Slashdot Mirror
Senate Republicans Introduce Anti-Net Neutrality Legislation (thehill.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Hill: Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) introduced a bill Monday to nullify the Federal Communications Commission's net neutrality rules. "Few areas of our economy have been as dynamic and innovative as the internet," Lee said in a statement. "But now this engine of growth is threatened by the Federal Communications Commission's 2015 Open Internet Order, which would put federal bureaucrats in charge of engineering the Internet's infrastructure." Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), and James Inhofe (R-Okla.) co-sponsored Lee's bill. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai introduced his own plan last week to curb significant portions of the 2015 net neutrality rules that Lee's bill aims to abolish. Pai's more specific tack is focused on moving the regulatory jurisdiction of broadband providers back to the Federal Trade Commission, instead of the FCC, which currently regulates them.
Up is down! Left is Right! Freedom is servitude!
Again, this is another case where these people are being paid to misunderstand the situation because it profits someone else much more if they do. The sad part is that they've been put in a position of power. Hopefully this bill never makes it out of committee, let alone gets scheduled for a vote.
That would be Ron Wyden, a Democratic Senator from Oregon. He's been consistently very good when it comes to issues regarding the internet, privacy, and putting the needs and rights of users ahead of corporate (or government) ones, or at minimum on an equal footing (which feels like 'ahead' these days).
"this engine of growth is threatened by the Federal Communications Commission's 2015 Open Internet Order, which would put federal bureaucrats in charge of engineering the Internet's infrastructure."
What a load of doublespeak bollocks.
Either the person who wrote that is lying or they have no idea what the Internet is.
http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net...
No sig today...
Sounds like Ajit wasn't invited to the latest meeting at Mt. Doom.
Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) [says] "...now this engine of growth is threatened by the Federal Communications Commission's 2015 Open Internet Order, which would put federal bureaucrats in charge of engineering the Internet's infrastructure."
What a heaping pile of horseshit, afloat in a vat of raw sewage. Did the good senator's staff come up with this on their own... or did they perform a ritual sacrifice to enlist assistance from the Demon? Show me their hands... this statement was written in blood and one of Lee's staffers is missing a finger.
Let's try and fix this, shall we? Now this engine of growth is threatened by would-be monopolists and their crony politicians who would put marketers and profiteers in charge of monetizing the Internet's infrastructure to squeeze the highest prices from users of the Internet in return least possible investment .
Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
Not so fast. AFAIK, jurisdiction over the Internet has been removed from the FTC, and it would take an act of Congress to put it back... and that sure as shit don't look likely. Any talk of the FTC, for now, is a head-fake excuse for gutting the FCC and letting Comcast and its ilk get drunk and party at your expense.
Face it, ladies. The Internet is the new telephone system - the FCC should regulate it as a common-carrier. Period. That makes it boring to the carriers, gutting a lot of "opportunities" to squeeze extra money out (like selling your browsing histories), but too fucking bad. The Internet ain't no luxury anymore - shit, your grandma needs it just to get her goddamn meds.
Besides, the FTC is not invulnerable to politics. Maybe they don't have a politically ambitious loud-mouth tool as Chairman who wants nothing more than to see himself on TV, but a GOP-controlled everything can muzzle the FTC, and they will, if the price is right.
Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
For centuries the intellectual basis for conservatism has been set, not by Jesus, or Adam Smith, but by Edmund Burke, whose philosophy could be summed up this way: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Burke was the kind of man who could defend the monarchy while despising monarchists: he thought the notion that monarchy was an ideal form of government was fatuous twaddle. But he thought all grand, all-encompassing theories were foolish, so he wasn't any more enthusiastic about pure democracy. Burke preferred a monarchy restrained by a democratically elected parliament not because it was the best system, but because it worked, experience showed that men could be tolerably free and prosperous under such a system.
So the notion that we need to "fix" an innovative segment of the economy to be more like what our theory of what an innovative industry should look like is about as un-conservative as you can get. It is, in fact, radicalism of the sort Burke detested.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Net Neutrality is anything but. It is government designed networking. Last thing we need is more government interference.
And end with the solution of.....governments designing networks:
This is easily solved, by allowing municipalities to build out common infrastructure that can be used by anyone to any provider.
It seems to me that the easiest way out is to simply declare that anyone who is running a line to an end user is a common carrier and required to lease that line to anyone the end user wishes to connect to without preference. We call that concept...."net neutrality."
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
Net Neutrality is like saying I have to use a Prius to haul 2 tons of bricks, or I have to us USPS instead of Fed/Ex or UPS.
In a world where net neutrality means something completely different, then maybe? In this world, it's complete bullshit. You keep describing your ideal system, and it sounds suspiciously like this:
the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites
Which is the definition of net neutrality. Literally. You know, not favoring the Prius, in your tortured example, or the truck that would make sense, but rather treating bits as bits, regardless of source or destination. Like our transportation system does today.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.