Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Republicans Introduce a Bill To Overturn Net Neutrality

Posted by Soulskill on from the not-neutrality dept.

New submitter grimmjeeper writes: IDG News reports, "A group of Republican lawmakers has introduced a bill that would invalidate the U.S. Federal Communications Commission's recently passed net neutrality rules. The legislation (PDF), introduced by Representative Doug Collins, a Georgia Republican, is called a resolution of disapproval, a move that allows Congress to review new federal regulations from government agencies, using an expedited legislative process."

This move should come as little surprise to anyone. While the main battle in getting net neutrality has been won, the war is far from over. The legislation was only proposed now because the FCC's net neutrality rules were just published in the Federal Register today. In addition to the legislation, a new lawsuit was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by USTelecom, a trade group representing ISPs.

12 of 441 comments (clear)

  1. Why is it even a discussion? by cybrthng · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The open internet is one of the most democratizing things we have in a modern society, why is this even up for debate? What benefit would society have in enabling "Fast lanes" or "premium" connections or other nonsense? What do we get protecting commercial interests?

    1. Re:Why is it even a discussion? by spiritplumber · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Campaign contributions.

      --
      Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
    2. Re:Why is it even a discussion? by grimmjeeper · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The open internet is one of the most democratizing things we have in a modern society, why is this even up for debate? What benefit would society have in enabling "Fast lanes" or "premium" connections or other nonsense? What do we get protecting commercial interests?

      Calling them "fast lanes" is a misnomer. But it's shorter than calling them "paying-twice-to-get-out-of-the-technically-unnecessary-but-profit-inducing-slow-lanes".

    3. Re:Why is it even a discussion? by neghvar1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      campaign contributions according to politicians, judges and lawyers. but to us common folk, it's bribery.

    4. Re:Why is it even a discussion? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      having the government step in may not be the best solution, but its the ONLY solution we can pick.

      are you arguing for the so-called 'free hand' to auto correct?

      (wait. you're serious??)

      gov has to step in BECAUSE free market (that does not truly exist) keeps screwing the customer more and more. there is no sign of any fix coming from them; quite the opposite.

      so, SOMEONE has to step in. the gov is the only other 'power' that can help balance this out of control industry.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    5. Re:Why is it even a discussion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's because Republicans don't govern. They rail against big government and then let the corporations run ramshod over the American people while they're wined and dined by corporate lobbyists.

    6. Re:Why is it even a discussion? by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Why should congress fix last mile. Your municipality could do it without interference at all. "

      Too bad Comcast and others LOBBIED to pass LAWS that make that illegal.

      Congress needs to fix the last mile by overturning the bullshit laws in states that were passed to stop competition.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    7. Re:Why is it even a discussion? by mrchaotica · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It locks in profits for big incumbent players while blocking innovation and competition.

      You say that as if it didn't already happen anyway.

      Here's a newsflash for you: there is no "free market" in telecom. It does not exist. It has never existed. It's all regulation, all the way down.

      In actual reality, we have exactly two choice:

      1. Regulate incompetently, fostering an environment of graft and corruption that fucks over the public (this is what the Republicans want).
      2. Regulate competently, protecting the public (this is what the FCC's Title II authority attempts to do).

      You'll note that not regulating at all IS NOT A GODDAMN CHOICE, so anyone who prefers option 1 to option 2 in the name of imaginary "competition" is either a shill or a moron.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  2. Libertarianism, the new face of the GOP? by goodmanj · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This one goes out to all you libertarians who've been lining up behind the "New GOP", the Republican party that says it's looking out for individual liberties rather than corporate greed.

    And yeah, I know what the truly die-hard among you are about to say: that the people who own Comcast have a right to assemble and agree to strangle internet commerce if they want to. But I say, if you allow wealthy corporate interests to accumulate far more power than the weakened government, they effectively *become* the government, and when they "exercise their liberties" it's indistinguishable from tyranny.

    1. Re:Libertarianism, the new face of the GOP? by Uberbah · · Score: 5, Insightful

      However, I believe that once Government gets involved, no matter how noble in purpose at the start, it won't end up that way.

      Yes, there's a term for that - Confirmation Bias. These Randian notions are just as reasonable - or as asinine - as saying starting a business will lead to fraud, bribes, sexual harassment, and toxic waste siphoned into the river. Because what other businesses have done, all businesses will do.

      the FCC rules will effectively kill off smaller shops

      Baseless tautology is baseless.

      And they are solving the wrong problem. The real problem is back at the last mile, where there is NO CHOICE.

      Which can only be addressed by heavy regulation, or by (gasp!) socialized infrastructure. Both of which are anathema to Randians, so this brings us to the second term of the day: Cognitive Dissonance.

  3. Re:Lobbying and Contributions by lgw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Came here to ask this. Found it second post. Well done, sir.

    It's gets silly these days to think of congresscritters as "Democrat" or "Republican" on issues like this. Who represents Comcast? Who represents Google? For damn sure none of them represent voters.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  4. willfull obtuseness + sophistry by Uberbah · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have never seen a "Netflix charge" on my Comcast bill. They have not been charging their users extra for Netflix.

    As if you don't know who Comcast is charging here.

    They HAVE asked Netflix to pay for the capacity upgrade at the border gateways -- capacity that is being used in large part by Netflix and is making Netflix money. Netflix is profiting from a peering agreement that Comcast has to pay for. Seems fair to me that Netflix pays part of the costs of upgrade.

    Any more Comcast propaganda you want to regurgitate? You also know perfectly well that Netflix has offered to place storage services within ISP networks. But even if they weren't, it's none of Comcast's concern as Netflix is already paying for their access and Comcast's customer's are paying for theirs.