Slashdot Mirror
FCC Announces Plan To Reverse Title II Net Neutrality (theverge.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: The Federal Communications Commission is cracking open the net neutrality debate again with a proposal to undo the 2015 rules that implemented net neutrality with Title II classification. FCC chairman Ajit Pai called the rules "heavy handed" and said their implementation was "all about politics." He argued that they hurt investment and said that small internet providers don't have "the means or the margins" to withstand the regulatory onslaught. "Earlier today I shared with my fellow commissioners a proposal to reverse the mistake of Title II and return to the light touch framework that served us so well during the Clinton administration, Bush administration, and first six years of the Obama administration," Pai said today. His proposal will do three things: first, it'll reclassify internet providers as Title I information services; second, it'll prevent the FCC from adapting any net neutrality rules to practices that internet providers haven't thought up yet; and third, it'll open questions about what to do with several key net neutrality rules -- like no blocking or throttling of apps and websites -- that were implemented in 2015. Pai will publish the full text of his proposal tomorrow, and it will be voted on by the FCC on May 18th.
Its whats for dinner. The cash votes of the lobbyists are far more valuable than your ballot vote will ever be.
Cable company lobbyist who sleazed his way to the head of the FCC wants to make cable companies more money at the expense of consumers, more info at 11.
Yeah everyone's Netflix, Amazon, Apple and/or other internet costs are going to go up. Because ISP's are going to force them to pay more for the same bandwidth.
But this will somehow increase competition, because a lot more internet providers are about to come into your area. Because somehow this was holding them back...
this has nothing to do with TRUMP specifically.. this has NOTHING to do with "clearing burdensome regulations".. this has NOTHING to do with being a 'burden' on small providers (if anything, it *levels the playing field)...
it has EVERYTHING to do with campaign funding of republicans from major ISPs and EVERYTHING to do with the republican's fucked-up desire to simply UNDO everything obama championed for, regardless of what it was.
(and before you toss health care into this.. obama wanted single payer. what we got, 'obamacare', is actually modeled after 'romneycare'.. a republican created fuck-up put in place in Massachusetts, the passing of which ENDED a 16 year hold that party had on the governor's office in that state).
> Ajit Pai was an Obama appointee
At the suggestion of Mitch McConnel. Trump is the one that made him Chairman, not Obama.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
As Nelson would say "Ha ha".
The US already pays more for "health" by a VERY large margin than anyone else. How soon will it be before the "internet" follows suit.
The rest of the world will be happy to stick with its Net Neutrality , get the same (if not better) service for a lot less money.
Unlike health though, it is easier to host servers in other countries, which is all that will happen.
Will this encourage investment, sure, just not in the USA.
Let Congress pass a law [...]
They did. It was the FCC charter. It explicitly gave the FCC the task of and granted them the authority to make decisions about how to classify companies. If Congress wants to pass a law doing what you say, they can, but in the meantime they've said that it is the FCC's job to make those decisions.
No, I'm pretty sure she wouldn't have been. I think it's reasonable to assume she would have continued the same kind of policies as Obama. And it was Obama's FCC that started to take Network Neutrality seriously to begin with.
There is no justification for claiming a "Both sides" position here, just as there isn't with 90% of what Trump is doing.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
No. F**k it. Internet pipes in your country are like the road network or the telephone network. It should be considered public infrastructure with egalitarian access.
It's pretty F'ing simple.
Getting rid of net neutrality regulations is like saying "It's ok. Just set up your highway robbery checkpoint in the middle of the on-ramp to the highway, but make sure to let your business partners limos through without paying the ransom."
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
How soon? Are you kidding? We already pay more for Internet than any other industrialized country, and some second world countries:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/up...
Here's the truth that other countries have already figured out: when the government provides a service, it's cheaper. When private companies provide the same service, it's much more expensive, because they have to make a profit. And while it might have once been true that private industry could do a task better than the government, now private industry has realized that doing a poor job yields higher profit, so we end up getting worse services for more money when private industry provides them.
The federal government should provide all funds for education, for Internet access, and for healthcare. We can start paying for it by cutting the Department of Defense by 10% every couple of years, and eliminating corporate welfare. No more privatized intelligence, no more privatization of military services, no more military, intelligence, or security "contractors".
And eliminate DHS, what a fucking waste of money.
If that's not enough money, let's return to a top marginal rate of 91%. It worked great in the 50s, and the economy was booming.
obama wanted single payer. what we got, 'obamacare', is actually modeled after 'romneycare'.. a republican created fuck-up put in place in Massachusetts
Actually, what we got was based on, and followed very closely, the proposal put forth by the Heritage Foundation in 1989.
As the above article shows, there were two key parts:
1) All citizens should be guaranteed universal access to health care
2) Mandate all households obtain adequate insurance
And this article goes into more depth about how Republicans like Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich were pushing for mandated health insurance which required people, not employers, to buy insurance.
In other words, Republicans got exactly what they wanted, and they're pissed.
What I'm saying is that Net Neutrality is incompatible with one of the basic tenants of the Republican party. If you agree with Net Neutrality you disagree with the Republican party. Maybe not individuals, but with the party's ideals.
And here I was thinking that having competitive markets was one of those basic tenets.