Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FCC Says It Will Vote On Net Neutrality In February

Posted by Soulskill on from the when-all-the-astroturfing-is-accounted-for dept.

schwit1 sends this report from the Washington Post: Federal regulators looking to place restrictions on Internet providers will introduce and vote on new proposed net neutrality rules in February, Federal Communications Commission officials said Friday. President Obama's top telecom regulator, Tom Wheeler, told fellow FCC commissioners before the Christmas holiday that he intends to circulate a draft proposal internally next month with an eye toward approving the measure weeks later, said one official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the agency's deliberations are ongoing. The rules are meant to keep broadband providers such as Verizon and Comcast from speeding up or slowing down some Web sites compared to others.

58 of 81 comments (clear)

  1. Congressional Vote? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just curious when America's elected representatives will vote to make Net Neurtrality the law of the land, not that I think they should. Just wanted to draw attention to the fact we're now living in Bureacrastan.

    1. Re:Congressional Vote? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Just curious when America's elected representatives will vote to make Net Neurtrality the law of the land, not that I think they should. Just wanted to draw attention to the fact we're now living in Bureacrastan.

      What Congress doesn't get involved in, Congress can't damage. USA has a long history of failing to repeal bad laws that clearly aren't working. The one time they got this right (Prohibition) they took ten years to admit what was obvious from day one, and still failed to learn the lesson since other forms of prohibition continue for other substances, funding the same type of gangsters.

      Congress passing on this one is a great thing.

    2. Re:Congressional Vote? by khallow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What Congress doesn't get involved in, Congress can't damage.

      Instead we have unelected bureaucrats doing the damaging. Such an improvement.

    3. Re:Congressional Vote? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Your opinion is that your isp should be legally allowed to not provide you with what you paid for?

      Contract violations don't require the FCC to enforce.

    4. Re: Congressional Vote? by MichaelMacDonald · · Score: 1

      Well, the current congress is not one we would want looking at this - for sure. A few years ago, maybe, but net neutrality doesn't stand a chance with the current session. Better this way, and if the FCC votes wrong - we crucify them, and congress tries to blame Obama for something they set up and wanted.

    5. Re:Congressional Vote? by whistlingtony · · Score: 1

      Congres... elected representatives.... created the FCC. You're whining about nothing. Every stupid position in government is not elected. So What. I don't need to hold elections for the clerk at the DMV.

      From Wikipedia.... "The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent agency of the United States government, created by Congressional statute (see 47 U.S.C. 151 and 47 U.S.C. 154) to regulate interstate communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories. "

    6. Re:Congressional Vote? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      Congres... elected representatives.... created the FCC. You're whining about nothing. Every stupid position in government is not elected. So What. I don't need to hold elections for the clerk at the DMV.

      The "clerk of the DMV" does not have the power to regulate. The DMV merely enforces laws passed by your State legislature. Therein lies the difference, and why GP is not "whining about nothing".

      Nowhere does the Constitution give Congress the authority to delegate their law-making powers to some outside bureaucracy. The legal authority of the FCC is very questionable indeed, regardless of whether it has been accepted for many decades.

      The proper role of the FCC would be as an advisory body to Congress, which then makes the laws. Instead, it has become an extra-Constitutional, quasi-legal body in itself, which should be unacceptable to thinking Americans.

      Further: if the FCC is going to propose "NEW" rules, and vote on them without public input, I believe it would be violating the laws requiring public input for "new" major regulations.

    7. Re:Congressional Vote? by forand · · Score: 1

      Have you read the entirety of the 21st Amendment? It completely breaks interstate commerce. Why can't I buy liquor on Sundays in some states and cannot cross a state line with some purchased in a neighboring state ever? Because the 21st Amendment makes alcohol special and allows each locality to have completely crazy laws prohibiting the TRANSPORTATION of alcohol through their jurisdiction.

      Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

      Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

      Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

    8. Re:Congressional Vote? by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Except none of this is a contract violation.

      For pretty much every ISP, large or small, you really only have a limited guarantee that connection between your location and the initial entry point to the ISP works some of the time, and in the best case conditions, will transfer data at a certain speed. You have no guarantee that you can access any specific site at any specific speed.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    9. Re:Congressional Vote? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Except none of this is a contract violation.

      If it's not in the contract, then you didn't pay for it.

    10. Re:Congressional Vote? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Have you read the entirety of the 21st Amendment? It completely breaks interstate commerce.

      Well, no. What it does is say you can't violate the laws of the various States you buy and sell things in. Pretty much status quo ante bellum, actually.

      Or did you somehow think that alcohol was legal everywhere before Prohibition? Or prostitution, for that matter? (note that your argument would require that prostitution be legal everywhere if it were legal ANYWHERE (i.e. Colorado)).

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    11. Re:Congressional Vote? by forand · · Score: 1

      I politely disagree with your assertion that my reading of the 21st would lead to prostitution being legal anywhere. My reading implies that my local county could require that NO alcohol be transported through it, which is the case. Now my county cannot make such a claim for any other, not Federally outlawed or restricted, commercial good. My county can say that it is not only illegal to sell it within its jurisdiction but also that it cannot be transported through. That is a huge difference when compared to any other commercial good. For instance California has outlawed the sale of numerous small weapons but said weapons arrive from asia and are transported through California every day because they cannot restrict interstate commerce. That is why the 21st is so messed up. It means I cannot sell my good to Kansas if all the surrounding states refuse to let me transport it through their states.

    12. Re:Congressional Vote? by dywolf · · Score: 1

      Congress already voted, when they created the FCC as an independent agency with a specific mandate and mission and empowered it with the necessary authority in order to carry out that mandate. That's how independent agencies work, and why they exist: to remove the need for Congress to do -everything-, particularly those things which would be undermined by political fighting.

      Note that this still doesnt prevent Congress from passing laws changing that mandate or otherwise directing the agency to do something in particular. it smply makes one question why they delegated powers to an independent agency if they're going to micromanage them anyway.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    13. Re:Congressional Vote? by dywolf · · Score: 1

      pointing out the constitutional authority and reasons for delegation to independent agencies is not flamebait.
      stupid mod system.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    14. Re:Congressional Vote? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      You didn't "point out the Constitutional authority". There is none.

      And while some of your reasons may be valid... there are valid reasons to do lots of illegal things. So what? The fact that they may have justification does not make it more legal.

  2. when-all-the-astroturfing-is-accounted-for dept by Shuh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's interesting how this top-down regulatory move without the input of America's elected lawmakers is being characterized as the true Will Of The People. There's serious Newspeak going on here.

    1. Re:when-all-the-astroturfing-is-accounted-for dept by Cantankerous+Cur · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, the scary thing is the internet companies and the Koch brothers stuffed the 'ballet boxes' AND that is going to be trotted out as the will of the people (http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2014/12/16/one-group-dominates-the-second-round-of-net-neutrality-comments/).

    2. Re:when-all-the-astroturfing-is-accounted-for dept by Zocalo · · Score: 2

      That's not too far removed from the truth though, is it? Replace "will" with "apathy" and you're pretty much dead on the money. Then again, to really be apathetic you've got to be aware of the issue in the first place, and I doubt that the vast majority of The People are even aware that this issue might even concern them, let alone understand (or take the time to understand - we're back to apathy again) the issues enough to make an informed decision.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    3. Re:when-all-the-astroturfing-is-accounted-for dept by Shuh · · Score: 4, Informative

      It might be better that way. I know I can't out-bid $MEGACORP on the Congressperson-purchasing market, err I mean campaign contribution donations. Unlike letting Congress handle this, there's actually a chance some random bureaucrat will do the right thing. A slim chance, yes, but a chance.

      This /. story about a "vote" tries to make this agreement among bureaucrats look like something other than an executive fiat from a single Hugo Chavez. The idea is to convince you the representative democratic process is involved somehow. But rather than pick up on that, you seem to think it's more expensive to buy off half of a handful of regulators than to buy off most of Congress.

      The only big problem with the FCC scenario is the standard revolving door between the regulators and future cushy jobs in the very industry they're supposed to be regulating.

      So it's better to have bureaucrats handling everything, except for the fact that bureaucrats regularly come from and return to the industries they regulate and can be bought off rather easily. Nice bit of reasoning there.

    4. Re:when-all-the-astroturfing-is-accounted-for dept by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      So it's better to have bureaucrats handling everything, except for the fact that bureaucrats regularly come from and return to the industries they regulate and can be bought off rather easily. Nice bit of reasoning there.

      We could create new or strengthen existing laws about revolving doors in order to return bureaucrats to their role as non-partisan cogs in the machine of governance.

      The entire concept of western bureaucracy was a direct response to previous western systems of government where nepotism and cronyism caused endemic incompetence and corruption.

      In contrast, the Chinese had a (mostly) meritocratic bureaucracy for ~1000 years before it became firmly embedded in any Western Government. If you want to go back to the roots, about 5,500 years ago, the Sumerians invented writing so that they could manage their nascent bureaucracy. Within a few hundred years, the Ancient Egyptians also had a solid bureaucracy that existed in some form or another for ~3,000 years.

      If our bureaucracy is going poorly, it's because we're ignoring lessons of the past, not because there's anything inherently wrong with bureaucratic structures (although Marx would argue that point).

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    5. Re:when-all-the-astroturfing-is-accounted-for dept by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      It's interesting how this top-down regulatory move without the input of America's elected lawmakers is being characterized as the true Will Of The People. There's serious Newspeak going on here.

      WTF? Will of the people? As interpreted by "elected lawmakers? You must be joking.

    6. Re:when-all-the-astroturfing-is-accounted-for dept by Aereus · · Score: 2

      The problem here is Tom Wheeler, afaik, already was a corporate bigwig in the telecom industry. So he has a vested interest in helping out all his buddies. His being chairman is a pretty big conflict of interest, but such is the US today.

    7. Re:when-all-the-astroturfing-is-accounted-for dept by Peaceful_Patriot · · Score: 1

      "...without the input of America's lawmakers..."

      These very same lawmakers who have refused to pass any meaningful laws for over six years now? The same Congress which has set multiple records for the least productive in history as our country struggled to recover from a near depression? The same 'lawmakers' who get paid and perked very well to do nothing except engage in partisan squabbling and the never ending quest to make the President look bad?

      Unfortunately, we have to let bureaucrats and the President make laws or nothing will be done. Perhaps next time we should elect 'lawmakers' who consider their job to be making laws instead of throwing sand into the gears and calling that leadership.

      --
      There is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come.
    8. Re:when-all-the-astroturfing-is-accounted-for dept by dywolf · · Score: 1

      Wow the Anti-NN astroturfing accounts are out in force today.
      And using their sock puppets to mod up each other's idiocy as well.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    9. Re:when-all-the-astroturfing-is-accounted-for dept by Shuh · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, we have to let bureaucrats and the President make laws or nothing will be done.

      Sounds like we should have elected someone like Hugo Chavez, a politician always issuing executive fiats "for the people." It worked for Venezuela, right?

  3. Why the big Pipes doesn't want Net Neutrality by ShopMgr · · Score: 1

    They want to charge more! Remember when they wanted to charge for every byte? One big pipe is one cost, a hundred little pipes are individual billings. Imagine them charging for access to every site. If access to a site is too slow, you won't use it. If you want it bad enough you will pay. Sounds like Cable and Satellite TV. They control the Pipe, they control your access. And without their PIpe, how will we get access to the Internet?

    1. Re:Why the big Pipes doesn't want Net Neutrality by causality · · Score: 2

      They want to charge more! Remember when they wanted to charge for every byte? One big pipe is one cost, a hundred little pipes are individual billings. Imagine them charging for access to every site. If access to a site is too slow, you won't use it. If you want it bad enough you will pay. Sounds like Cable and Satellite TV. They control the Pipe, they control your access. And without their PIpe, how will we get access to the Internet?

      What would go wrong with classifying them as common carriers? Don't want to be held liable for every illegal use of your network? Then don't screw with the traffic in any way. What downside would there be to treating ISPs this way?

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    2. Re:Why the big Pipes doesn't want Net Neutrality by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      It blocks pay to play, they want to old main stream media model where only the rich can broadcast their propaganda and basically legalised corporate censorship of the internet.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  4. Fox/henhouse by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The FCC is the last organization that should be "voting" on Net Neutrality.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Fox/henhouse by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Funny

      Put it on the ballot as a national referendum in 2016, you wanna see Big Pipes shit themselves.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Fox/henhouse by LaissezFaire · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Put it on the ballot as a national referendum in 2016, you wanna see Big Pipes shit themselves.

      Since there is no such thing in the U.S. as a national referendum on laws or regulations, do you have any other suggestions?

      The thing that net neutrality advocates fail to do is to describe the regulatory system they want to put in place. Take the comic from The Oatmeal, for example (http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality). "And I'm going to do that by being a super terrific A+ dude and explaining to you exactly how Net Neutrality works." There are lots of panels describing the goal, and none showing the way it would work. How is it run? How are complaints logged? How are ISPs monitored? What reporting mechanisms to ISPs have? What features will be mandated or forbidden in network devices? How is good versus bad traffic shaping to be defined? What are the penalties? What are the exceptions?

      Ah, the exceptions. Once VOIP 911 calls are mandated to be prioritized over other data, then you'll get medical data prioritized, which makes sense, because we don't want to kill people, and then ... the same big bad companies will lobby for their data, and net neutrality becomes the opposite of net neutrality. Whoops.

    3. Re:Fox/henhouse by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Since there is no such thing in the U.S. as a national referendum on laws or regulations, do you have any other suggestions?

      Since you asked, yes. A constitutional amendment ending corporate personhood and establishing that money is not speech.

      The thing that net neutrality advocates fail to do is to describe the regulatory system they want to put in place.

      That's horseshit. We have a very nice regulatory model to put in place. It's called, "common carrier".

      Ah, the exceptions. Once VOIP 911 calls are mandated to be prioritized over other data, then you'll get medical data prioritized, which makes sense, because we don't want to kill people, and then ... the same big bad companies will lobby for their data, and net neutrality becomes the opposite of net neutrality. Whoops.

      Good job inventing red herrings. "Net Neutrality is bad because bad people might do bad things in the future."

      Free markets have utterly failed when it comes to infrastructure. Why should we trust it with something as important as communications?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:Fox/henhouse by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Since there is no such thing in the U.S. as a national referendum on laws or regulations

      We can change that: http://www.gallup.com/poll/163...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re:Fox/henhouse by LaissezFaire · · Score: 1

      Since there is no such thing in the U.S. as a national referendum on laws or regulations

      We can change that: http://www.gallup.com/poll/163...

      And changing it requires amending the Constitution, either with the normal Congressional and state ratification process, or a Constitutional convention. I suspect what you really want is national referendums, and net neutrality is just the way you're bringing it up today, since you didn't respond to anything about net neutrality, or even propose a solution to making it law or regulation that has any chance in the near future.

    6. Re:Fox/henhouse by mc6809e · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Free markets have utterly failed when it comes to infrastructure. Why should we trust it with something as important as communications?

      "Utterly failed"? Stop exaggerating.

      The right answer (whatever it might be) begins by being honest.

    7. Re:Fox/henhouse by khallow · · Score: 2

      A constitutional amendment ending corporate personhood and establishing that money is not speech.

      How about let's not start with something stupid like banning speech you don't like and destroying the most successful business and non profit organization system humanity has come up with to date.

      Free markets have utterly failed when it comes to infrastructure. Why should we trust it with something as important as communications?

      Because you don't have anything better to replace it with? Free markets have "failed" here because they haven't been tried.

    8. Re:Fox/henhouse by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Since you asked, yes. A constitutional amendment ending corporate personhood and establishing that money is not speech.

      Amending the First Amendment. On general principles, I'd rather have no Net Neutrality than start monkeying with the Bill of Rights.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    9. Re:Fox/henhouse by forand · · Score: 1

      I think that the parent was taking issue with the two together: an entity that cannot be held accountable as a citizen (cannot go to prison), has the revenue generating power of all its employees, access to financial markets unavailable to the majority (or all) citizens, able to live forever, and only accountable (if at all) to its share holders having the same rights as an individual and ability to influence our electoral process with vast sums of money. I suspect that if only humans (or citizens even) could spend money to influence elections then allowing money to be speech would be fine which is a good argument for NOT making an Amendment explicitly stating money is not speech. But if we give the same rights to corporations and ignore the additional rights they have then their power is greatly outweighs that of the humans alone.

    10. Re:Fox/henhouse by khallow · · Score: 1

      an entity that cannot be held accountable as a citizen (cannot go to prison), has the revenue generating power of all its employees, access to financial markets unavailable to the majority (or all) citizens, able to live forever, and only accountable (if at all) to its share holders having the same rights as an individual and ability to influence our electoral process with vast sums of money

      I don't see the previous poster getting worked up over the fact that the US government even though it's far more privileged than a corporation is.

      But if we give the same rights to corporations and ignore the additional rights they have then their power is greatly outweighs that of the humans alone.

      Corporations don't operate in a vacuum. They're run by and for people. The rights of the corporation are merely the rights of those people.

    11. Re:Fox/henhouse by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Amending the First Amendment.

      Oh, come on. You know better. If corporate personhood wasn't recognized during the first 200 years of the Bill of Rights existence, how can you see it as anything other than the result of corporatist judicial activism?

      On general principles, I'd rather have no Net Neutrality than start monkeying with the Bill of Rights.

      Genius, the "monkeying with the Bill of RIghts" happened at the Citizens United decision. Don't you care about the intent of the founding fathers? Don't you care about the destructive aspects of corporatism and fascism?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    12. Re:Fox/henhouse by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Free markets have "failed" here because they haven't been tried.

      Free markets have never been tried anywhere, ever. Do you know why? Because they don't exist outside the fantasies of people who have bought into neoliberal philosophy and economics which have been thoroughly and repeatedly discredited.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    13. Re:Fox/henhouse by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Corporations don't operate in a vacuum. They're run by and for people. The rights of the corporation are merely the rights of those people.

      The guy just cited a half-dozen ways that corporate rights exceed those of individuals. Are you stupid? Corporate rights go way beyond those of the rights of the individuals involved. They are "super-rights" that have been created out of whole cloth and granted to nothing more than the aggregation of capital. It's an abomination. And it's an abomination to believe these corporate golem have "civil rights".

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    14. Re:Fox/henhouse by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      "Utterly failed"? Stop exaggerating.

      OK, maybe the right answer is for you to give a few examples of where "free markets" have ever created lasting infrastructure on their own.

      When it comes to infrastructure, as the man said, "You didn't build that."

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    15. Re:Fox/henhouse by khallow · · Score: 1

      The guy just cited a half-dozen ways that corporate rights exceed those of individuals. Are you stupid?

      Let's go over this:

      an entity that cannot be held accountable as a citizen (cannot go to prison)

      Why is that considered a right? There's nothing there to be held accountable "as a citizen". And in the real world of the US, when property is held accountable for a crime as a legal fiction, it's to seize assets that would otherwise be impossible to touch due to the higher standard of proof for showing a person committed a crime. In other words, the reality is both an end-run around the US Constitution and a solid demonstration that property such as corporations doesn't have the rights of people. So no right and advantage goes to people.

      Moving on to the next one:

      has the revenue generating power of all its employees

      Which is the same for all businesses which employ people. So no peculiar advantage of a corporation here. Plus, there's no right to an employee's revenue generating power in the first place. So no right and no advantage.

      access to financial markets unavailable to the majority (or all) citizens

      Be rich and you'll have exactly the same access. Plus, there's no actual right to access to financial markets. So no right and no advantage - again.

      able to live forever

      Now we get to the joke rights. This isn't a right any more than you have the right to live forever too. And it's a lot less illegal to kill off a corporation than it is a person. So no right and advantage goes to the person - again.

      only accountable (if at all) to its share holders having the same rights as an individual and ability to influence our electoral process with vast sums of money

      And the last of the rights as well as being the second joke right. Breaking is law is a criminal act whether or not you are an officer in a corporation. Nothing shields you from that. And vast sums of money influence elections whether or not we have strongly worded constitutional amendments condemning the practice. Bribes from individuals spend just as well as bribes from corporations, so once again, a "right" happens to not actually be a right and happens to give no advantage to corporations.

      So we have five alleged "rights", none which actually are rights, none which actually give corporations any advantage, and two of which actually have corporations at a disadvantage.

      This entire discourse reminds me why I consider the ranting about corporate personhood to be an embarrassment to human thought. There's no understanding of what a right is. There's no understanding of the actual legal environment of US corporations or the rest of the world. And mysteriously enough, given these minor intellectual hurdles, there's no constructive criticisms of corporate law.

    16. Re:Fox/henhouse by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      If corporate personhood wasn't recognized during the first 200 years of the Bill of Rights existence

      Alas for your theories, it was. Which is why Corporations have always had the power to enter into lawsuits.

      Or didn't anyone explain to you that the court system was for "persons"?

      BLOCKQUOTE>Genius, the "monkeying with the Bill of RIghts" happened at the Citizens United decision.

      Nope. Citizens United didn't touch the Bill of Rights. Read them sometime, if you'd like. Versions from the '40s look just the same as they do now....

      The thing I find most interesting about the "getting money out of politics" crowd is how they always assume that if the money is removed, THEIR SIDE will come out ahead on the deal.

      Useful hint: won't work that way. There's not any way you can phrase such a law/Constitutional Amendment that it can't be gamed. And it will be.

      Note, by the way, that if you really want to get the money out of politics, get the POWER out of Washington.
      When the Feds can wave their hand and pass a law granting you Railroad Right-of-Ways for a continent, they're going to be worth bribing.
      When all they really do is handle foreign affairs, well, they might still be worth bribing, but not so much, unless you're a defense contractor (and before WW-ONE, we didn't maintain enough military to make serious bribes worth the bother).

      BLOCKQUOTE>Don't you care about the intent of the founding fathers?

      Yeah, but I never found a part where they thought that "certain types of speech" didn't really count" for First Amendment protections. The only way you can play that game is to insist that no communications involving the use of electricity is protected by the First Amendment - just unamplified voices, and newspapers published using handset printing presses.

      Now, a fair number of people seem to think the Second should be interpreted that way, but I've never heard of anyone (except possibly you) that believes that about the First.

      But, by all means, push for a Constitutional Amendment trying to modify the First to suit you. But don't come back crying when you find out that it didn't guarantee that only people who agree with you would get elected.

      Don't you care about the destructive aspects of corporatism and fascism?

      So, which of these destructive aspects are you seeing in the USA now? And if they really worry you, why not strike at the root of the problem (which isn't the First Amendment) by trying for an Amendment forbidding the creation of corporations?

      That would solve a lot of your problems, I suspect. Nothing even close to the size of government (by "close to" I mean "as much as 1/1000000th as big) would exist in that case, since noone is going to risk being sued PERSONALLY for the failure of an employee seventeen years ago. So, we'd go back to cottage industries locally, and if we made the law strict enough, even foreign corporations couldn't operate here.

      Sure would be nice living without computers, cars, refrigerators, stoves (well, we could probably manage woodstoves most places), that sort of thing....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    17. Re:Fox/henhouse by LaissezFaire · · Score: 1

      Since there is no such thing in the U.S. as a national referendum on laws or regulations, do you have any other suggestions?

      Since you asked, yes. A constitutional amendment ending corporate personhood and establishing that money is not speech.

      Good. Let's wait to pass net neutrality after you ban corporations like the New York Times, and people aren't allowed to spend money to advance their opinions.

      The thing that net neutrality advocates fail to do is to describe the regulatory system they want to put in place.

      That's horseshit. We have a very nice regulatory model to put in place. It's called, "common carrier".

      You're advocating a model like taxis where the regulators are overtly hostile to innovation, such as Lyft and Uber. Or if you want to go the utility route, where electric companies are forced to use a certain percentage of their electricity from favored producers such as wind farms and solar and rates are set by a centralized board. Maybe a slogan like "Net Neutrality, it'll be run just like the FAA!" would catch on.

      Ah, the exceptions. Once VOIP 911 calls are mandated to be prioritized over other data, then you'll get medical data prioritized, which makes sense, because we don't want to kill people, and then ... the same big bad companies will lobby for their data, and net neutrality becomes the opposite of net neutrality. Whoops.

      Good job inventing red herrings. "Net Neutrality is bad because bad people might do bad things in the future."

      Free markets have utterly failed when it comes to infrastructure. Why should we trust it with something as important as communications?

      We should trust free markets with infrastructure because they built the infrastructure we're using to discuss this. It's working pretty well. If you prefer a historical example, compare the great northern railroad with the first transcontinental railroad. The first was privately built and quite successful, the second received massive government subsidies, had shoddy construction, and was designed to scam the investors out of their money. As for red herrings, the phrase you're looking for is "regulatory capture," http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.... If net neutrality comes into being, I can absolutely guarantee you Cisco, Comcast, and Google will be sending their armies (figuratively) to capture the agency.

    18. Re:Fox/henhouse by Peaceful_Patriot · · Score: 1

      "Corporations don't operate in a vacuum. They're run by and for people. The rights of the corporation are merely the rights of those people."

      Wrong. Businesses file for incorporation so their owners are legally separate from that business and cannot be held liable for the actions of their corporations. Businesses exist for one purpose: to make a profit. They do not have families, get sick, love or sacrifice for each other. They don't care if their backyard is a toxic waste dump or if fish can live in the river. We don't get rid of people when then stop being profitable.

      Corporations are not people and money is not speech. We are coming very close to fascism in the US and it should scare the hell out of everyone.

      --
      There is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come.
    19. Re:Fox/henhouse by khallow · · Score: 1

      Wrong. Businesses file for incorporation so their owners are legally separate from that business and cannot be held liable for the actions of their corporations. Businesses exist for one purpose: to make a profit. They do not have families, get sick, love or sacrifice for each other. They don't care if their backyard is a toxic waste dump or if fish can live in the river. We don't get rid of people when then stop being profitable.

      How is that even remotely relevant to my claim? Reasons or purposes aren't rights. Presence or lack of emotions aren't rights. Does a car have more rights than you because it doesn't have a family or feel emotions? Does your computer have more rights than you because it doesn't care if your backyard is a toxic waste dump? These observations are nonsensical in any context.

      Corporations are not people and money is not speech. We are coming very close to fascism in the US and it should scare the hell out of everyone.

      Corporations aren't people anywhere in the world today, including the US. And money isn't speech, but speech isn't free as in beer.

    20. Re:Fox/henhouse by khallow · · Score: 1

      But as the other poster said, the owners of a businesses are legally separate. This is relevant to your claim, because rights don't just mean natural rights, but also legal rights.

      Ok, how is it relevant then? I didn't restrict consideration of rights to natural or legal rights. You have yet to speak of rights.

      You can't just say you're incorporated on your own, and expect other people to not come after you if your company did something to them. No, it takes government law (read: force and coercion) to redirect grievances towards your company.

      A fact which supports my assertion that corporations aren't being treated with special privileges or rights (aside from their raison d'etre, providing limited liability for limited ownership).

      See, you wondered why another poster doesn't get so worked up about the US government, I would ask the same of you in reverse: why aren't you getting worked up over corporations, what with them being legal entities created and supported by governments the world all over, and they've been doing this long before the US existed as a country.

      Because they don't cause the harm that governments have caused even over recent times: they don't control the world's militariesor fight the world's wars; they didn't kill a few hundred million people with the power of the state last century; they are merely a legal instrument for organizing people and business; they effectively cease to exist when they run out of money; they haven't driven away trillions of dollars a year in economic activity just from the US; they aren't Hoovering up the world's cell phone calls; and they aren't making the short-sighted global policy decisions that can harm billions of peoples' lives today.

      And if you look at the complaints that supposedly back the call for the various ills of corporations you find a combination of ignorance of the law (eg, the usual complete ignorance of what corporate personhood means), misattribution of flaws of society on corporation (eg, rich people can buy laws because corporations, rich people can evade responsibility for their actions because corporations), a confusion of government and private actors, and an outlook on the world that is profoundly stupid (such as proposing to punitively tax low salary employers like Walmart on the basis that they are "benefiting" from poverty program "subsidies" - would they rather than Walmart just automate those jobs instead to avoid paying that tax?).

    21. Re:Fox/henhouse by khallow · · Score: 1

      How is it not relevant? He has shown that you are wrong about legal rights. A corporation's legal rights are not merely its owner's rights. Corporations are a separate legal entity, with a set of legal rights of their own. That set of rights isn't just decided by what legal rights their owners have, but by the whims of government.

      Again, this is irrelevant. The corporation can't act independently of its owners and employees. It is merely a tool of their interests.

      When you ban the speech of a corporation, you're banning the speech of people acting on the corporation's behalf and hence, violating those rights. When you seize corporate property in violation of the respective amendments, you are violating the rights of the people who own that corporation. That is why there is corporate personhood in the first place.

      False dilemma. You're not stuck between corporations and government doing all those other horrible things, nor would the disappearance of corporations automatically lead to those horrible things.

      Nonsense, a key precept of modern governance is division of power. If no party or entity has control over most of the power in a society, then no party can act as a tyrant. Businesses informally provide a counterweight to government power and hence, create a division of power not explicitly recognized in constitutions of democracies.

      Corporations are just a convenient way to organize businesses. To do away with them would be to destroy one of the greater counterweights to government control of society. Even to just void selected rights of corporations is to upset the balance in a very unhealthy way.

      If it only did that, it would be a proprietorship, not a corporation. Again, a corporation is more than just a legal instrument. It's a legal instrument that depends on government. When you depend on government, you become a political tool. Government can dangle privileges to encourage or coerce behavior.

      Just like governments dole out driver's licenses? "I'm sorry, Mr. AC, but you voted for the wrong party in the last election. Your privilege to drive has been revoked." There are means for preventing governments from using their power for abuse.

      And I find it interesting that you use government abuse of power as an excuse to increase government power. That's irrationally suicidal, but typical of people who don't understand the dynamics or risks at all.

    22. Re:Fox/henhouse by khallow · · Score: 1

      No, what you said is irrelevant. Whether you can act independently doesn't change the fact that your rights are still your own. Your rights are still yours even if you're born crippled.

      The analogy doesn't work for corporations. Their owners and employees have a control over the corporation that would be illegal for people to have over each other. A typical example is ending the corporation outright. Even a complete vegetable of a human has more protection against being killed than a corporation does.

      Treating a corporation as a separate entity is a legal fiction like corporate personhood. It is not done to protect the corporation from its owners, but rather to help prevent the owners of the corporation from absconding with assets leaving uncovered liabilities.

      ...you're conflating "business" with "corporation". They're not the same. You can have a business that isn't a corporation. Removing corporations doesn't mean businesses suddenly lose all power to counterbalance government.

      You're starting to get it. There is a reason for that conflation. Corporations are only a big deal because that's by far the most popular form of organization for a large, powerful business. Nobody cares in the least about incorporated small businesses or non profits. And many, if not most, of the complaints about corporations are really complaints about large businesses.

      Corporations, I hate to remind you, existed well before modern governments and division of power. They didn't even try to counterbalance government. Some of the biggest corporations in history were created BY government to further the interests of government. East India Company comes to mind.

      And yet I remain correct. The British East India Company did despite its origins act with a considerable amount of independence of the United Kingdom and thus act as a counterweight to UK government power.

      There are means, but one that is NOT a mean is corporations, as corporations are created through government power.

      Driver's licenses are also created via government power. But that doesn't stop you from driving to a protest. Or merely just driving where you want. Being created by government power doesn't imply government control. You have to approach such situations with common sense not make it worse.

      Here, the whole thing about corporate personhood is to provide a legal mechanism for a strong constraint on how governments can control corporations. Undermine that and you increase the actual degree of government control.

  5. Re:Just reclassify them by Shuh · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It is easier to reclassify the broadband companies than to get them to play nice with the Internet. If there is REAL competition, they will get in line, because some new start-up can quickly state they have 'true' Net Neutrality.

    Ironically you may have have hit on the real reason for passing Net Neutrality. The feelgood parts of the regulation touted on /. will be toothless. Meanwhile the fine print of the regulation will outlaw new start-ups and anything else approaching "REAL competition."

  6. Pretty much all the people want net neutrality by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure of an issue that has such unanimous approval as net neutrality.

    Only a few vested greedy people who want legalized extortion websites for more money don't want them to be classified as utilities.

    It should be interesting if even under the spot light of all the eyes of people that they willingly do the wrong thing.

    --
    God spoke to me
    1. Re:Pretty much all the people want net neutrality by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure of an issue that has such unanimous approval as net neutrality.

      Y'know, for something that has "such unanimous approval", I never actually hear much about it outside /.

      Somehow, I'm suspecting that it's like the "unanimous approval" you see for a larger DoD budget on Army/Air Force/Navy bases all over the USA. In other words, the people who think that they would come out ahead under the law approve of it unanimously, and most everyone else hardly notices it.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  7. The courts already said the FCC had no ability... by whistlingtony · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is stupid. The FCC proposed the Open Internet rules a while back, and we already took those to court in 2013 and 2014. A US Circuit court stated in 2013...

    "That said, even though the Commission has general authority to regulate in this arena, it may not impose requirements that contravene express statutory mandates. Given that the Commission has chosen to classify broadband providers in a manner that exempts them from treatment as common carriers, the Communications Act expressly prohibits the Commission from nonetheless regulating them as such. Because the Commission has failed to establish that the anti-discrimination and anti-blocking rules do not impose per se common carrier obligations, we vacate those portions of the Open Internet Order."

    I can't find a quick link to the 2014 decision, but it said basically the same thing.

    So, are they common carriers? If so, they should be Title II regulated. Are they not Common Carriers? Then they're responsible for what goes over their networks, and they do NOT want that....

    The FCC can throw out all the rules it wants. We've done this. They GAVE UP the ability to regulate these companies, and all it takes to get it back is for the FCC ITSELF to decide to do so once again. It's easy. They could do it tomorrow....

    but Tom Wheeler, head of the FCC, is a former cable lobbyist... so....

  8. What's disturbing... by Glasswire · · Score: 2

    ... is that all the the commentary on the FCC vote seems to define net neutrality as not interfering with "web sites" from other parties (good, but... ) however, this is opening up a potential loophole where traffic to and from apps could be limited because they are not "web sites". We can only hope this is result of FCC trying to make their intentions more understandable to the public and that the actual proposal will be what it should be:
    ISPs should not be able to prioritize/ deprioritize IP traffic to or from the ISP client hosts with other internet hosts not affiliated with the ISP .
    This covers web site, app, OS, device and any other traffic. There probably should be an exception for traffic the client customer EXPRESSLY requests to be prioritized eg. VoIP or VPN to a particular hosts. Note that this all about the relationship with the consuming end-point, last-mile, customer. It should not impose any restriction on commercial connection, peering or other upstream contractual arrangements.

  9. It's a trap! by davidwr · · Score: 1

    The cynic in me is betting that if they vote "yes" on anything, it will be some watered-down or even totally-hijacked notion of "net neutrality" that isn't what anyone outside of "anti-net-neutrality" special-interest-groups want.

    Since there are so many eyeballs watching this right now though, the "anti-net-neutrality" groups may realize they can't push through a "compromise" so they will use other methods to see that this gets voted down. A politically easy way would be to get the language changed to favor them knowing that this will lead to the whole issue being voted down, which would suit their needs just fine.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  10. Just like obamacare by speedlaw · · Score: 1

    Watch out for the reverse play. Insurance companies screamed about the Affordable Care Act (yet another example of newspeak) The bone tossed was no pre existing condition bar to insurance, and some minor coverage tweaks. The industry GOT mandatory partcipation at the point of the IRS. The policies they are selling and you are forced to buy are crap for most folks. High deductibles mean most things aren't paid for (That trip to the ER for a bee sting reaction or five stitches will be just under the deductible) and if you end up hit by a meteor (cancer, heart) the bills will still be so high the 20% copay will bankrupt you. (those of you from civilized nations may stop making disbelieving looks now) Likewise, the industry will scream about net neutrality, but they will end up with a position more to their advantage. I can hardly wait to find out my small business website "can take advantage of faster loading" in a glossy brochure from an ISP.....