Slashdot Mirror
Republican Lawmaker Introduces Net Neutrality Legislation (variety.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Variety: Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) introduced net neutrality legislation on Tuesday that prohibits internet providers from blocking and throttling content, but does not address whether ISPs can create so-called "fast lanes" of traffic for sites willing to pay for it. The legislation also would require that ISPs disclose their terms of service, and ensure that federal law preempts any state efforts to establish rules of the road for internet traffic. "A lot of our innovators are saying, 'Let's go with things we have agreement on, and other things can be addressed later,'" Blackburn told Variety. She said that she was "very hopeful" about the prospects for the legislation because "an open internet and preserving that open internet is what people want to see happen. Let's preserve it. Let's nail it down. Let's stop the ping-ponging from one FCC commission to another. This is something where the Congress should act." Blackburn chairs a House subcommittee on communications and technology.
that retard can't handle this.
yes, of course it's a trick.
silly americans.
They will keep the preemption rules and gut the rest making it so there is no NN
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Passing a law is the right way to do it. This way we'll have a stable requirement and not some 'regulation' that can be changed at the whim of any given administration. We don't need ISP to be regulated as utilities, we simply need the right neutrality laws. If this happens, we'll all be in a better place.
There are several high bandwidth services (e.g. video and music streaming); that probably aren't an issue for home broadband but are for mobile users.
If they want to pay the bandwidth charges for me using their service then I'm okay with that. It is a benefit to the consumer, and allows for premium service providers to flourish.
The caveat though, is that this also should be neutral. No business should be allowed exclusivity. If Apple music is allowed to pay for bandwidth, then spotify should be allowed to on exactly the same terms, as should completely different businesses such as trading information companies.
Let's keep the bad parts, that allow selling some faster routes, and then people can "do more" later on, if they like.
Spoken like a person who gave up hope that her government can do the right thing.
Think of the "innovators"! It takes a lot of resources for these creative entities that are daily thinking up new ways to abuse and rob their customers, and pay off politicians.
Let's go with things we have agreement on, and other things can be addressed later is too rational, and Democrats will block it because it was introduced by a Republican.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Basically, the proposed law would codify the FCC ruling. Paid prioritization is included.
We need a law that strips Telcos of their common carrier status, so competition can easily attach their wires to the utility poles.
This lady introduced the bill in the Senate that blew away the Internet privacy protections from our ISP's (so they couldn't monitor, catalog and monetize what you do on the internet) - which was the 1st thing the Trump Admin did after getting into office. I believe her state is the home of some big ISP. I.E. this is something the big ISP's want.
The process was, the FCC (led by former Verizon corporate lawyer Ajit Pai) throws away the Net Neutrality - causing fear and some panic. Marsha and the other lobbied Republican members of congress ride to the rescue with new "Net Neutrality" legislation - which is anything but. And gets us maybe a little ways back towards Net Neutrality, but outlaws states doing their own Net Neutrality etc. (biggest threats to this huge new profit center for Comcast), they declare victory and we're screwed.
This needs to be blocked and let the FCC's recent changes get slapped down in court.
> "Let's go with things things we have agreement on"
Well, since you have no agreement on NN, you have no agreements at all. You might as well include a provision on puppies and kittens since every agrees on how cute they are.
Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) should hold hearings on the matter. Then we can see if everyone agrees:
- Wired infrastructure providers
- Wireless infrastructure providers
- Content providers
- Services companies
- Hosting providers
- Security companies
- Regulatory agencies
- Schools & universities
- Government institutions
- Business users
- Individual users
- User groups
- Others
Hmmm .... just heard on the radio that "net neutrality" might hurt the porn industry. . . that could be worth some votes.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Tennessee-Rep-Marsha-Blackburn-Unveils-Fake-Net-Neutrality-Law-140921
But the problem isn't that there were no Net Neutrality regulations before 2015. There were. The problem is they were unenforcable since in 2005 DSL providers were reclassified from Title II to Title I (and cable companies providing internet were Title I from the beginning). This was confirmed by the courts in 2010 and in 2014. So what FCC did in 2015 was necessary to make Net Neutrality regulations legally enforcable.
Federal power when it comes to rolling back net neutrality!!!
State's rights when it comes to guns, abortion and everything else!!!
- Republicans
I can understand that the home user may want to pay for faster content from some sites than others (e.g. video vs email).
But if it is the content provider than we have:
"You are not being throttled, you are just not in the fast lane. For $$$$ we will let you be at the same speed as everybody else."
The default becomes slow unless you pay.
Someone please define what they are thinking. How can you not throttle and yet have fast lanes?
I'm thinking this is just double speak and is sponsored by the broadband companies in order to block state legislation.
I'm not against certain efforts to add priority levels to internet traffic like specifically for playing games but it would have to be paid by customers to the ISP's.
prohibits internet providers from blocking and throttling content, but does not address whether ISPs can create so-called "fast lanes" of traffic for sites willing to pay for it.
If you can't throttle, how do you give priority to the fast lane? It's addressed.
Don't trust Blackburn. It's already leaking out that Comcast's lawyers are the ones writing this legislation. https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/qvw8k5/comcast-fcc-net-neutrality-law
The Republican party is in a bad place. After a disastrous year, they are desperate for a win... any win. It's why they are pushing so strongly for the tax bill, even though many of them recognize how terribly flawed it is - not only from an social and economic perspective, but also from a political one: the tax plan will cost them votes. But, they fear, not having passed any significant legislation will cost them more. So we get the this tax plan.
And yet, here we have a perfect opportunity for them to pass some major legislation that would not only be incredibly popular (some 70% of the country support Net Neutrality) but would be fairly easy to get through Congress. It has support on both sides of the aisle. It wouldn't even require much work: just enshrine the already-written pre-Ajit Pai rules as law. It is quite possible that they could have gotten this law passed in mere days.
The Republican party would have been seen as working for the people, standing up against huge telecoms, and able to work and lead the country as a whole rather than satisfying a small base. It would have been a home-run, a Christmas Miracle. It would have been that desperately needed success the GOP has been selling its soul for.
And then they go and do this.
Oh, GOP.
They'll end up introducing the same regulations Obama put in with a different name. Go GOP.
Having gone exactly counter to the clearly-expressed wishes of about three out of four Americans, Republicans understand it is now time to muddy the waters.
This farce of a bill will no doubt have more holes in it than a fat boy's belt.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
Moreover, how would a "fast lane" be defined? If the "fast lane" is defined by the kind of traffic, then the ISP would have to inspect its customers' packets in order to determine the application-level exchange that they are part of, and this again would violate net neutrality (and the customers' privacy, but we already know that that battle is lost). And more importantly, such inspection would be impossible with TLS, which means that a protocol-based "fast lane" wouldn't work with most of the Internet.
It is possible for "fast lanes" to be defined by the packets' destination IP address, which would mean that the ISP could, say, slow down packets going to and from Vimeo in order to speed up packets going to and from YouTube. And since only large video providers would be important enough to be part of a destination-based "fast lane" option on an ISP's network, this would be unfair against small players and market newcomers, and of course a violation of net neutrality.
This law proposal seems to me at best damage control by a party that received a larger-than-expected backlash from what they perceived to be just ordinary lobby service, and at worst an attempt to enshrine in law the negation of net neutrality. I'll be happy to be proved wrong.
The biggest issues that the GOP had with Net Neutrality is it goes against their idea of having government control over business.
However we are starting to see what I expected to see. 1 simple to follow rule being overturned being replaced with many complicated rules.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
She voted with all her GOP colleagues on the deeply unpopular tax bill, and now she's trying to show that she cares about her constituents - rather than just her owners. We'll see if this is enough to keep her in her seat come November.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Even with the fcc rules fast lanes existed.
Google paid for fiber directly into the larger isps backbones. The bought dark fiber than pay to have it terminated at the isps major and some not so major pops.
Netflix paid to have cache boxes installed and fiber directly to comcast.
Many of the acceleration and distribution networks pay for cache boxes and have direct fiber connections to all the large pops of even the midsize isp networks.
The FCC ruling did not change that at all.
See subject: It stops a company from say, throttling NetFlix vs. it's competing offering. It's been done before (Comcast iirc) - that, is wrong - way, Way, WAY wrong.
* This is the 1st time I do NOT agree w/ President Trump's policies!
How I see a TRUE "net neutrality" helping?
By keeping a playing field EVEN between 'players' WITH LIKE OFFERINGS in COMPETING SERVICES (since my description pre-asterisk above @ the start of this reply IS what TRUE "net neutrality" ought to be...) - the rules should be even for all in other words.
Additionally - IF this is all put in the hands of ISPs? Then, all it would take is 1 big moneyman to buy them all up!
(... & let's face it, anti-monopoly laws aren't the greatest deterrent nowadays it seems).
I heard talk that the ONLY REAL REASON that Obama's version of "net neutrality" was allowed was that it allowed him to have a "media killswitch" so if anyone said anything "anti-obama" etc., he could kill the transmission (this I heard on InfoWars & I would like clarification on THAT viewpoint!
(... & THAT is another thing I don't like (& I am sure I'm not alone) - when they "sneak in" things into bills for laws that are dead up BOGUS (or totally unrelated). We've all seen other examples like that...)
InfoWars isn't perfect - sometimes on SOME issues, Alex Jones seems like a 'controlled asset' - meaning he is told to AVOID certain topics or pay the price if he doesn't - he isn't perfect but he DOES DO GOOD WORK most of the time (other than what I just said).
APK
P.S.=> I don't see how taking the above away is helping competition & keeping a playing field FAIR for all players concerned (letting their product offering & price mixture show who the 'superior warrior' is - letting consumers "vote w/ their dollars" pretty much to do so)... apk
1 whenever there is not a signed SLA in effect and as a minimum an ISP must provide not less than 75% of advertised speed/bandwidth 90% of the time or better (so if you advertise up to 20MPS speed 90% of the time all of your users should have not less than 15MPS available all the way to the next peer)
2 any bandwidth shaping or service restrictions must be part of a signed and notarized contract (copies to be on file in the local office and original STAMPED copy to be on file at the corporate office).
3 any ISP that owns directly or indirectly any content service may only promote said content as part of a "bonus"
where any future charges for said service must require an affirmative action on the part of the client to begin (any free %service% package must automatically cancel at the end of the promo period unless the client performs a clear action like checking a box on a physical bill or checking a box in an electronically presented bill)
If there are not safe guards in place for the internet as a public utility to protect the market then we are at risk of damaging the entire economic market (possibly causing yet another recession) in order to provide special treatment to a small amount of participants namely Comcast, AT&T and Time Warner.
The problem is that traditional utilities are pretty much stable. Water distributions systems haven't changed significantly in 80 years. Ditto the electrical system. The internet changes rapidly. Delivery systems change. Services change. Protocols change. The only thing that is significantly similar is TCP/IP, BGP and DNS.
So how do you regulate that without killing off any potential improvements that run afoul of said regulation?
You leave it alone until something is obviously broken, then you pass a law to fix it.
This isn't a small detail, it's monumentally important. Can you imagine what the computer industry would look like if some bureaucrat decided that, in 1982, a "home computer" would be defined as a 6502 CPU with 128K of RAM, and anything else would be disallowed? Or that CP/M would be the standardized OS? Makes it easier to regulate the market and protect consumers when everything is standardized.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
Unless this is very carefully written with a high degree of technical knowledge, ISPs will find another way to game the system and we will all lose. Remember the idiotic Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation (CALM) Act (https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/loud-commercials-tv). I recall that after this was passed, the news broadcasts that were impacted started dialing back their volume, below the “standard” level. Viewers started turning up the volume, so they could hear the broadcast. When the commercials started, the volume jumped, because the end user had turned up their TV. Problem solved, bill neutralized.
It seems that these bills are assembled in a haphazard and incompetent fashion. Can we please have legislators that take their job seriously?
She's pretty hot for 61.
I was for net neutrality until yesterday. Now that someone with an "R" after their name wants it, that proves that net neutrality is raaaaacist.
We don't need ISP to be regulated as utilities [...]
What is needed (IMHO) is for Layers 1 and 2 to be run by neutral third parties (either state-run or private non-profits), and for there to be competition at Layer 3. Layer 1 and 2 is treated a public utility (like municipal roads or electrical distribution wires), and let market forces go at it with IP transport.
See:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-access_network
I'd much rather see the focus be on:
- cracking down on ISPs that use anti-competitive behavior
- ensuring that advertised speeds are generally achievable
- forcing providers to be clear and up front about any blocking, throttling, etc. that they do
If somebody wants to provide fast lines or blocking or whatever, then I don't see how it's the government's place to try to force things one way or the other - those are things that some consumers actually want in certain scenarios. Those things aren't inherently good or bad, they just become bad when they aren't disclosed, or when consumers have no alternatives available.
There is only one single thing needed in the law, proposal, act or regulation that is absolutely necessary, you can write it down, and only accept when it’s included there: Internet Service Providers are forbidden by law from discriminating types of data that goes through their services. Period.
It is this simple. Nothing open to interpretation, no double speak, no pretense.
If this is not explicitly there in the proposal, it’s bullshit. In this particular case it’s at best fluff... everything she is proposing there is already guaranteed. At worst, it could be opening an opportunity for anyone to block or reduce access to whatever they consider unlawful content, unlawful Internet traffic and “harmful devices”... it’s broad and clearly has some second intentions embedded there.
By the way, get ready people... you can bet that with the corporation friendly environment that this administration has created, SOPA will come back full force. This bullshit Open Internet Preservation Act might be the start of it.
First, the FCC declared their "Net Neutrality" to begin with with a 300 page document.
Second, the Federal government doesn't have the power to control or regulate communications therefore it's a power reserved to the states and the people per the 10th Amendment.
We get it, you're an anarchist who doesn't believe in market failures. That others are resistant to your lies is unsurprising.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
very large cake that is the cable monopoly.
it's _hard_ to get set up as a last mile ISP. Google couldn't do it. The capital investment is huge but the existing providers are already in profit mode. Comcast admitted in their SEC filing that it costs them $9/mo to sell you broadband. Good luck getting a new provider in that market.Your capital investment is too high relative to your competition's ability to cut prices. You're competition can just drop their prices until you're out of business while you're busy trying to make up for the billions you spent running cable.
It's the same reason why nobody can compete with Windows/Office. The entrenched player has too strong a position.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
See that? I didn't make it up.
Next time someone talks about Republicans and conservatives as though they're the same group, remember what they actually do in office. They don't just spend your country into greater debt like FDR and LBJ with a book full of signed blank checks. They also try to centralize control everywhere they get, so that your vote means less. They encourage corporate welfare queens by giving them all kinds of special favors (that you and I don't get) but asking no concessions in return. "Quid pro quo" means nothing to them, just "give me someone else's money."
If you're conservative, then you have been voting either Democrat (if you're a lightweight or see lots of nuance) or you vote Libertarian (if you're .. enthusiastic). Conservatives don't vote Republican, except when they don't know anything about the person they're voting for.
C'mon, other parties. I know you have your other political labels, but you really could take the "conservative" brand away from them. Except for the Greens, all other parties that ever really show up, are more conservative than Republicans. This story is just the most recent examples.
(BTW, this isn't about whether you agree or disagree that they're doing the right thing. I'm sure leftists can make a great case for overriding state and local law, followed by conservatives jumping in and explaining how horrible they think that is. And we can all disagree about our subjective opinion of what's the best policy. I'm not talking about good or bad, just liberal vs conservative. Left and right.)
Hey retard you posted that already.
You were cogent for a while but then you decided to go full retard with your InfoWars love.
Now go beat off to Alex Jones and Trump's tiny hands you retarded monkey before the Soros, Zuckerberg, and the Bavarian Illuminati have you forcibly converted into a gay antifa BLM member or what ever the latest conspiracy is.
this one is a FAKE network neutrality bill by *republicans* who are trying to sneak this piece of shit bill through calling it 'network neutrality' when it should be called 'neutered neutrality'.. before the democrats' bill that actually protects consumers and restores title ii classification even gets introduced.
https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/29/15100620/congress-fcc-isp-web-browsing-privacy-fire-sale
Everytime I post this it gets deleted....
How about instead of allowing telecoms to make business arrangements to speed up or slow down communications, let the FCC establish minimum standards of bandwidth and latency as well as minimum standards of interconnectivity with other networks based on averages of network traffic generated by users. And regulating peering technicalities should also represent the public interest in maintaining a reliable communication network.
And then give the telecoms options to provide so called "fast lanes" or faster service to customers that want to pay for it. Customers should be given the choice if they want to pay more for lower latency. And eventually minimum standards should be increased, in the way that the FCC eventually required higher quality TV broadcasts once the technology caught up.
For this fast lane approach to work to move the technology forward then it has to represent people paying for service that is actually faster and better and not just paying not to get throttled back.
Fuck her with a rusty pole. Anyone that's been paying attention knows she's in the ISP's pocket and has been for years. I wouldn't trust her to look after a puppy let alone introduce legislation on net neutrality.
you're all idiots.
slashdot = stagnated
Isn't that the came as co-location or even a content distribution network?
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Creating a 'fast lane' is no different than throttling everything not in that lane. By the basic description, you could (and probably should) sue the shit out of any ISP that gives priority service to those paying more.
Call me a cynic, but I think it likely that this is a ploy.
I think the Republicans set up Ajit's malfuckery on purpose, so that they could pass the awful tax bill, which is deservedly unpopular with anyone who is not rich or ignorant, and then "save the Internet", which will gain them considerable appreciation.
The people have very short memories. I think this is very likely to be an attempt to leverage those short memories. Ajit's actions and the consequent congressional actions are very likely components of a single plan.
--fyngyrz
* Anon due to mod points, because Slashdot rules are stupid. Soylent News does it better. A lot better.
Of course what you actually mean is UNBACKED FIAT CURRENCY. Our critically devalued money, backed only by habit, lack of alternatives, and confidence in a system most people don't understand (and if they did, they'd lose that confidence immediately.) It won't buy what it used to buy except in cases where scarcity of the item(s)/service(s) has come down in strong counterpoint to the devaluation of currency itself.
So... FTFY.
You downmodded it last I posted it, I repost until you run dry of your 'downmodpoints' you puny unidentifiable anonymous fool!
* ... & thus, I utterly CRUSH worms like you CLEAN OUT OF EXISTENCE (seeing that's true as you refuse to use your "registered 'luser'" account vs. me (1 of many FAKE NAME sockpuppets you have for your FAKE LIFE, lol)).
APK
P.S.=> I love frustrating + outsmarting PUNY DOLTS such as yourself - I mean it - makes me laugh @ you & it's SO easy to do (just "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2ez'"))...apk
..when President Lisa Simpson Warren is cleaning up the mess left by 1 termer Bush. Y'know, when your nation is forced to admit it's bankrupt. Ahahaha!
Of course the most obvious in the pocket of telecom will be the one to submit Network Neutrality legislation. Notice I didn't say she wrote it.
Note, however, Lubbock, TX.
Economists love to study it, as it has two competing power grids--and not coincidentally, about the lowest electric prices in the country.
I spoke to another Economist who actually plotted electric prices by distance from lubbock: the closer to it, the greater the threat of the other company expanding there . . .
doc hawk
HAHAHA Alex jones is so full of shit. He probably does a service for the government by riling up the mentally disturbed in society.
[...prohibits internet providers from blocking and throttling content, but does not address whether ISPs can create so-called "fast lanes"]
Throttling and fast lanes are different legs of the same dog. The will accomplish the same goal. Giving rich companies advantages online over everyone else. The poison pill in this legislation, aside from the fact that it doesn't really do anything besides banning the blocking on content (to be fair, that isn't insignificant) is that states would be prohibited from imposing true net neutrality. To the congressman who wrote this, try again.
They sound the same to me: one data stream will be slower than another data stream.
Sector: Communications/Electronics
Total: $1,132,199
Individuals: $261,100
PACs: $871,099
Telecom Services: $268,499
She's no friend of Net Neutrality...
"GET / HTTP/1.0" 200 51230 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Setec Astronomy)"
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/03/republicans-internet-freedom-act-would-wipe-out-net-neutrality/
Prepare for the greatest economic expansion in a generation after this new tax bill.
Taxation is armed robbery. It is gangsterism. It is a mafia protection racket. It is theft, and you are a thief if you support it.
Democide (murder by government) is the #1 cause of non-natural death in world history, and yet you laughingly call an anarchist deluded. How many more hundreds of millions of people need to be killed by governments before you figure out that government is a bad idea? You are the deluded one.
I can rapidly think of:
Education, I can take continuing education class to keep my professional license active.
Medicare, Social Security, public, private schools, etc., private health insurance, etc. in may situations about the only way to communicate with such entities is via the internet.
Non-consumer commerce: paying utilities.
Billing insurance
Applying for other government benefits. Heck, in my state you can apply for aid to the homeless on the internet.
and so on and on.
We are already at the point where many of the things we have to do (unless we get a cabin in the woods, with a copy of Walden or Ted Kazynski's manafesto) are almost only available on-line.
I'm waiting for the day where an ISP decides to slow down internet voting in the Red States. Or Blue States.
HAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAH
She'll be voted out of office.
The ISP you're looking for is AT&T. They have one of the tallest and most recognizable skyscrapers in Nashville. The HQ might technically be Atlanta though, it doesn't really matter- money knows no state boundaries.