Slashdot Mirror
Republicans Back Down, FCC To Enforce Net Neutrality Rules
An anonymous reader writes: Republican resistance has ended for the FCC's plans to regulate the internet as a public utility. FCC commissioners are working out the final details, and they're expected to approve the plan themselves on Thursday. "The F.C.C. plan would let the agency regulate Internet access as if it is a public good.... In addition, it would ban the intentional slowing of the Internet for companies that refuse to pay broadband providers. The plan would also give the F.C.C. the power to step in if unforeseen impediments are thrown up by the handful of giant companies that run many of the country's broadband and wireless networks." Dave Steer of the Mozilla Foundation said, "We've been outspent, outlobbied. We were going up against the second-biggest corporate lobby in D.C., and it looks like we've won."
This is a positive step IF the FCC is limiting this to ensuring all traffic is treated equally. But too many laws, rules and regulations have been perverted by the feds to concentrate power. The last thing we need is an obamacare version of internet regulation or regulators thinking ONLY of the children or ONLY of national security.
I know its rather offtopic, but for non-US readers its relevant:
For anyone confused as to the situation of american politics in the past 8 years, the republican party has worked tirelessly to obstruct practically every piece of legislation after the ACA (healthcare legislation.) Theyve played a brinksmanship game with an artificially imposed budget limit, ironically created by them as a kudgel to complain about $cur_president's spending policies but with real power. This "debt ceiling" has been used twice to literally shut down the government. Mail didnt run, troops werent paid, contractors were furloughed, the FCC FTC and even the FDA were all deactivated not once, but twice in a bid to force the presidents hand to concede his high ground and allow their minority legislation to pass. this nihilism cost us 2 credit ratings and an estimated 24 billion dollars. Republicans gained nothing.
fast forward to 2015 when both our houses of legislature, the senate and congress, are now controlled by a gerrymandered republican electorate. The president is on his last term, something we call 'lame duck' and is now openly advocating for everything from free education to immigration reform policies. Republicans, with this control, still havent proposed an alternative to any legislation facing them, and wont even vote on major issues like campaign finance reform or immigration. whats worse, theyre still operating in a 2010 mindset of obstruct and destroy, so we're facing another brinksmanship game in which they threaten to stop funding for the Department of Homeland Security. about 240,000 employees would go unpaid, but be required to work, and every airport in the nation would likely experience a significant impact. Random government shutdowns have major repercussions in world markets that rely on a confident and reliable american government to back things like currencies and bonds.
so for republicans to back down on net neutrality is a serious step forward in a party that generally toes every corporate lobbyists hard line. Remember: theyre the party that apologized for inconveniencing BP during the largest oil spil in recent american history, and yet at this moment have conceeded to the will of the public.
Good people go to bed earlier.
POTUS doesn't need to sign it.
It's rule making by an established authority within their jurisdiction.
The only way they can undo it is through the courts, or revising the laws establishing the FCC's authority.
Because such a bill WOULD require POTUS' signature, that is unlikely to happen, at least until 2024.
Therefore the courts are the more likely option, but the courts previously established in their prior ruling on net neutrality how the FCC could or should do what they wanted to do, when they struck the previous attempt.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
That's not entirely truthful, from what I remember reading.
The links were allowed to become congested alright, because Verizon and Comcast refused to upgrade them when they did upgrades elsewhere, and told Netflix in no uncertain terms that they would not upgrade them unless the extortion payment was met.
It also glosses over what I read, in that neflix offered co-location of local cache servers INSIDE those networks, to reduce the effects of congested links, whch both verizon and comcast refused.
"The internet has been largely unregulated and that has been a really good thing. Most of the growth and innovation we've seen has happened there."
This is not regulation of the Internet, but regulation of the means by which the Internet is accessed.
There are more than a few comparable regulatory actions which helped create the growth of the Internet. Significantly, there was the Carterphone action, which allowed modems to be connected to the Bell network, against their wishes. There was also state regulation of the Bells, which prevented them from charging exorbitant rates for those modem connections. There are the common carrier regulations, by which telco providers receive free or very low cost access to public rights-of-way, avoiding the costs of negotiating and renting land wherever they run their lines. Similarly with cable - they're given access to public rights of way and a monopoly position in exchange for being subject to regulation.
If any of them want to build out services entirely in the free market without making use of public resources, negotiating and paying for all access rights, then I'll support that service being unregulated.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Oh look, yet another low info voter.
Gigi Sohn, a special counsel for Wheeler, said the text of the actually net neutrality rules are only 8 pages. She said the other pages responds to the millions of public comments, "as required by law."
https://twitter.com/GigiBSohnF...
There is a war going on for your mind.
There are only eight pages of new rules. The rest is explanation, history, legal justification, and commentary. More here: http://e-pluribusunum.com/2015...
Actually I do know what they are about to do. The FCC released a 4 page summary of what the regulations were going to accomplish earlier this month. Just because you have no idea what's going on doesn't mean the rest of us are as uninformed.
http://transition.fcc.gov/Dail...
There is a war going on for your mind.
Nothing you posted refutes anything at all.
And surprise, surprise I still have the same doctor & (a better) health plan, but my fiance w/ an expensive sleep disorder was actually able to get insurance.
Congratulations, I'm glad it worked out for you. For many others, not so much. Of course, you completely ignore that a promise was made: "Let me be CLEAR: If you like your doctor, you can keep them." And not only that, Obama knew this was not the case prior to making the statement, so he purposely lied to get people to support it. Then after that, he lied about the lie.
Even though SM doesn't give an explicit example related to the issue, this administration has a very long track record of saying they're going to do one thing, and then doing something else. That's not F.U.D. Stay classy, Jaysyn!
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
"Congratulations, I'm glad it worked out for you. For many others, not so much."
I don't think there are many legitimate cases where it did not work out. People who had junk insurance (insurance where you pay money but get nothing of value) had to drop it. Sure. I'll give you that.
In my particular case, I was denied insurance. And I did not even have any existing conditions. I went 8 years without insurance or having to see a doctor. I guess I saved some money. But now they can no longer deny me insurance. I fail to see Obamacare as a bad thing.