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.

19 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 grimmjeeper · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you care to read the actual ruling, you'll see that it is all about routing packets. The rules say, in short, that all traffic is to be routed equally without regard to source, destination, or content. It prevents Comcast, who effectively has monopoly power in most of the markets it serves, from charging Netflix extra simply to route packets from their servers to their subscribers. The ruling also prevents service providers from rerouting web requests to competitors' servers. It also prevents outright denying access to competitors. 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.

    5. 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."
    6. 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.

    7. 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.
    8. 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

    9. Re:Why is it even a discussion? by raind · · Score: 5, Informative

      In my state Republicans are:
      -against net neutrality
      -forbids Tesla dealerships
      -want to rescind even partial deregulation in the electric and gas industries
      http://michiganradio.org/post/...
      It's sickening.

      --
      Get up!
    10. Re:Why is it even a discussion? by jriding · · Score: 5, Informative

      Do you just not understand how history works?
      Before regulations you had to RENT your phone. You were only allowed 1 provider for your local phone and could pick a long distance carrier.
      Insert Title 2, phone lines became dumb pipes, then all the cool stuff you posted about like internet, answering machines, caller id, modems, DSL etc came in to being. Regulations and breaking up AT&T so there was competition is what got everything going.
      I say bring back the government that had a backbone and a set of balls. Break up some of these banks! Break up the cable companies! Fuck em. You will hear all the people scream about how the government shouldn't meddle in private business, but its the only thing they listen to. Start breaking them up and see how all of a sudden they start to play nice, so they don't get broken up as well.

      --
      love the taste, hate the texture
    11. Re:Why is it even a discussion? by Rutulian · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Uh, no. Netflix, in case you didn't know, is a company, and (non-ISP) companies, much like individuals, purchase internet access from ISPs. Netflix purchased internet access from many upstream providers including Cogent, Level 3, and some CDNs (as well as investing in their own CDN, btw). Peering arrangements are not between companies like Netflix and Comcast. Peering arrangements are between ISPs. That's the first point.

      The second point is that Comcast is not a transit provider. It is a last-mile provider. It will, by definition, have an asymmetrical flow of traffic. This is very much a part of the peering arrangements between Cogent et al. and Comcast. It is not a new change brought on by Netflix.

      This is not about peering arrangements. This is about cable companies. Comcast, in addition to being an ISP, sells cable service. It gets revenue from any content delivered to its subscribers. This market is threatened by Netflix, and so Comcast wants to impose cable-like business arrangements on Netflix, which it sees as a content-provider. If you can't see how this is in opposition to the underlying principles of the internet, you are a fool. As soon as Comcast did it, Verizon had a go too. It wasn't going to take long for all of the last-mile networks to try to turn themselves into cable companies.

      In other news, if you are anywhere near Texas, you would know about the contract dispute between Suddenlink (cable company) and Viacom ( the parent company of Comedy Central and some other channels). Suddenlink was (is) not delivering Comedy Central to its customers. But Suddenlink the ISP knows that its customers can stream Comedy Central from the web, so it is intentionally blocking access to streaming from www.cc.com. In other words, Suddenlink is degrading its ISP service as leverage for negotiations with its cable service. You may say this is an antitrust case, and I may agree. But net neutrality probably solves the problem more efficiently.

      Net neutrality may not be perfect in every way. But to say that there are no problems out there that need to be addressed is just ignorant and head-in-the-sand.

  2. Lobbying and Contributions by Etherwalk · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here is some basic information about the legalized purchase of the relevant legislation:

    Lobbying:

    https://www.opensecrets.org/in...

    Contributions:

    https://www.opensecrets.org/in...

    1. 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.
    2. Re:Lobbying and Contributions by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 5, Funny

      Keeping politics local means less oppression

      never had a Home Owners Association where you live I see

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
  3. 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.

  4. Re:"to review new federal regulations" by Anubis+IV · · Score: 5, Informative

    That's not really what happened here though. Congress long ago gave the FCC the authority to classify communications, establish rules for them, and enforce those rules...which is exactly what the FCC has been doing all along.

    Congress didn't bat an eye when the FCC used their authority to (re-)classify cable, DSL, and wireless broadband in 2002, 2005, and 2007, respectively, under Title I of the Telecommunications Act, even though Title II had applied to some of those previously. After all, it was a burgeoning industry, so the lighter touch afforded by Title I made more sense, and there were other laws on the books to prevent the worst of the nasty things those companies might do.

    Congress didn't bat an eye when the FCC used their authority to establish policy regarding net neutrality in 2005, establish ancillary regulations piecemeal over the years, or establish stronger protections for net neutrality in 2010. After all, as these companies were getting bigger, it was becoming more and more important to ensure that they acted in ways that were fair, and with the previous rules protecting against nasty things expiring, it was time to establish new ones.

    Congress didn't bat an eye when the FCC used their authority to enforce fines against ISPs in response to nasty things they were doing. After all, them's the rules.

    But then the Supreme Court slapped down one of the rules over a procedural issue, saying that if the FCC wanted to enforce that rule, they'd first need to reclassify those communications under Title II. The FCC attempted to work with the ISPs to come up with a middle-ground, but the ISPs refused to budge, so the FCC finally went and did exactly what the Supreme Court had suggested: they used their Congressionally-granted authority to reclassify those communications under Title II.

    And now, suddenly, Congress is throwing a hissy fit. Why? Because, as it turns out, it isn't a burgeoning industry made up of companies like Prodigy and CompuServe still. Instead, it's made up of massive media and telecommunications conglomerates like Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon with hundreds of billions of dollars on the line, and they are not happy with having an appropriate classification applied to them, given that it's a lot more fun to be a misbehaving behemoth.

    The text of the rules has been public for months, even though it hadn't been added to the Federal Register yet. This isn't a "we have to pass it to see it" situation at all. And Congress has no good reason for sticking their noses into this situation, unless you consider the millions and millions of dollars they're receiving to be a good reason.

  5. 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.