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.
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!
Only about 100 countries have a party by that name. It's completely obvious which one is meant in context, but come on, be less ignorant.
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
I understand your frustration, but both parties seem pretty bad in their own ways. I suspect most Republicans are actually just anti-Democrats, and vice versa.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
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.
I suspect most Republicans are actually just anti-Democrats, and vice versa.
Now if only the laws of physics would apply here . . . then these particles would mutually annihilate each other when they meet in Congress, and we would all be much better off without the lot of them.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
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.
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.
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").