Slashdot Mirror
Net Neutrality Is Trump's Next Target, Administration Says (fiercetelecom.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Fierce Telecom: During a press event yesterday, White House spokesman Sean Spicer said that next up on President Trump's telecom agenda is to roll back the FCC's 2015 Open Internet net neutrality rules. However, according to some reports, that might not happen as quickly as Congress' recent move to rescind rules that prevented internet service providers from selling users' data. As noted by the New York Times, Spicer said that President Trump had "pledged to reverse this overreach" created by net neutrality. He said the FCC's net neutrality rules, passed in 2015, are an example of "bureaucrats in Washington" placing unfair restrictions on internet service providers, essentially "picking winners and losers" in the telecom market. In comments aimed at the wider telecom market, Spicer said Trump will "continue to fight Washington red tape that stifles American innovation, job creation and economic growth." However, as the NYT reports, the process to repeal net neutrality likely won't follow the same procedure as Congress' recent vote to remove broadband privacy rules -- since those rules were only a year old, Congress was able to use the Congressional Review Act to move forward with its action. The FCC's net neutrality rules, however, are more than two years old and so can't be reviewed by that same act. Thus, it may fall on newly installed FCC Chairman Ajit Pai to rescind the FCC's Open Internet rules, which he voted against when he was a commissioner at the agency under former chief Tom Wheeler.
I pity those who actually thought he cares about IT and science as evident by the posts.
Enjoy those non existent tax cuts and ISPs selling your browsing history and capped low QOS connections. Don't let your employer find your porn history?
http://saveie6.com/
That was resolved (correctly) BEFORE REGULATION.
No it wasn't, and your link is proof of that. Your "resolution" involved Netflix paying a fee to Comcast to deliver packets that Comcast's customers had already paid for. Capitulating to extortion is not the same thing as a resolution.
It's hard to prove some company is not starting up because of regulations concerns. It's on you to prove the regulations are useful and used.
Er what? The regulation that is in place is that no one has to pay for preferential treatment. What you are saying is as asinine as saying prove to me that because anyone can drive in any lane on a freeway that no one is being harmed by that.
What we know for sure is that more regulations mean more work for companies (in terms of hiring lawyers) to make sure they are complying with rules. That is beyond dispute. That cost gets passed along to the consumer, one way or another.
Your premise is flawed in that you are asserting that companies must hire more lawyers to comply with net neutrality. No what they must do is the same thing they have done since the birth of the Internet.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
It wasn't resolved until Netflix was able to stop paying those fees, and that didn't happen until the laws were changed. Make up your own mind, by all means, but if you can't appreciate the distinction I was drawing and recognize that the other poster was being disingenuous in suggesting that things had been resolved, I doubt we'll be seeing eye to eye.
You must live in an alternative reality because many consumer groups were in favor of net neutrality. Or are you just lying?
Did you actually look at that list of "consumer groups" before linking it? Or did you just chase a good headline and leave it to that, hoping that your clever accusation of living in an alternative reality would be a good smokescreen?
Here's the list of those organizations, some even signed twice and the poster made sure to mix them up. Can you please indicate which of those are "consumer groups"? I see one, maybe two, unless you consider United Church of Christ as a consumer group.
Alliance for Community Media (cable TV lobby)
Future of Music Coalition (indie music labels lobby)
American Civil Liberties Union
American Library Association
Benton Foundation
Consumer Federation of America
Center for Democracy and Technology
Electronic Privacy Information Center
Internet Archive
Common Cause
Free press
Knowledge Ecology International (that's Ralph Nader)
Media Access Project
New America Foundation
Tribal Digital Village
Media and Democracy Coalition
United Church of Christ
National Alliance for Media, Arts and Culture
Public Knowledge
USPIRG (that's Ralph Nader too)
National Federation of Community Broadcasters
Special Libraries Association
Writers Guild of America, West
lucm, indeed.
...was resolved after the new rules came out, but when the OP shows that it was before...
Well, no, it wasn't resolved before.
Netflix decided that they stood to gain more money than they lost by paying off Comcast, so Netflix paid Comcast, despite Comcast being in the wrong for throttling traffic.
It is not an industry standard to throttle traffic on a per website basis, and this is traffic that has already been paid for by the consumer.
Amazon doesn't have to pay Comcast for me to use their site, Slashdot doesn't have to pay Comcast for me to use their site.
If Netflix and Comcast customers are both paying for access to the internet, why should Netflix be paying an additional Comcast tax on top of that?
Especially when there was evidence of Comcast throttling connections (Netflix access through VPN was unaffected, while access through Comcast was throttled.)