards... Net Neutrality is all about government control of what internet companies. Do you really want the government to be able to mandate that torrent traffic be blocked? That mandatory inspection of packets copyrighted material should take place? Then by all means go for Net Nutrality, and go down that road... the Republicans, thanks to the libertarian wing of the party are the only thing between heavy-handed government control of internet content and real freedom.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The Chilis busboy you mentioned that makes his car payment would become the person sweating 12 hours to cut cane in the field under the Cubans so he can eat. The Chilia busboy has just as much to worry about.
Establishment Republicans slavishly do what the phone companies tell them to do while pretending they care about freedom and entrepreneurship (their base likes these ideas, and is largely unuaware that the politicians are actually opposing entrepreneurship and innovation by helping big business squash competition)
Democrats win favor from young internet addicts by pretending to support a "free" internet, while actually doing something completely different; The norm for big government Dems is to increase government power and regulation over all aspects of life, and they are actually being consistent here while fooling their base. Allow me to point out using a left-wing site.... so I cannot be accused of being a Koch-schill... what's actually going on:
Obama said "The one good piece of news coming out of this court opinion was that the court did confirm that the FCC can regulate this space. They have authority. And the question now is how do they use that authority..." (the boldface in the quote is mine, not Obama's nor freepress's). After spending years denying that "net neutrality" had anything to do with regulating the internet, the thing the president likes about this recent court case is that it established an FCC right to regulate the internet.... now the only questions are "how much regulation?" and "who writes the rules?". Both political parties have members who want to "regulate" the internet (and get visits from lobbyists with campaign cash...) and both parties favor things that are bad for internet users. The idea that government can tell companies like AT&T or Verizon what to do with their own property sounds good to internet users who want to use that property without paying for it.... but those same users would be outraged if the government ordered them to let verizon use their homes as cell sites (or some other abuse of property rights). The idea that the telcos can do what they want and have whatever price plans they want sounds great to Republican politicians in DC, but they do not have to live with the virtual monopolies on high-speed internet access that many Americans face.
There's one thing "net neutrality" supporters should keep in mind: the wide-open internet came into existence and grew as it did without a "net neutrality" law, and we should all learn from Obamacare that "we have to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it" is a VERY BAD idea.... ANY bill can have huge unintended/unforseen/intentionally-hidden side-effects.
All it does is restore the rules the court struck down until such time as the current appeals process completes...
In other words, the things the district court struck down will be re-instated until the Supreme Court determines the the district court was right, and the 'net neutrality' laws will be struck down again.
This bill is just an example of stupid politicians pandering to the electorate - relief from the court's decision is easy, and it was even described in the district court's decision (which everyone, on both sides of the case expected)... The FCC simply needs to decide that broadband carriers are 'common carriers' not 'information services' and then their attempts to force net neutrality will become legal/enforceable. The court said that since the FCC ruled that broadband carriers were not common carriers, they could not be regulated like common carriers.
The Democrats simply want to legislate that the FCC ignore the District Court's decision until such time as the Supreme Court rules on this case's ultimate appeal.
Ken
It can be controversial but not flamebait and/or trolling.
From GP's perspective he feels one group of people are essentially pounding their heads into a brick wall...let's have X represent that.
If people are doing X, then it is reasonable to ask, "Why do people do X?"
It is especially relevant, some might say controversial, because some members of X post here on /.
Yes, I agree flamebaits/trolls can contain accurate information, but its wrong to judge something as being harmful to discussion just by virtue of being controversial.
Thank you Dave Raggett
this is a cop out:
use *this issue*
obviously both parties are different, but how are **both** bad for the country, bad law, and bad policy?
how is the Democrat law bad policy?
explain it....in detail...and describe your idea of what is better...
otherwise you're just another troll...just because you add the caveat "they are different" when you grip "parties both suck" doesn't make your argument any less fallacious, reductive, or stupid.
so let's see the specific examples and your suggestions for a net neutrality policy that wouldn't 'suck'
Thank you Dave Raggett
you're full of false equivocation.
one party is actually putting forth a **policy** that would actually fix the problem
that's not rhetoric, that's not 'posture' that's actual action in the real world.
you do understand that ultimately perception is not reality right? there is an end to the bullshit rhetoric and facade of politics...
Thank you Dave Raggett
While I generally think of the Dems as the lesser of two evils, I don't really think they're out to help anybody with this. I don't see this situation as good (Net Neutrality) vs. evil (no neutrality). It's political football instead. Net Neutrality will require an even heavier hand from the government in the internet. This may be as undesirable as the corporations' idea of a "level playing field". The Dems' attempt to make it look like they are heroes rings false with me.
Seems like it's damned if you do, damned if you don't, with this situation.
"To stop the terrorists."
So, if Cuba invaded the US, Minneapolis would be the sugar cane capital of the world? I don't see how they could make a bus boy work in the cane fields, when there are none. How do restaurants work in Havana if there are no busboys? They are all working in the fields, right? So the waitresses bus their own tables, and wash their own dishes? Seems inefficient.
Learn to love Alaska
> Wheeler said last week that he will announce the agency's next step for dealing with net neutrality "soon."
He then added, "But I plan to retire 'sooner'."
Bark less. Wag more.
Speaking as a Canadian, it is apparent that the price the GOP has imposed on your nati0on is no longer tolerable.
You need to remove them or die trying.
Anything else is simply failure
Give me back the ports you have blocked for no good reason what so ever.
I have heard numerous arguments for so called "Net Neutrality" over the years but think about it. Do you really want the government forcing telecoms to treat ALL web traffic the same? Would that mean the lowliest customer gets the same bandwidth as the greatest? Just how much do you want to socialize the internet? Sure it seems like a small imposition, just to make sure they open all ports and don't throttle any. But eventually there will be special internet channels that come from the government at higher speed. Just so big-brother's face (or your J. Random Politician) can make sure everyone has unfettered access to official government sources.
Given the antics of the NSA and your favorite monolithic internet company collecting your data, allowing the government even more control over the internet seems a bit foolhardy.
Eventually it will work out so that even in small markets there will be more than one ISP. Pressure from consumers is already putting the brakes on some more monopolistic legislation in Kansas http://tech.slashdot.org/story.... A lot of people now have the choice to go to another ISP if they find some ports being blocked or "shaped" (doublespeak for throttled). When enough people switch, the offending ISP gets the message that they shouldn't be doing that.
If the government forces net neutrality then there will be less need for competition and less competition means worse service in the long run. It's much better in the rodeo than the stockyards.
it'll be fun to see what kind of secret stuff they stuff into this bill. the dems are no different from the repubs. let's not get crazy here, they're both bought and paid for.
IMHO network neutrality should not be under communications regulation in the first place. There are some very good reasons for treating different sorts of packets differently. These include achieving quality of service improvements by prioritizing limited streaming over bulk transfers and economy of scale by combining guaranteed-QoS and best-effort on a common infrastructure.
The real issue is not the technical one of whether packets are prioritized. It's two other (related) issues:
- Does the way the ISP prioritized packets in its transport operation give its (above the transport layer) "value-added services" a competitive advantage over other, similar, services sold by other providers. This is the domain of antitrust. (See Tying, Bundling, and Abuse of Market Share.)
- Does the handling of the packets cause the ISP to fall short of what is expected of "Internet service". (For instance: Does the ISP block or degrade traffic of higher-level services compeitive with its own offerings.) This is the domain of consumer fraud.
IMHO a more effective way to handle the issue might be to require the separaton of ownership of ISPs and "content providers", much as the Bell Telephone monopoly was broken up into local service, long-distance service, and equipment manufacture. Conglomerates combining ISP data service, telephone service, entertainment "content" publishing, and news services have built-in conflicts of interest.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Sorry, but that's a rather naive point of view.
Politicians like pork, no doubt about it. The undisputed world record holder for pork, a Senator who often bragged that he had brought more money to his district than any senator in history, is Robert Byrd, Democrat.
Looking at the top 20 porkers, or just hearing any republican talk to his constituents, you'll notice that republicans have to walk a fine line - selling the appearance to be fiscally responsible while also bringing home cash for the local university or whatever is important to people in their district.
Democrats have no such line to walk. They don't CLAIM to be responsible with taxpayer money. They only claim to bring goodies for their voters, and that they do. For that reason, most of the top porkers are democrats.
You'll have to find another reason to be a puppet for that comedian and hate republicans, because if pork really bothered you, you'd be complaining about Democrats, and you'd be doing it from a Tea Party gathering.
You brought up a good point. I think they're are three other significant, valid problems with the net neutrality bills that have been put forth by Democrats.
First - they say, in effect, "an ISP must treat all video the same, all images the same, all email the same, etc., WITHOUT regard to it's content or source".
Yay, sounds fair, right? You just made it illegal to block a flood of Viagra spam from a major Russian spammer. The proposed law was that the ISP must deliver the spam to you in exactly the same way that they deliver email from your important contacts. This issue couldd probably be fixed, if the dems don't insist that the law needs ro be passed before anyone can finish reading it. It's hard, though - Comcast might call YouTube a spammer.
That last sentence foreshadows the second problem. The argument FOR a bunch of new federal restrictions is that ISPs might ... Well, they haven't. It's an imaginary problem. Does it make sense to make up imaginary problems and build more government bureaucracy to deal with a problem that does not exists, or should we hold off and see if any actual issue develops, then address it?
Another proposed bill made it illegal to sell tiered service - to offer a better quality of service for those for those who want it. I work from home. That's how I make me living. I would LOVE to be able to get a guaranteed xMbps rather than "up to x Mbps", and would gladly pay another $10-$20 to cover the cost of guaranteed 24/7 speed. I could earn an extra $200 / month by not having my work slowed down during busy periods, so it would be a great deal for me. The democrats intend to make that illegal. The professional who works from home and the struggling single mother who only wants to check her. Facebook are forced to buy the same quality of service. That's dumb. SOME democrats realize that part is stupid.
This is nothing more than an annual fundraising ploy by those in congress. They pick an issue, they take sides, then they shake down their corp and private sponsors for donations. Don't believe me? Take a look at donations from big companies around voting time.
In the end, if a internet carrier wants to prioritize traffic (what the bill claims to prevent), then consumers will say "see ya" and pick another provider. Think about it: Prioritizing traffic is the same as giving you a lesser data rate or a crappy ping time. If they get those today, they leave for another provider.
If you really want to blow the market wide open, then allow many more providers into the market. What we have today is a comfy relationship between a chosen few providers and local govs who grant monopolies to these chosen providers.
Of course, those that run the game would never bring that up for a vote. So, instead, they throw a few scraps the people, and try to whip you into a frenzy that if it weren't for those lawmakers, you'd be screwed.
In fact, it's because of those lawmakers we're screwed.
What will it take to wake people up?
Nothing.
The people are so complacent over in the US it's unfathomable. They just don't give a fuck unless it's been 'leaked' and it received enough publicity to make it entertaining for them. Perhaps that is the answer to waking people up in the US. You make the most best documentary that will panic the HOLY bejesus out of the people there and then viral market the shit out of it to make it THE most talked about thing in the entire world. You keep pushing it everywhere and who knows maybe you'll have mass rioting, impeachments and revolutionary beheadings (one can hope!) happening.
and would gladly pay another $10-$20 to cover the cost of guaranteed 24/7 speed.
Comcast would be happy to offer this service. There is a $99 enrollment fee and it will only cost you $49.95 a month.
Cheap storage VM.
The rules however had a sunset clause that when it approached, required new law to enshrine the same rule as had been preventing all these bad things you've heard about from not happening now, because the rules for forbidding them were ending.
The reason for the Net Neutrality law wasn't because it was new legislation but because the old legislation/agreement that did the same job were expiring.
"We had an internet for a long time without having to talk about Network Neutrality" never happened. The agreements at the time were Net Neutrality agreements, not a Net Neutrality law, and those agreements recently expired.
Too bad slashdot borked metamoderation, that comment is +5 now. Under the old system, bad moderations like that made it so you didn't get more mod points. Also, "funny" used to be karma-neutral (making it dangerous to your karma to try and be funny) giving people stupid enough for us to laugh at karma.
And then they change the interface so if you're on someone else's computer and they use IE7, there's no way to log on.
The mystery of why Dice are doing these stupid things is at least as deep as the mystery of why people vote against their own interests. It took my dad 45 years to wake up to the fact that the Republicans wanted to make his and his parents' lives suck. My grandmother, who voted against FDR 4 times, never did learn.
As to the "freedom loving tea baggers", they're not for YOUR freedom. They're for their own freedom to fuck you over without government interference. They want Monsanto to have the right to pollute, thay want Comcast to have the right to throttle NetFlix traffic, they want to give spammers the right to spam you, bankers the right to steal from you. The Tea Party isn't for citizen rights, it's for corporate rights. Period.
Vietnam used to be named "French Indo China" the Vietnam war was started by the French.
The US got sucked in by them to come bail them out of their mess.
History repeating itself yet again.
Perhaps this lead to Eisenhower's speech to beware the military industrial complex on his farewell address.
Few things are as they appear on the surface.
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
We already have a way of dealing with these monopolies
Net neutrality is an issue worth fighting for, and it's becoming more and more important to keep up with the issues. For a good refresher, here's this great mockumentary: http://www.theinternetmustgo.com/
That's an interesting thought. I had read his point as "those damn republicans like pork". That would be naive and misleading, because the fact is POLITICIANS like pork, and republicans slightly LESS so than others.
Perhaps his point is point was "republicans oppose wasteful spending; however like all politicians, they too like pork". If that's what he intended to say, that's true.
> all you've accomplished with your complaints is to make yourself look like a fool in public.
It's a good thing you're not making yourself look like an asshole in public.
You make a good point. Also saying "it is often not a good idea for the government to _______, generally speaking" neither means that one opposes a certain specific instance of that, nor that that opposition is your top priority and you won't consider any other factors.
There is nothing inconsistent about this:
A) I generally oppose walking around naked in public.
B) If Jason Voorhees attacks me while I'm in the shower, I'll run outside - naked.
For Washington politicians, pork for their district is just as high of a priority as Jason Voorhees. There's nothing inconsistent about opposing wasteful and counter productive spending, while also placing an even higher priority on bringing home the bacon. It's sad, but it's not inconsistent.
Perhaps this lead to Eisenhower's speech to beware the military industrial complex on his farewell address.
Yes, and Washington warned us against political parties. How'd we do with that one? Eisenhower warned of the military industrial complex because he helped found it and was feeling guilt to the evil he created.
Learn to love Alaska
I am still confused what problem this fixes and why people want the government messing with the internet. Government programs may have created the internet but it didn't really take off until they got out of it.
Next we can debate why people who are pro choice want the government to come between them and their doctor.
Does net neutrality mean denial of service attacks get the same priority as malware as you tube and even internet surgeries?