Slashdot Mirror
Lawmakers Are Fighting For Net Neutrality (theverge.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Lawmakers and public officials are responding to the FCC's decision to gut net neutrality with promises of action. In the hours following the FCC hearing, officials from around the country announced lawsuits and bills intended to counter the FCC's decision. In New York, Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said that he's leading a multi-state lawsuit to challenge the FCC's vote, though he didn't give further details on the suit or who would be joining him. Calling today's decision an "illegal rollback," he described it as giving "Big Telecom an early Christmas present."
Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson also announced he would sue alongside Schneiderman and other attorneys general across the country, saying that he held "a strong legal argument" and that it was likely the government had failed to follow the law with this vote. Other officials from Santa Clara, California, including county supervisor Joe Simitian, are also suing the FCC to block the decision. "We believe the depth of your ideas should outweigh the depths of your pockets," Simitian said at a press conference.
State Sen. Scott Wiener (D-CA) announced plans to introduce a bill to adopt net neutrality as a requirement in his state. He wrote in a Medium post, "If the FCC won't stand up for a free and open internet, California will."
Rep. Mike Coffman (R-CO) tweeted that he will be submitting net neutrality legislation, saying that this was a decision better left to Congress. Coffman was the first Republican to ask the FCC to delay the vote, citing "unanticipated negative consequences" on Tuesday. Furthermore, Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) and Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) are supporting Sen. Ed Markey's (D-MA) plan to introduce a Congressional Review Act resolution to undo the FCC vote. Even Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), who had previously announced on Twitter her support for Ajit Pai and the FCC, tweeted a video, saying, "We will codify the need for no blocking, no throttling, and making certain that we preserve that free and open internet." We're likely to see many others express their disappointment with the FCC's decision over the next few hours and days.
Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson also announced he would sue alongside Schneiderman and other attorneys general across the country, saying that he held "a strong legal argument" and that it was likely the government had failed to follow the law with this vote. Other officials from Santa Clara, California, including county supervisor Joe Simitian, are also suing the FCC to block the decision. "We believe the depth of your ideas should outweigh the depths of your pockets," Simitian said at a press conference.
State Sen. Scott Wiener (D-CA) announced plans to introduce a bill to adopt net neutrality as a requirement in his state. He wrote in a Medium post, "If the FCC won't stand up for a free and open internet, California will."
Rep. Mike Coffman (R-CO) tweeted that he will be submitting net neutrality legislation, saying that this was a decision better left to Congress. Coffman was the first Republican to ask the FCC to delay the vote, citing "unanticipated negative consequences" on Tuesday. Furthermore, Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) and Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) are supporting Sen. Ed Markey's (D-MA) plan to introduce a Congressional Review Act resolution to undo the FCC vote. Even Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), who had previously announced on Twitter her support for Ajit Pai and the FCC, tweeted a video, saying, "We will codify the need for no blocking, no throttling, and making certain that we preserve that free and open internet." We're likely to see many others express their disappointment with the FCC's decision over the next few hours and days.
And sign an a worldwide agreement to never allow AT&T, Verizon, et al to connect to it.
Mike @ The Geek Pub. Let's Make Stuff!
Government thinks it can control everything by passing regulations, then more regulations to fix what the first set fucked up, and then more, and more, and... Eventually everything costs twice as much and works half as well as if we had just let the market do its job. We brought the Republicans in with a wave election and a mandate to repeal regulations, which is exactly what's happening. There should be dancing in the streets. Shady!!!!
So the democrats are going to run the midterms on restoring Net Neutrality... Good luck! (You are going to need it.)
Let the demagogues on the issue continue!
Um.. Word of advice, if you care to listen. You need something else other than "Trump Bad, we oppose" and this.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
I'd like kick him in his goofy lollipop-looking head and bust his fucking teeth out.
***Some faith in our system of government restored*** We're not totally left swinging in the breeze on this one, there's some people with some fight in them that aren't willing to just sit back and let the Internet burn.
This isn't about net neutrality mostly.
This is largely about Title II of the Communications Act of 1934.
The FCC in 2015 said broadband providers are common carriers under Title 2. This made 400 pages of onerous regulations applicable to all broadband providers, some of the regulations are ridiculous and very subjective. See this link: https://www.redstate.com/diary/freedomworks/2014/09/16/title-ii-regulation-internet-actually-means/
So Title II fosters pointless litigation and excessive regulation.
So, Title II was required for the FCC to implement net neutrality -- otherwise the FCC wouldn't have been able to mandate net neutrality because they can only do that to common carriers under Title II.
With the FCC undoing the Title II requirement, broadband providers will now instead be regulated by the Federal Trade Commission instead of the FCC.
So the Federal Trade Commission will be overseeing the business practices of the telecoms, just like before. Like when the FTC got on Comcast's case for throttling bit torrent back in 2009.
Much ado about the wrong thing. This has little to do with Net Neutrality and a lot to do with Title II having hundreds of pages of regulations that didn't previously apply to broadband.
This is the best that can happen actually. If lawmakers pass a law forbidding blocking, throttling, fast lanes, etc, then that's actually better than leaving the internet at the mercy and discretion of the FCC. It's the best thing one could ask for. Let's hope congress actually manages to do something. *fingers crossed*
Given the mood of the country (in general, not just about NN), come 2018 a whole lot of congressmen with (R) after their name are going to be out, and more with (D) after their name will be in.
Should any new legislation WRT NN not wait until after 2018 to give it a better chance?
This wouldn't have happened if Hillary got elected. She loves the Internet so much that she broke the law just to be able to have a piece of it in her house.
overlooking the obvious becoming more difficult as we burn our bridges in front of & behind us...
cease fire stand down while there's still time/stuff/people to rescue.... spirits to restore... moms & babys in all of our towns.. in the moms we trust...
ae911truth dot org
This entire issue of net neutrality being repealed will end up being much ado about nothing. The mounting legal challenges will make this another failure of the Trump administration. Since net neutrality is now a bi-partisan issue, it will become codified into law and Ajit will shrink back to obscurity.
Al Gore for President 2020 (or sooner). If he invented the Internet once, then by golly, he can do it again!
State Sen. Scott Wiener (D-CA) announced plans to introduce a bill to adopt net neutrality as a requirement in his state. He wrote in a Medium post, "If the FCC won't stand up for a free and open internet, California will."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't part of the new FCC rules to say that states can no longer implement their own NN rules? FCC covered their ass to ensure this atrocity can't be overturned by states?
If we as a people decide that it is a good thing to regulate these businesses, then it should be so. If these companies do not want to be in this business, they can all go somewhere else... or so by their logic, they would tell the people.
The comment period was a joke, and the comments that were made were not taken seriously. The entire point of a government is for the people to come to some consensus, and when a leader of an agency blatantly doesn't care, the agency needs to have its feet held to the fire.
There is no doubt that the internet is now a utility that we all use and need. There is no doubt that the cost of getting into the game is so high that most people could never jump in. There has to be some protections.
--
I didn't do it. - B. Simpson
Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is a moron.
If he called the FCC's repeal of its own regulations an "illegal rollback" he needs to kicked the fuck out of his job for incompetence. You don't have to like Ajit Pai and his bullshit, but the FCC absolutely has the authority to do what it did today, just as it had the authority to put those regulations in place back when Obama asked them to.
Time for some freedom and competition to return to networking and ISP.
The NN status quo has provided political cover for:
A search engine that deranks news and search results for US party political reasons.
Social media that reports users for their free speech.
Social media that removes comments and bans users thanks to SJW and governments.
Protecting NN paper insulated wireline network monopolies.
Time to allow new ISP and services to enter the internet marketplace.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
I hope George Soros and all of the other Jews enjoy paying to have their message heard. Kikes gets fucked.
if the Javanese pornography sites are up, I'm in
Furthermore, Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) and Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) are supporting Sen. Ed Markey's (D-MA) plan to introduce a Congressional Review Act resolution to undo the FCC vote.
Why don't they introduce a bill allowing the FCC to regulate broadband throttling? The FCC board's (and Patel's) issue with the previous legislation was it was introduced under common carrier requirements.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
State Sen. Scott Wiener (D-CA) announced plans to introduce a bill to adopt net neutrality as a requirement in his state. He wrote in a Medium post, "If the FCC won't stand up for a free and open internet, California will."
As I already commented, this can't happen cuz interstate commerce and FCC rules and all that. So to achieve this, there will need to be a separate internet in California.
Now look I'm not saying the sky is falling, but this is the crack in the egg. Maybe nothing comes of it, or maybe internet starts to fragment.
This is what the repeal bought us. This could happen. Maybe not right away, but as networks become increasing competitive with each other, it's going to start to make sense to shut out your competitors users completely, and to get exclusivity of content on your network.
I can already see the commercials, "Verizon's network offers HBO exclusively!" If you don't think it can happen... without net neutrality, it's a possible future.
The internet is a private network. Just because people want to use it to watch TV doesn't change that fact. The entire NN movement is about seizing private property so someone else who didn't pay for it can benefit. It would be better to leave the network free, and just pay the deadbeats who can't afford their TV the gap price.
Absolutely. Elected officials should be making the rules, not appointed ones. The FCC is there to enforce the laws that congress writes. They can't go around making their own rules. If you want "net neutrality", vote for a congress that will give it to you instead constantly reelecting servants to the industry. The opportunity is ours to squander.
*Sweep the House*
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
If you can't regulate the local parts of an interstate business what can you regulate these days? Beyond small corner shops? if you interpret this law in such a way it only takes a single cheep out of state office (always manage and handle financial transactions from the neighbouring state) and you can dodge local regs, everything will have to be federal, so what are the states for?
There are a lot of people who don't seem to remember all the discussions all the way back in 2015 when this kind of FCC fiat ruling on net neutrality was first done "illegally."
There should be laws appropriate for the internet governing the internet, not a shoe-horned in application of century old radio laws that come with loads of unintended consequences. Consider that advertising revenue in radio generally goes to the owners of the transmitter hardware, who pay the content providers a flat fee (payola notwithstanding). That's not at all how the internet works, and we're all stupid for imagining the same laws should apply to both situations.
Congress had to know this was coming from the day Trump appointed Pai. They had a year to get their act together and pass something appropriate. Republicans have a well-earned reputation for refusing to govern unless they have no choice but to get something done (and even then, they often fail to get their act together).
Congress should have acted back in 2015 when Obama was in office. They should have acted this year. Our legislative branch simply seems incapable of getting anything done.
Worse is better, poverty is riches, more chains make you more free.... no seriously what cool-aide have you drunk that you think increasing the number of people able to filter restrain or generally mess with your entire communications stream is a good thing? telecommunications is a natural monopoly, a unregulated market will tend to shift towards local monopolies, you can only keep competition if you regulate, so how is less regulation "freedom" ?
Don't be too hasty to assume they are honest, remember a vote for our corporate [bot herding overlords/paymasters] is a vote for FREEDOM. Calm rebuttals to prevent them from drowning out thought out posters is necessary either way though.
Protip...Congress likes to name bills the OPPOSITE of what they actually do. All this changes does is revert things to the way they were in the long ago time of...2015 while removing ISPs from the same regs that were used to justify the AT&T wiretaps. All those "ZOMFG they are gonna kill the nets!" FUD? Yeah there are already multiple federal laws preventing that already on the books.
But hey don't listen to me or anybody else's opinion on the subject why don't you actually read the bill? Raise your hands how many of you actually read the bill you are screaming to save versus how many of you are just parroting what you heard some talking head say? the same talking heads that I might remind you said HRC wasn't a crook while she smashed her phones with a hammer to destroy evidence and bought the DNC and the superdelegates to make sure Bernie couldn't win, said there was WMDs in Iraq despite there being ample evidence that wasn't the case, and again sang the praises of PATRIOT? Think for yourself people, don't just believe what you are told!
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
That's right, Pai is so great, that the Orange One should make him Ambassador to Cuba, they have a lovely embassy.
But that doesn't mean we won't prioritize someone else over you.
I could care less if they don't block and don't throttle, but they will still prioritize those that pay ahead of all others. That's part of the problem. Paid prioritization is just as bad as throttling the other guys. If someone searches a video and it's glitchy because the version on YouTube is faster, then they accomplish the same goal.
The *ONLY* exception to prioritization should be life saving services. E911 calls should be given priority on all networks that carry VoIP. Telemedicine should also be given priority. As should traffic from first responders in an emergency situation.
However, that's where it should end. There shouldn't be a reason that HBO can deliver 4k content without buffering from time to time, yet Showtime can't. There's no reason I should be able to watch an NFL game on Amazon and have it look, sound, seem better than the same game on Twitter (unless of course they have insufficient bandwidth on their end, then that's up to them to fix as a part of doing business).
We already have enough conservative trolls devaluing this site. Wouldn't you be happier over at Breitbart, where your nonsense is accepted uncritically?
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
how all lawmakers are exactly the same on every issue.
Go on, say it.
I dare you.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
why do liberals love everyone controlling their lives? Are ya'll help less? Why do you want communism? The free market will take care of everything! one company throttles, someone will come provide it non throttled. I don't get liberals and their love for regulation. you really don't understand how free markets operate.
Is your ISP throttling your traffic from Netflix? Then call and bitch them out! You think they will still do it if 100k people are calling to complain? If they keep doing it, leave them for another company that isn't full of assholes.
If Dish network lowered the quality of your ESPN from HD to standard def, and told ESPN they have to pay up to broadcast back to HD - would you are one bit about what they told ESPN? NO - you would be calling Dish and bitching them out to fix your HD quality or you would leave for another company. This is no different.
And don't give me BS about only one provider in your area. Thats exactly what leads to more providers coming in - the appeal of offering a better service.
Capitalism works, this law was nothing more than Liberals wanting to control free speech.
Good thing corporations are legally people these days.
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
Democrats Are Fighting For Net Neutrality
Your welcome.
This is nothing more that lip service trying to appease public rage, knowing full well citizens have less attention span than a 2 year old. They know Humpty-Trumpty will perform some even more egregious act, diverting attention and none of them will have to give back the $101 Million our "representatives" pocketed from the communications cabal.
https://www.theverge.com/2017/...
Bottom line is the leaches and oligarchy want NN dead, it will stay dead because we the people no longer matter.
The big companies and government want their control back again.
If the U.S. Congress are working towards something, then everybody else should be against it. When has congress in recent years actually ever done anything FOR us?
No private entity should have any control over services that are public infrastructure-supporting.
Not electricity.
Not roadways.
And not telecommunications or internet.
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
Just like an SJW, all you can do is insult and cry...should I call you a wahmbulance? You mad bro? I provide the federal statutes, what do YOU provide? Oh yeah "wah his reality is breaking "my truth" he isn't respecting my political narrative, waah!"
Maybe this is more to your liking?
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
ToS are another way that ISPs screw with the 'open' internet. Server prohibition. Impropriety clauses (where the ISP reserves the right to be the judge, jury, and censor of anything it deems 'improper').