Slashdot Mirror
Republicans Introduce a Bill To Overturn Net Neutrality
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.
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.
It prevents Comcast, who effectively has monopoly power in most of the markets it serves,
Except for all those other ISPs, that is. If this problem is of so much concern to the customers, why has no other company stepped in to provide better service? Defacto monopolies cannot survive when competition is justified to solve service issues.
from charging Netflix extra simply to route packets from their servers to their subscribers.
So you're buying Netflix' spin on the issue? Your link is to a Netflix statement. It isn't about routing, it's about solving border congestion. The route is the same.
In fact, the ruling states quite clearly that ISPs are to act as common carriers and no censorship of content is to take place at all.
Applying only to all "legal" content. Illegal content, such as gambling sites or whatever else the government decides is illegal, can be censored at will. By the way, distribution of classified material is illegal, so goodbye Wikileaks.
Further, the ruling does nothing to solve the congestion issues.
You would know this if you actually read the ruling...
It prevents Comcast, who effectively has monopoly power in most of the markets it serves
I wouldn't single out Comcast in this manner, they're not uniquely a monopoly any more than other ISPs (and they're not, most people have multiple options for Internet access, virtually everyone if you include wireless options).
charging Netflix extra simply to route packets from their servers to their subscribers
Netflix represents the majority of Internet traffic. Not just the biggest, but the majority. Mathematically, making a "swap" peering agreement while carrying Netflix traffic is going to be impossible because the exchange will be asymmetrical.
Every content provider who wants a fat uplink pipe needs to pay for it, and Netflix is no exception.
The ruling also prevents service providers from rerouting web requests to competitors' servers.
This is called fraud. It was always illegal.
It also prevents outright denying access to competitors.
Always been illegal. Not the FCC's jurisdiction, anyways.
In fact, the ruling states quite clearly that ISPs are to act as common carriers and no censorship of content is to take place at all. You would know this if you actually read the ruling and stopped reading propaganda coming from right wing "news" sources.
[Citation Needed]
I've read the thing cover to cover.
Wonder what the public key field is for?
You probably have one ISP to choose from. What if they dislike Slashdot and charged you extra for visiting Slashdot?
Then that's not Internet access. If I pay for Internet access, I expect Internet access.
Second, why does a hypothetical situation that's never happened justify giving the FCC, home of the nipple-protection-squad, more authority over our Internet?
Comcast is doing that right now to Netflix. You the customer who pays an ISP has to pay three times for the same bandwidth because your ISP doesn't like the content of what you are viewing. That is the only reason.
Netflix's traffic isn't being routed any differently than any other company's traffic. Therefore, there can be no Net Neutrality violation.
Wonder what the public key field is for?
What problem? The FCC named zero problems. Only hypotheticals that could possibly happen sometime in the future.
Is that a good reason to let them expand their authority? What if they try to reinstate Broadcast Flag, or shut down sex services like they did with phones using Title II? The ends don't justify the means.
Wonder what the public key field is for?
The FCC Title II rules might get overturned?! The Internet might be the Wild West that it was one whole month ago! Oh the humanity, we can't possibly have that!
Wait, what was so bad about the Internet one month ago, again? I'm pretty sure Net Neutrality was still the de facto standard.
Wonder what the public key field is for?
And that's also because democrats over-govern. They continually build bigger government and then let the corporations run ramshod over the American people while they're wined and dined by corporate lobbyists.
If the FCC successfully claims that the Internet is a Title II service (it's not), then besides being blatantly dishonest, they also get the authority to censor the Internet and impose draconian rules like they did on the PSTN.
e.g. did you know it was illegal to plug your own phone into the PSTN? Welcome to Title II.
With Title II Internet, the FCC has done nothing and opened the door to great harm in the future, all at once.
Wonder what the public key field is for?
the federal government SHOULD be doing as little as possible. Keeping politics local means less oppression as mission creep seeps in
also - term limits
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Netflix. Comcast. Double-charging. That happened.
I have never seen a "Netflix charge" on my Comcast bill. They have not been charging their users extra for Netflix.
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.
In fact, I'd say that if Comcast has to increase everyone's bill to pay for capacity upgrades required to handle Netflix traffic, THAT would be charging their customers for Netflix traffic -- even if the customers aren't Netflix customers.
In any case, Netflix is not being throttled. All traffic through that gateway is seeing congestion, not just them.
The Tea parties foundations where straight up bonkers from day 1 when that stockbroker dude flipped out on TV about how unfair it was bankers might get punished.
screw that noise. Each and every one of those teabag nuts where stooges from day 1. It was a movement born rotten.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
God! Why are so many Slashdotters so hopelessly naive on this subject?! The Net Neutrality regulations were a major overstep by the FCC and SHOULD have been a law passed by Congress. Therefore, JUST to preserve our own liberty it ought to be struck down by Congress.
however, the regulations as they stand now will HURT innovation. I don't understand why so many of you can't see that?! Did the words "net neutrality' short circuit your reasoning process?
Slashdot Valentines Beta Massacre: iT WORKED! The boycotts killed Beta!!