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 good news but the deed isn't done until Comcast, TWC, AT&T, and Verizon are defeated in court.
"Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
This sounds good-- but I wonder just what form that regulation will take, and what level of regulatory capture will emerge.
The republicans gave up too easily. Look how long and drawn out their battle against Obamacare was. In comparison, this measure seems to have been abandoned without much fight. I can't help but wonder why.
Good job, leftists. I hope you like what you got.
"In addition, it would ban the intentional slowing of the Internet for companies that refuse to pay broadband providers"
Or, from a different perspective, this bans Internet companies from paying more $$$ for faster connections without government approval.
Don't shoot the messenger; I heard exactly this on Bloomberg this morning.
Fucking Constitution. Delegation of powers is the reason Congress is irrelevant anymore. Over the years it has delegated so much power to the Executive that we have basically returned to a monarchy.
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.
This is us citizens being forcibly raped by the US government so big corporations can get away with sanctioned murder. Time to IMPEACH!
The hired help can claim to have been doing their job all along, but it was really hard, what with all that public opposition and all.
Who wants to fight for lobbyist's interests when the cause is clearly lost and 4 MILLION AMERICANS WROTE TO VOICE THEIR OPINION DIRECTLY TO THE FCC? But the hired can certainly say they tried hard to serve 'their interests' to those that might come calling in the future.
It is not as if the hired help actually believed they ever served the public's stated interests.
Of course, we don't fully what the rules will do since they have been acting in secrecy!
The problem with government involving itself in net neutrality is that it will most likely address the issues with the ISP's but create new issues with government regulations. Government can't seem to do anything for the greater good without getting some sort of control in return. I think its clear that is where the Obama administration wants the FCC to provide. I am in agreement that the internet should be like your electrical, gas, or telephone has been. Just supply me the service and I will do with it what I want. I understand the caps being imposed in some means because the ISP does not have unlimited bandwidth and imposing some sort of reasonable cap would allow everyone the ability to have the same service capabilities. Maybe as technology improves capacity those caps can be raised or even eliminated. The ones I have seen do not impose any restrictions on most users. In any case, this is more about providing a even and fair service to customers for whatever means they use the internet for. Not as a way to impose government control over the internet. I remember how poorly the government handled the telephone deregulation, or the air industry, or trucking, in which all of those services were negatively affected by deregulation. What should happen is a simple mandate to make internet traffic neutral and prevent ISP's from charging for preferential traffic consideration. I have no doubt that whatever government does will be over the top and will be anything but net neutrality.
"Some Washington lobbyists are beginning to argue that the FCC mission doesn't just cover the Internet. Advocates for pay-TV providers are saying the FCC should use Section 706 to act more aggressively against the companies that produce TV content. Why? Because the pay-TV providers think the content producers are charging them too much for programming — and because programming costs eat into the budget for building, say, cable broadband, what hurts pay-TV providers could hurt the spread of broadband.
In short, if cable companies can convincingly argue that their costs of buying programming are effectively a barrier to broadband deployment, that's a case for federal intervention."
They didn't back down, they lost the vote, 3-2.
Enjoy your $60,000,000,000 in new taxes.
See that "Preview" button?
A lot of people are gleeful about the FCC stepping in to shut down the nonsense from the likes of Comcast. However, those same people forget that this is the same government has demonstrated an indifference to due process, personal privacy, and basically just does whatever it wants whenever it wants... and if you complain you'll just get stonewalled until you die of old age.
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. With the FCC stepping in to regulate it, we should consider what happened to other industries they've regulated.
Look at radio and broadcast TV. Notice the innovation and dynamic response to changing circumstances? Me neither.
The issue is that it always starts out with good intentions. But ultimately they start spelling out what you're allowed to do and not do in extreme detail to such an extent that you can't do anything that they haven't thought of... and that means you can't change because it is literally illegal.
I hope I'm wrong. But this could be the beginning of the end of the internet as we've known it.
What is more... when the FCC starts regulating the hell out of it... we can expect the likes of China and the EU to be right behind the US... the whole network will clap down on itself.
Hopefully some measure of freedom can survive in the deep web but I imagine they'll make that illegal at some point if only because it tends to draw the drug dealers and pedophiles.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
for once those stupid hill billies won't be allowed to fuck the ecoomy!
Freedom is like Cake you can't have it and eat it at the same time because once eaten or used it's gone. The eating part is where you can either have congress (legislation) control it or the Corps will. Phone and cable jack rates almost monthly. Although I have more channels to watch the content all sucks so I lost freedom to control it. Net neutrality speaks for at least the part where we have choice in the content we want to surf. Without it we will have to work through the same pile of crap load we get with cable to find that small website on programming a raspberry Pi or making your own fishing lures like gram-pa did before internet not like the young punk in Dicks sporting goods. Believe it or not once you give up NN you won't get it back the greed takes over and you loose the freedom of choice in content. As it is already search content is "dictated" to you now. We once had a search engine that worked when you had serious work to do now the results are polluted with unrelated crap. Sure we have a bazillion petabytes more data out there to search but it's still about hitting the content you want. Have to go, my sponsor wants the soapbox back.
While I agree the thought of net neutrality sounds good, think about the NSA scandle. We can't trust the NSA. What makes anyone think they can trust the FCC to do things right? It is the same government. You can't have it both ways.
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.
The real problem is we don't know what is in the rest of the bill. If memory serves me it's 399 pages. Restrictions on internetwork data speeds don't take that many pages to write.
This is the Obama administration we're talking about. The same one that dictated the IRS to audit and kill off as many tea party people and groups as it can while not doing the same to leftist orgs. What if the FCC will require registration of websites to the federal government? What if they disagree with your political content and don't grant you license? Will you be operating a website illegally in the US? Sounds far fetch, but the issue of "we don't like what they're saying online" has been brought up in the FCC a few times. I wouldn't put it past Obama admin to use Net Neutrality as a way to get more federal control over what you put online. "Never let a crises go to waste"
Then there is the whole issue of the FCC, EPA, NSA, FBI, etc making their own rules and laws without them actually being laws...
For some reason I have a feeling this is going to be a bad, even if it addresses the real net neutrality issue, everything else tacked on is toxic!
Hopefully I won't have to use onion sites to read the news.
that have actually been perverted. Say what you will about Obamacare but there's no part about that law that isn't functioning as intended. Maybe you disagree with the intent of the law, but it's doing exactly what it was written to.
You're problem isn't with the laws, it's with the yahoos writing them.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
First, IANAR (I am not a republican). Dummycraps pass the shit sandwich known as Obamacare and my insurance went to worse coverage for higher prices. Maybe I'm wrong, but another effort to change how a large sector of the economy operates, and debated in secret, is following a bad precedent. Just remember that these rules are being pushed by the same administration that has prosecuted more whistleblowers in history, especially with regard to torture, and would like to see Snowden's head on a silver platter, so their track record on doing what is ethically right is really not great. But, don't let that cognitive dissonance get in your way...
The mundanes still believing in Kabuki theater. Money talked and won. Move along. The repulicrats will do as they please when they decide to do as such. Same Ivy schools, same banking lords, same families, same parties, and you're not in 'em - George Carlin.
Is it and why does it take 332 pages of unpublished regulations to accomplish it?
I only have a lightweight understanding of how the internet works, but is it possible a some future date that the providers could offer both net-neutral and net-freedom (my name for the a Comcast, Verizon optimized package). I suppose it would only be really feasible if there could be one hardware solution for the ISP that both packages could run in since a lot of people might start out with the net-neutral package but quickly switch to the net-freedom package when they see how awesome it is.
Hope you enjoy your ISP oligopoly frozen in place for the next 50 years, idiots.
The Cake is a lie
Camel, Meet Tent.
I think that most people here on Slashdot will rue the day these regulations go into affect.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
When I read the headline, the first thing that popped into my head was a Robert Heinlein short story. I think the name was Magic Incorporated. The best that I remember of the story is that the demons from hell are trying to get a law passed in Congress. The good guys got together and blocked the law from being passed. But during the celebration party, it was found out that what the demons wanted to get passed as a separate law was put on as a rider on a different bill and was passed. The outcome of this was that the good guys had to go to hell to fight the demons.
Yeah... well I'll keep the cork in until we see just how many hidden scams are added to any legislation.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Sig Heil #Obama #Dictatorship! #netneutrality #wearefucked!
What the hell is wrong with Slashdot these days?
"Republicans Back Down" is what is known in the trade of journalism as a "standing head". It is a newspaper headline, all preset in type, ready to be used for ANY morning's newspaper. That is how predictable Republicans are. They will ALWAYS back down, because it is all Kabuki Theatre. All they can imagine is being obstructionist, with no real agenda whatsoever of their own, and their pre-planned end strategy is to ALWAYS throw up their hands and say "oh, well".
I'll make it plainer. They have all turned into a bunch of PUNKS. Anyone who takes them seriously is a SAP.
How the hell can anyone be so blindly in favor of something when you aren't allowed to read the proposal before it's voted on? How can you possibly believe that this won't turn into colossal clusterf*ck? Do you really trust the government to do the right thing sight unseen? Have major companies ever bent over and taken it without passing it on to the customers? Do you honestly believe that this is going to level the playing field when you aren't allowed to know what the rules of the game are before starting?
You might want to read a real example of what's going to happen all over.
http://hyperborean.liberty.me/...
I congratulate the winning corporate overlords for defeating their rival corporate overlords. Keep up the good work, we're rooting for you!
I'm sorry, but this is not completely correct.
I am a network engineer and I have been in the I.T. field for over 30 years. My job is to break into computer networks (white hat hacking).
There are not two plans regarding this subject, there are THREE. Listed below.
1. Do nothing which results in Internet service providers throttling bandwidth that we pay for. Most people do not want this.
2. Net Neutrality. This is the idea that the Internet should be left alone because it's been working fine for decades. This is what a majority of the people want, and what they all think they are getting.
3. "Net Neutrality". The FCC and Obama came up with a plan to let governemnet agencies have vast sweeping control over what we see, hear and say on the Internet and they called this plan "Net Neutrality". Same name, but completely different meaning.
We can't see what it says until after it gets voted on, but we know it's over 300 pages long. The claim you just made would all fit on a single page.
Some of the vast control they would have is the ability to seize any and all records without any kind of warrant, and to just hand over information to TSA, even though it has nothing to do with travel. They will have sweeping powers, but at the beginning they will only implement the ones they said, just so the public would accept it. Later, they start implementing more and more, a little at a time so it's not noticed very much.
This is an important issue that could result in civil war. and everybody needs to writed the Senators and Representatives and DEMAND the FCC be completely stopped from getting ANY control on the Internet.
Those wacky right-wing zealots at the EFF posted an article about some issues with the "General Conduct Rule" that is being proposed. To be honest, it sounds a lot like a catch-22 that could be used to go after almost any provider on almost any grounds. The potential for abuse is staggering, especially given the very blurred lines between the private and public sector in recent decades. Link: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...
This will be the new government line: "Some packets are more equal than others."
Let it be remembered that the day the internet died, it was to the majority of Slashdot applauding. You just let the only entity more corrupt than the telecommunications companies take over the internet.
Joy.
"In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash"
After all the fighting by carriers & government officials I have to wonder what the catch is going to be. I highly doubt this is a "we were wrong, lets get this fixed" mentality ("we" is not limited Republicans, there was a lot of corporate/political interests involved). More likely they saw the writing on the wall (judicial, public, etc) and wanted to be seen as on the wining side while getting some of their own interests snuck into the regulation making.
Look. The only reason you wouldn't be able to keep your insurance that the ACA could even *vaguely* be named responsible for is if it was so bad that it didn't meet the minimum standards of the ACA, and your insurance company didn't upgrade the policy accordingly -- most likely, they cancelled it in favor of new policies that *did* meet the minimum requirements. The whole *point* of the ACA was to see to it that people were *sufficiently* insured.
Otherwise, the only reasons you would lose your current insurance would be if the insurance company cancelled your policy -- and in that case, the blame lands squarely on the insurance company; or your employer decided to take the opportunity to cut your benefits and blame it on the ACA. In that case, look to your employer.
As for your doctor, the only ACA-related reason you might not be able to keep your doctor is if they don't bother to register with the pool you chose -- and all you have to do there is tell your doctor which one it is. And if they fail to register, you can blame your doctor. My doctor did the right thing, and she's still my doctor. I specifically asked, and she said there was almost nothing to it.
Now, let's look this issue right in the face. Are there conditions where you couldn't keep your doctor? Sure. For instance, if your doctor got run over by a bus. Or retired. Or committed suicide. Or moved to Botswana. Or switched jobs. So "Obama lied", right? But of course, if you're a sane person and not trying to shill your way through a bout of Obama-hate, you would understand that there will be some exceptions, and generally, they're going to be related to the doctor's circumstance -- just as the bus incident would be. Because there isn't one damn thing in the ACA that says "this here doctor can't be used."
As with the previous poster, my circumstances were enormously improved by the ACA. I did get to keep my doctor (it was no problem at all, she just did a little paperwork, that was it) and my coverage is now excellent.
Is everything perfect? No. Republicans are blocking the medicaid expansion here, so many no- and low-income individuals who were intended to be covered by the ACA, aren't. While this goes on, the taxes we paid here to cover them go to another state as the already-allocated funds are disbursed elsewhere. Consequently, our medical and insurance costs here are rising because we are paying the hospitals for uncompensated care for people who should have been covered, and for which the funds were already allocated.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
now if only mozilla could also have fought for free video format, but for this cause, yeah fuck that...
RIP mozilla
The GOP-controlled Congress will soon be zeroing-out the budget for the FCC to do any enforcement on this ruling. They do control the purse-strings, but it is the most cowardly, corporate-whore, Machiavellian play imaginable. Nothing will change and consumers will pay ever more to monopolies.
So, does this now mean my ILEC has to open up its DSLAM and fiber to my company, or other ISPs and telecomms? Didn't think so.
Doofuses. This is overreach, and overkill. It's possible some sort of Congressional band-aid *might* have been appropriate here, but you chuckleheads have used your geek clout to open Pandora's box. Expect to see full-blown Central Committee censorship within, oh, 5 years. It was already headed there, but this clinches it.
Just remember that somebody told you so, Dumbasses. Everything from IP "rights" to political correctness now trumps the 1st amendment, property rights, and contract law.
Particularly sad to see the EFF involved in this.
will now be controlling your internet. Oh, and it always was about control - they've (Dems and Repubs) always wanted control over the internet. Now they will have it under the guise of "net neutrality", and you guys fell for it.
Can anybody see the train wreck ahead?
They have to vote on the new rules so we can see what they are.
Win for corporations or anybody else that can afford to lobby.
When do nameless, faceless, unaccountable bureaucrats have enough fine-grain control of everything you do?
Along with these new 'Net Neutrality' laws comes the power for the FCC to decide what is "lawful traffic".
Think of Janet Jackson's nipple slip. Imagine the joy once the FCC gets control of the internet.
The FCC doesn't care about your net neutrality - it is the carrot being dangled to get control over this space.
Time travel is possible. We are quickly heading for 1984.
Seems the chickens have realized who is guarding them.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Page number count doesn't mean anything and you know it! Since it was so short, I posted it here for all of Slashdot to read:
I'm always glad to see people get what they asked for. I just don't see why I have to get what they asked for.
All we need to know about the intent of this regulation is that they've refused to make the text public for review. I'm all for neutering Comcast, et. al., but hiding the text of the regulations leads me to believe I'll be neutered, too.
i get gop email...here's where some of their money went:
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 08:42:22 -0500
From: Senator Rand Paul
Subject: the latest insult
Protect Internet Freedom
Big government can’t seem to keep its hands off of anything.
*The latest insult: President Obama and the Federal Communications Commission
are going to take over the Internet on February 26th if we don’t do everything
we can do to stop them right now.*
A plan deceivingly referred to as “Net Neutrality,” involves declaring the
Internet a “public utility” and gives the FCC the power to decide what Internet
service providers can charge and how they operate. This is not only a direct
attack on the free market, but it will also result in an increase in Internet
access fees for millions of consumers in America. It’s a massive tax on the
middle class, plain and simple.
The details are complicated but here’s the truth: _If "Net Neutrality" is
passed, for the first time ever, the Internet will be under the rule of an
antiquated regulation designed for land line telephones._ President Obama wants
to take something that’s working just fine, and tie it up in red tape--sound
familiar? We've seen this movie before--it's called ObamaCare.
The FCC plans to vote on Feb. 26th on whether or not the government should take
their usual heavy handed approach to controlling the Internet or do the right
thing and leave it alone.
*I need your help to tell President Obama and the FCC: "Don't mess with the
Internet!"*
An unregulated Internet has been the single greatest catalyst in history for
individual liberty and free markets on the planet. It has created the greatest
revolution since Henry Ford invented the Model T.
Let's get this straight--technology has progressed because it has been driven by
a free and open Internet--not because of DC bureaucrats. This latest attempt to
regulate the web threatens to interrupt that positive innovation, set the market
back, and kill jobs.
A free, flourishing Internet is as important as anything man has ever created.
But those freedoms are under assault.
*Please, stand with me and help protect Internet freedom by signing this
petition today.*
These attempts to regulate the Internet are a direct attack on the freedom of
information and an innovative market. The government needs to stay out of the way.
Free markets are worth protecting. Please tell your friends, your families, that
there’s nothing neutral about net neutrality. *We have to stop this aggressive,
invasive, and harmful regulation and we need all the help we can get to do it.*
Sincerely,
Senator Rand Paul
Paid for by Protect Internet Freedom
This email was sent by: Romney for President Inc., 138 Conant St., 1st Floor,
Beverly, MA 01915.
This message reflects the opinions and representations of the Protect Internet
Freedom, and is not an endorsement by Mitt Romney. You are receiving this email
because you signed up as a member of Mitt Romney's online community on 2012-11-06
This is NOT about playing fair with Netflix, but about regulation, taxation, control, and the censorship of information on the Internet.
1. Will need a FCC license to run a website.
2. All content will have to comply with FCC rules.
3. No more free speech on the Internet, (Think China, and their version of the Internet).
Thanks, FCC for "Net Castration".
These regulations are not just about Netflix vs Comcast, but about taxation, censorship, Gov. control, and limiting free speech.
1. Web sites need to get a new license. (Think big fee).
2. Web sites must filter ALL content to comply with FCC.
3. No more free speech as we know it. (Think China's version of the Internet).
Thanks FCC, for "Net Castration".
Here Here, you're spot on !.
If this so called "Net Neutrality" is soooh! great then why is it not posted on the Internet (Full Text) for All to see and read). This is not about Netflix vs Comcast, or some other distraction, they already struck a deal. It's about taxation, full control, licensing, and limiting and/or eliminating free speech, diverget thought, and the free flow of information on the Internet (Think China's Version of the Internet). 1. Web sites and ISP's will need to get a new license every year. (Think Big Fee). 2. Web sites and ISP's will need to pay new taxes, which costs will be passed on to the consumer. 3. Web sites and ISP"s will have to filter ALL content to comply with ALL new FCC rules/guidelines. 4. Web sites and ISP's will have to furnish Proof, that they are in compliance with ALL FCC rules/guidelines. Thanks FCC, For "NetTrojan". ")
Let the a bunch of leftsts financed by George Soros take complete federal control over the internet, and micromanage it however they wish with a series of secret regs they refuse to release and refuse to testify about, based on a problem very few, if any, people can define or even say affected them in any way. Then, cheer, as the last resistance to this scheme is surrendered by people who are also probably being paid off. What could go wrong? Only a Progessive calls that progress.
Comcast is a HUGE contributor to Obama and the DNC... THEY are the one company on Earth LEAST likely to be affected by this. THEY will get waivers from any of the 300+ pages of regs that will initially roll-out of the FCC just like the President's important allies got healthcare waivers, it'll be any future startup company that will find it cannot get waivers from the avalanche of new rules that the unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats will write and apply to the net over the next 20 years; as with ALL other federal regulatory moves, there is no limit to the number and scope of future rules. Have you ever LOOKED at your phone bills????? One these regs kick in, the clock will start ticking to the roll-out of mini tax after mini tax on your internet bills ("universal access fee", "handicapped access fee", "rural areas fee", etc ... it'll all sound so "nice" but it will all just be taxes.). The ISPs will become as "free" as at hour hardline phone company with start-ups as frequently arising as they do in landline phone service.
Dopes who bought into the "net neutrality" promise are going to really HATE the effects ten years from now... and then they'll blame Republicans...
The Republicans DID NOT "shut down the government"
1. The gutless Republican leadership was afraid of a shutdown so they offered Obama bugets that fully-funded EVERYTHING that had always previously been funded, even funded Planned Parenthood, which is an outrage to many Republicans, (it just lacked NEW funding for Obamacare). When Obama refused to accept the money, HE shut the government down. HE ordered employees of the government to go around closing parks etc (which he supposedly could not do for lack of cash... but that's another detail that proves how political he was being)
2. The Republican leaders then panicked some more and offered Obama a budget with ALL the money, including for Obamacare, but with a 1-year waiver on the "employer mandate". Obama refused to accept the money and HE kept the government "closed" (even though most government workers kept working and were promised they'd get all their pay)
3. The Republican leaders fully-caved to Obama...fully funding everything with no strings attached. Obama took the money and "re-opened" the government allowing government workers to keep the unemployment the collected while not being payed AND re-paying them the missed paychecks (so they basically got windfall profits and an extra full-pay vacation). The Obama, several months later, used his pen and implemented a 1 year delay to the employer mandate to push the negative effect past the 2014 elections to try to save the Democrat senate (and thereby proving that much of the shutdown was actually just Obama playing political games... he was perfectly willing to do the mandate delay to benefit Democrat politicians)
When Obama was inaugurated, he announced that "I won, you lost" to the Republicans... and he NEVER actually negotiated ANY compromises with them (he wasd never willing to make ANY commitment in ANY meeting with the GOP and in all comments on the subject he says he hoped Republicans "get over" thier beliefs and compromise with him, always with the caveat that his positions would not change as part of any such compromise - in other words his definition of compromise is "you agree to go my way")
Yes. Mitch McConnel said his job was to make Obama a 1-term president... but ALL opposition party leaders say that. Tip O'Neil said HIS job was to make Reagan a 1-termer... what is completely unprecedented in US politics is a president who refuses to compromis on anything and refuses to negotiate on anything, even after costing his own party control of both the House and the Senate.
No, that is NOT what net neutrality means, despite it being the standard "response" whilst the anti-NN PR push was underway as to why NN was terrible.
If you QoS VoIP over FTP, this is NOT necessarily a violation.
If you QoS YOUR VoIP over someone ELSE'S VoIP, then that IS a violation,
If you QoS YOUR VoIP over FTP, then that IS a violation.
NN and common carrier means you can prioritise types, but not routes. Just like you can get express delivery (for more money) than standard delivery with the common carrier of the postal service. 911 calls are prioritiesed over all other calls (you can dial 911 even if you have no legitimate phone access because you failed to pay line rental) by the common carrier telephone services.
So, the neutrality debate is about network providers adjusting performance for different types of content. It seems to me, far more important question than if they are legally allowed to do it, is WHY ARE THEY ABLE TO DO IT? A much bigger problem is the fact that they are able to tell anything at all about the content, because that means it's not secure and should be a violation of privacy. I'd prefer net neutrality failed, because we shouldn't be depending on network providers to monitor our traffic for content type, but we should fix that by making it impossible, not by legal means which clearly no longer apply to the government itself and by extension, the companies that facilitate communications. FCC net neutrality ruling doesn't fix the problem, it just lets the government PRETEND they've fixed the problem. Plus, the govenrment wants net neutrality, else how are they going to "fast lane" their surveillance program traffic without exposing it to dweebs at the ISPs?
I was putting pressure on my Representative (R) though I had no influence with my two Senators since they are both from the (D) party. I pushed for the "the Internet is a utility" based on first principles in the Republican party, which does not always lead to wanting private ownership of public goods.
"There is no god but allah" - well, they got it half right.
A few questions...
1. Who decides what "legal" content is?
"Net neutrality, or open Internet, is the principle that Internet service providers should give consumers access to all legal content and applications on an equal basis"
a. is hate speech legal?
b. is Tor legal?
c. is bullying legal?
d. is encryption legal?
e. torrents?
2. How will they know if content is "illegal" content?
3. Isn't regulated the opposite of open?
4. Hasn't the FCC always wanted to regulate the internet but we have always stopped them to keep the internet "open" and "free"
The regulation only states that ISPs may not throttle or block content providers. NETFLIX will still pay to get their pipe directly into the local ISP switch. To do otherwise will put their streams in jeopardy as the net gets congested with various "natural" bottlenecks that the ISPs have no control over.
Continues to be home to a bunch of statist creeps. The reflexive leftism and statism here shows how brainwashed you all are. Keep drinking the Koolaid.
I guess that means a stopped 24-hour clock is right 170 times more often than the GOP in congress...
Furries make the internet go.
If the telcos and cablecos weren't allowed to consolidate their monopolies.
For the last 30 years baby bells have been asking for and getting favourable legislation at state/regional level (legislated monopolies and mergers being allowed) in exchange for promises to invest in infrastructure.
In EVERY SINGLE CASE, those promised rollouts have been cancelled long before completion, but state regulators haven't baulked when the telcos have gone back asking for even more concessions (including undoing local-loop unbundling access and driving virtually every CLEC out of operation - there are fewer now than there were in 1981)
The end result is that AT&T is almost completely reassembled without that pesky "universal service" obligation that got imposed in it in 1934 as part of the massive antitrust action which created Title II in the first place.