Slashdot Mirror
Republican's 'Net Neutrality' Proposal Called 'Bait and Switch' (techcrunch.com)
Remember that net neutrality legislation introduced by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.)? TechCrunch is calling it "half-hearted" -- and suspect.
It's not going to happen, it wouldn't help if it did and Blackburn isn't someone you want writing this kind of legislation. Among other things, she thinks it's the ISPs' job to police content, and voted to kill the Broadband Privacy Rule.
In fact, Blackburn's legislation would deal a "fatal blow" to net neutrality, argues Evan Greer, campaign director at the nonprofit Fight for the Future, writing in Newsweek: Already one of Big Cable's best friends in Congress, Marsha Blackburn, who has taken more than $600,000 from the industry, is pushing for legislation that would permanently undermine the FCC's ability to enforce open internet protections. This bait and switch has been in the works for months. The telecom lobby's end game is to use the crisis they've created to ram through legislation that's branded as a compromise but amounts to a fatal blow to net neutrality... We don't need legislation that's been watered down with kool-aid.
A better solution, he suggests, is pushing Congress to overrule the FCC with a Congressional Resolution of Disapproval.
In fact, Blackburn's legislation would deal a "fatal blow" to net neutrality, argues Evan Greer, campaign director at the nonprofit Fight for the Future, writing in Newsweek: Already one of Big Cable's best friends in Congress, Marsha Blackburn, who has taken more than $600,000 from the industry, is pushing for legislation that would permanently undermine the FCC's ability to enforce open internet protections. This bait and switch has been in the works for months. The telecom lobby's end game is to use the crisis they've created to ram through legislation that's branded as a compromise but amounts to a fatal blow to net neutrality... We don't need legislation that's been watered down with kool-aid.
A better solution, he suggests, is pushing Congress to overrule the FCC with a Congressional Resolution of Disapproval.
Already one of Big Cable's best friends in Congress, Marsha Blackburn, who has taken more than $600,000 from the industry, is pushing for legislation....
That's how our political system works. You need bribes, -cough- I mean campaign contributions, to get elected. Once elected, you have to do what your donors want you to do, even if it's at odds with the best interest of your constituents or the well being of the country. Conversely, if you're a special interest group and want to enact your agenda, you need to bribe, I mean make enough campaign contributions, to get your agenda passed into law. Who's bribing politicians on the behalf of net- neutrality???
Both parties are doing this, so this isn't a Republican or Democratic thing.
Having the FCC destroy the internet or let congress do it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
1) The differences between Title I and Title II?
2) Why the FTC and not the FCC should under current law handle internet regulation as such, and why no one is asking the FTC to do anything instead?
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
Among other things, she thinks it's the ISPs' job to police content
Already one of Big Cable's best friends in Congress,
Aren't these two at odds with each other? ISPs have widely resisted such proposals.
Jesus, what a shithole USAmericans inhabit!
I call it flurghuzert.
So the new rules are "paid prioritization". https://arstechnica.com/tech-p...
And the concern is how to protect websites from being "down voted" out of existence, in respect to QoS priority, etc.
My concern is what is this going to do to VoIP providers. Aside from VoIP/SIP providers, I don't know what is latency sensitive. I actually don't give a rooty toot toot if a Facebook page takes a few seconds longer to load, or a video stream has to buffer a little longer before playing (as long as it doesn't buffer during the stream). VoIP prioritization, and video game lag are about the only things that concern me.
More buffering, and VoIP/SIP protocols cost more or are useless.
Paid prioritization enables ISPs to increasingly oversell available bandwidth. Bandwidth won't be throttled, it simply won't be there.
I might agree to to paid priotization as long as key critical sites are not allowed to have priority. Such as ALL government agencies. All branches of the US government must be explicitly prohibited from having any prioritization of traffic, so as to be able to monitor the conditions of the network and ensure degredation of service is not allowed to happen.
TRUMP!
Has AIDS from Moscow whores!
I prefer to use cash not atm and I prefer to fish as to sit in front of computer.
So following a train of thought I just had. Fake news becomes harder to detect. "Paid prioritization" has an interesting feature of enabling the quarantining of localities.
If local businesses, government, or organizations suffer from the effects of "paid prioritization", a solution is to make it so those are within the local network, before hitting a major ISP pipeline. That way locals would have access, but anyone outside the local community wouldn't have access because "paid prioritization" would consume all available bandwidth across the national pipelines. Then some vague "other" or "they" get blamed for a site being inaccessible.
The results are two-fold. One, foreign powers wouldn't likely be granted paid prioritization to influence elections. Two, if there is any meddling or fake news, foreign or domestic, there wouldn't be a nation wide internet to corroborate or collaborate to identify and challenge the "fake news".
Look at it from the telcos point of view, they get to sell customers internet connections, then resell those customers to websites, who then have to find a way to dump that cost back onto the customers. So customers ultimately pay for this via hidden costs.
That will work only in areas with terrible monopoly/duopoly internet access. If you have choice, costs can't be loaded because you risk the screwed internet companies making it clear costs are being loaded on by their telco.
Look at the voting demographic for Republicans and it's middle America, the same people who are going to get screwed senseless by the telcos. Because they're the ones with limited choices for internet access, they're the ones Chairman Pai is screwing over. It's Karma.
It's like Obamacare, it rewards older people with pre-existing conditions with protection from insurance sharks, it penalizes younger healthy people who could skip the insurance with a (finger-crossed) hope of staying healthy for the moment.
So who is getting screwed when Trump refuses to pay out premiums he's legally obliged to pay, or Congress spikes the mandate?..... Fat old white men with diabetes who watch Fox and vote Republican. Karma.
And who is getting rewarded by the ability to skip insurance payments and take the risk? Younger, healthier, largely Democrat voters.
Karma.
They won't get coal jobs, Ford is still making the Mexico car plant, they'll just be a bit poorer than their fellow Americans as a consequence of their blind team flag following.
Either a new bill is fair and includes Net Neutrality or it isn't. That doesn't mean all bills on the subject will be horrible. I don't get the give up mentality by this writer. The point is to make a law about Net Neutrality so we don't have votes made of 5 people making important decisions, but congress. Hell you could make it an amendment to the constitution, it might be that important.
The old rules didn't prevent overselling bandwidth.
Yes they did. If the bandwidth was oversold to a significant degree, EVERYBODY suffered.
Now only those who do not pay for priotization will suffer. Which means it will take longer for issues to get resolved.
I also don't see where this will save me money. Before we shared the cost for the internet across everybody, and so i probably paid more than I should have. Now I'm going to have to pay extra for the services I do use, like VPN/RDP into the office for emergency use, or access to Slashdot.
Lets not make a law overly complex by introducing legistlation that involves a lot of opinion. Keep "Net Neutrality" to the lower levels, and craft some free speech laws to govern the higher levels of the OSI model.
It's got what the internet craves. You didn't see anyone in that movie use much of anything that resembles the current internet.
That only works if all the towns only have municipal broadband that is entirely autonomous and locally administered. But the reality is that most people's Internet access are controlled by national networks. Paid prioritization just makes it easier for foreign powers to target the national network and spread fake news to the entire country of people.
How do you suppose you got your Internet access?
I once had a signature.
Shorter Anonymous Coward: "We want to keep spewing our alt-right bullshit on social media without the owners of the platform deciding they don't want to be associated with literal Nazis".
Paid prioritization only enables foreign powers if there is no patriotism in the ISPs.
Otherwise local municipal broadband is the end result of "paid prioritization".
Though "Paid Prioritization" might work, if it is limited to blocks of time, say two hour intervals. This allows entertainment companies to buy blocks of time during "prime time", keeping business and educational costs down for SIP service, etc., during business and school hours. It should also enable a window of opportunity for minorities or other smaller groups to carve out niches in bandwidth being financially supported by major players.
Everyone's getting nuts over speeds, and money. The real problem is that eventually it will result in a whitelist, where sites need to be approved by the service provider......
Common carrier status was the point all along. Simple Trojan horse meant to tag along with a popular idea. Donâ(TM)t tell me that you had no intentions of implementing all the restrictions and powers of Title 2 to allow Google Et al to regulate and control at will and then cry bloody murder when your same issue gets solved by altering the current status. Just another set of laws promised not to be implemented until some civil servant decides otherwise.
There is everything wrong with the proposal.
https://i.imgur.com/YFg4yf0.pn... - hi, look at my first month bill of service. No, there are not multiple lines. No, I paid for the phone outright. No, no tethering, no jetpack modem, nada except the basic 'unlimited' package.
Welcome to your new world of pay-for fast lanes.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
gamers say your an idiot
prolly like loot boxes that allow lil kids to gamble too
Even if all ISPs are completely patriotic, it's hard to distinguish foreign interference from grassroots movement. You only need to look at a few recent examples, e.g. Heart of Texas. Before ISPs and Facebook realize that they have been foreign sponsored, it would have been too late after the damage is done.
And seeing how the ISPs are able to lobby the government to abolish net neutrality, they now have enough monopoly and power so that they don't have to pretend to be patriotic anymore. In many municipalities, the telecom companies have exclusive access to the utility poles so even Google Fiber can't build new Internet access. Let alone common folks like you and me. And Municipal Internet is just not happening. Here is the list of states with conditional or total ban, or minefield in their laws.
I still want to know how you got your Internet. You seem ingenuously optimistic.
I once had a signature.
You're so full of shit. My phone bill hasn't changed and I HAVE bought an Iphone(2 actually) and I DO have unlimited data. AND AND I DO get good speeds. Take your fake bullshit elsewhere. also Sprint. people like you that lie to try to make a point, do nothing to help the cause you're trying to help.
If a municipal internet is not possible, then a monopoly is likely the alternative. Otherwise you are pressed to pay premiums to access a website hosted literally across the street, because it has to be routed through a peering arrangement out of state, which prioritizes other traffic above your local infrastructure.
It's amazing to me how many people think that the US was this backwater, third-world country before 2008.
I guess the real question would be why would a provider pay for paid prioritization if they cannot be throttled?
What was supposedly happening before Net neutrality was that ISP's were using packet shapers to throttle sites like Netflix and YouTube and when the sites started calling out ISP's for throttling, the ISP's claimed network congestion that would magically go away (cause the shaper was turned off for their site) if some money would be thrown their way. Net neutrality made this illegal.
Under the Republican proposal, an ISP can not Throttle, Impair or Degrade Internet Traffic but Paid Prioritization is still on the table which supposedly makes this law bad, but If that's the case, why would Netflix or YouTube pay for prioritization when throttling is illegal? If the ISP's where throttling illegally, sites would have the option to sue for damages under the law.
If anything is wrong with this proposal, Sites would legally have the ability to throttle traffic to an ISP (and on top of that, lie to it's customers so that the customers put pressure on the ISP) to where the ISP would have to pay them for prioritized content as a sort of new age carriage dispute. Even the old Net Neutrality rules had no provisions or blocks for this. What this law really needs is a clause that bans throttling from Both parties instead of Just ISP's
In Soviet Russia, Trojan exploits YOU!
The only authority the FCC has right now is...nothing. The only authority the FTC has right now is to yell at ISPs if they lie about the services they offer. As long as they put it in fine print on page 24 of the TOS they can do whatever they like.
Yeah, you're totally full of shit. That bill has absolutely zero to do with net neutrality.
You call someone a liar for posting their experience and possibly being erroneous about the reason? Whatâ(TM)s wrong with you? Sounds like youâ(TM)re living up to your username. Another anonymous internet tough guy saying things theyâ(TM)d get punched out for on the street.
Throttling is reducing bandwidth regardless of how much is available. Basically it is creating "artificial congestion".
Prioritization doesn't reduce bandwidth per se, unless the network is heavily congested. And then rather than everybody's bandwidth being impacted, only low priority traffic gets impacted. Low priority previously meaning UDP, like YouTube or Netflix.
Stop voting Republican. It's already been pointed out that they're the ones behind this. And vote in your primary. Voting doesn't do any good if your just voting for Republicans running with a D next to their name (Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelocy, I'm looking at you).
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The real issue is MASS SURVEILLANCE.
Net neutrality is a non-issue. It's just an argument over which plutocratic faction gets to anally rape your freedom before the other. But be assured, both get their turn.
Google vs ISPs, whose do you prefer up yours in which order?
Plain and simple, net neutrality is a distraction to bury conversation about mass surveillance. Stop letting the media decide your subjects of conversation for you.
My karma was manually wiped by site staff https://slashdot.org/~slshdtisctrldbysjws 18 mod up, 10 mod down = bad karma
As with all bills, we need to know who wrote the bill for the congressperson, and who the bill writer is working for. It wasn't the congressperson who wrote it. There is no ethical reason why this information should be hidden from the public.
Find out who payed for its creation, and you'll know the motivations behind it.
Verizon? Comcast?
This is prime Poe's Law
Salute!
It only covered the bottom 3 MEDIA layers of the OSI model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI_model#Description_of_OSI_layers/ but not content providers up in the FINAL TOP layer(s)!
Thus, so they could censor or delete anything they don't like & promote their own BULLSHIT instead - yes, that includes /. or Google, YouTube + FakeBook!
(Especially these latter 2 ala facebook's "political arm" of bots trolling for them https://politics.slashdot.org/story/17/12/21/2033245/how-facebooks-political-unit-enables-the-dark-art-of-digital-propaganda/ ).
I am ALL for everyone travelling @ the SAME EQUAL SPEED based on what you pay your ISP for - that's potentially NOW not the case.
It was abused before too:
E.G. - Comcast throttled NetFlix vs. THEIR COMPETING OFFERING to outcompete it - THAT IS LAME, LOW & WRONG (f'ing cheating is more like it).
* Under OLD "net neutrality", content providers (like /., facebook, & google) are notorious for this to promote "their own agenda"!
(As /. does for OpenSORES, Google or Facebook + SJW material more often than not as the content here vs. the past being solely on tech almost)
&
THIS YEAR, whipslash & his moderators here have been DELETING POSTS https://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11509041&cid=55776597/ when it's widely KNOWN & SAID w/ SLASHDOT BRAGGING "but, But, BUT... /. doesn't DELETE posts" - bullshit. /. is NOT what it once was... period.
Now, I am also ALL for everyone being able to FREELY SPEAK (by all means)!
HOWEVER as you can see with proofs above?
"The downmod OR delete truncheon gets used in lieu of conversation" where discussion, facts & logic would ultimately triumph otherwise!
(No, instead, the "banhammer" is used! That's bullshit & denies freedom of speech (a basic principle of U.S. Society + an inalienable right & THEY ARE HOSTED IN THE USA)).
AGAIN & MOST IMPORTANT - See the Facebook link again https://politics.slashdot.org/story/17/12/21/2033245/how-facebooks-political-unit-enables-the-dark-art-of-digital-propaganda/
Just to see HOW IT WAS USED AGAINST YOU & TO STOP THEIR CRAP BEING EXPOSED FOR WHAT IT IS (censoring anything that exposed their CROOKED AGENDA)
APK
P.S.=> The OLD net neutrality was done by some SNEAKY BASTARDS using 1/2 truths & NOT telling ALL THE FACTS of how it worked - now, above, YOU HAVE FACTS & SOLID VERIFIABLE UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE of how it actually "worked" (worked against you to promote bogus agendas unfairly is more like it)... apk
Yeah mod this down, your privacy against one company and ability to download cat videos without paying extra really matters in the face of the TOTAL SURVEILLANCE STATE.
I think the Donald Trump election has completely broken the minds of the majority of the leftist side. They have been trained to let the media directly into their inner circles of thought based on the echo chamber they've been provided for "NOT MY PRESIDENT".
So when the media champions a cause they are inclined to, they just let in all the assertions brainlessly and never even begin to evaluate the wider context and so miss the question of whether or not the topic at hand is actually relevant.
Brainless, emotional animals. Frontal lobe pruned by classical conditioning. Leftists will be the death of us all if we don't stop them very, very soon. See what happened with communism. That's what's in store for us. Genocide against the intelligent, whole people as the leftists take revenge for their personal failures.
My karma was manually wiped by site staff https://slashdot.org/~slshdtisctrldbysjws 18 mod up, 10 mod down = bad karma
Who could have ever conceived that a politician could lie to the electorate in a cynical ploy to obtain their votes.
I. AM. SHOCKED. Shocked, I say.
What's next? Doctors who prescribe expensive medical procedures/tests just so they can generate more revenue?
Face it. Nice guys finish last for a reason. To be successful, you have to be a sociopath.
but If that's the case, why would Netflix or YouTube pay for prioritization when throttling is illegal
It doesn't matter whether the throttling is illegal. It only matters if the throttling happens. Netflix and Youtube can't survive without clean access to customers of ISPs. If the ISPs want protection money, well, Youtube and Netflix will raise the rates on their customers and consider it the unpleasant costs of doing business.
Throttling is reducing bandwidth regardless of how much is available. Basically it is creating "artificial congestion".
Prioritization doesn't reduce bandwidth per se, unless the network is heavily congested.
It's like the "toll lanes" on a freeway. It's not too bad for the people who pay, but it's a lane that was taken out of service from general traffic, thus making the traffic for non-payers even worse.
You call someone a liar for posting their experience and possibly being erroneous about the reason?
It muddies the water, one of the more damaging things you can do for your own side in any discussion. Yeah, the GP might have been harsh, but the GGP is doing no one any favors here.
Communist! Rant rant market, mumble mumble supply.
--
roman_mir