Slashdot Mirror
Republican Bill Aims To Thwart the FCC's Leaning Towards Title II
SpzToid writes U.S. congressional Republicans on Friday proposed legislation that would set "net neutrality" rules for broadband providers, aiming to head off tougher regulations backed by the Obama administration. Republican lawmakers hope to counter the Federal Communications Commission's vote on Feb. 26 for rules that are expected to follow the legal path endorsed by President Barack Obama, which Internet service providers (ISPs) and Republicans say would unnecessarily burden the industry with regulation. Net neutrality activists, now with Obama's backing, have advocated for regulation of ISPs under a section of communications law known as Title II, which would treat them more like public utilities. The White House on Thursday said legislation was not necessary to settle so-called "net neutrality" rules because the Federal Communications Commission had the authority to write them.
"which Internet service providers (ISPs) and Republicans say would unnecessarily burden the industry with regulation." - Except it IS NECESSARY, DUMMIES.
Given where US broadband is even in major metropolitan areas like San Francisco, New York, and Chicago, regulation as Title II is EXACTLY what US ISPs need to get their acts together. I mean 12 mbs down and 5 mbs up for $50/month in 2015. Give me a fucking break.
The great part of this Republican-backed shill bill? Obama is going to VETO it.
Suck THAT you plutocratic, money-grubbing, technologically-illiterate enemies of the United States. (Yes, I'm talking about the so-called "honorable" representatives who are backing this bill, whatever their political stripes may be. [Though we all know exactly what those stripes are, right?])
blog
Like that wouldn't or couldn't happen under Title II?
Now by making the ISPs "common carriers", we will get all the innovation that we got under Ma Bell before the breakup in 1983 :-(
"Software is the difference between hardware and reality"
Well before he can veto, Congress needs to actually pass something, which in and of itself is highly unlikely.
And I have absolutely zero issues with executive orders. Presidents have been using them for decades and no one ever complained until now. It's just more anti-Obama smoke and mirrors courtesy of the Koch brothers and Faux News.
Perhaps...
The reason they ended up with Title II is because that is all that is left to them. If you read what the judge said when they got shot down last time. He said 2 things title II *might* work or congress needs to fix this. There is no guarantee that it will work. In fact it may make the situation worse. No one knows how it will burn down when you put it in front of a judge (any lawyer will tell you that). In fact the only one really bitching about being title II is at&t and comcast. The rest seem semi cool with it and have said so. As it does not really change anything as most are already working in the guidelines of title II. For example Verizion is an ISP AND a phone company (which is title II). Many of them already are title II.
Congress needs to fix this. Otherwise they will keep trying to twist laws into loops that are not meant for this. The democrats sat on this for 10 years.
Title II may be the right way. But it also needs to be updated to reflect our new landscape too. It was written in the 1930s. I am thinking a bit of tech has changed a bit here and there since then...
Sigh.. There is absolutely nothing in law that allows the FCC to change the classification of anything it regulates and it certainly does not allow it to do so in order to escape a court order.
The FCC never even had power over the internet outside of encouraging it's adoption until a court case in the late 1990 which was appealed in 2000 thrust it on them. The FCC then classified it as an information service and several appeals later, the US supreme court confirmed the FCC's determination.
Now, after more than a decade, the FCC loses a battle with comcast in which a court said that the FCC does not have the power to regulate comcast's throttling users, they are inventing a way to circumvent the court rulings and all the precedence behind them including the supreme court ruling, and via executive fiat, change the classification of something in which there is absolutely no provision in law to do.
The timing of this is suspect and it likely is political theater, but the only reason you think the FCC is within it's rights is because you are ignorant of the facts and seem to take other people's words for it rather than look it up yourself. The FCC already classified the internet when it was thrust upon them. This had survived appeals and the supreme court validated it. Reclassifying it has little to do with net neutrality as many would want you to think, it has to do with the FCC losing a court case and instead of getting congress to step up and fix the problem, they decided to manipulate and contort the law in order to avoid court rulings.
I sure do think so.
Yes, leave it to Illiberals to criticize free markets. Government take-over did so well for railroads, public transport, and telephone-service, what could possibly be wrong about adding Internet to the mix?
Yes, an earlier mistake of our government letting corporations have monopolies (of cable TV) still needs to be dealt with. But the price-control you are advocating in the next paragraph only makes things worse. Because the incumbents are much better versed in dealing with the government regulators, than a newcomer will ever be.
And, while you are accusing Republicans of baby-eating, it is the Democrats who are owned by the Big Cable.
So, free market in content is a good mantra, but free market in service provision is bad? Or did you change your mind by the end of typing your post?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Speaking as a Virginia resident, and someone who generally votes left-leaning, you're correct - though he's still a dirtbag.
The reason (as I understand) that he got reelected is that it was a special election for a state legislative office. This is the sort of race that doesn't get much attention even when it's a general election. Incumbency, and party identification, carry so much more weight than actual issues, because most people never hear about the issues. Heck, I consider myself reasonably involved and aware, and even I can't remember who my state senator is offhand (it's not this guy).
To bring this full circle, this is part of the exact problem. These races have tons of power, generally fly below the radar of most voters, and also are ridiculously easy to influence with outside money. Notice how so many state legislatures have been pushing agendas doing things like blocking municipalities from offering ISP service, all at the behest of the major incumbent providers (usually who sparked the municipal offering in the first place by refusing to upgrade service in the area to something remotely modern).