Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Senate Bill to Block Net Neutrality Repeal Now Has 40 Co-Sponsors (thehill.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the fast-tracked dept.

New submitter Rick Schumann writes: The senate bill to block the FCC repeal of Obama-era internet net neutrality rules now has 40 co-sponsors, up from the 30 co-sponsors it had yesterday. The bill, being driven by Senate minority Democrats, requires only a simple majority vote in order to be passed, although Washington insiders are currently predicting the bill will fail. "The bill would use authority under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to block the FCC's repeal from going into effect," reports The Hill. "And with more than 30 senators on board, the legislation will be able to bypass the committee approval process and Democrats will be able to force a vote on the floor."

106 comments

  1. It will FAIL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    there are NOT enough VOTES

    1. Re:It will FAIL by bobbied · · Score: 1, Troll

      In both the Senate and the House, it *will* fail.... But this isn't about passing, it's about getting a vote record for the silly election season we rapidly approach.

      Think of it as a two ring circus with a hoard of clowns running about looking for the best clown car they can find to drive up the votes... Eventually they will pile into a couple of the most promising cars and race around the area between the rings throwing cream pies at cars from the other ring...

      Net Neutrality is just a broken car that doesn't run, but the paint looks shiny so it's attracting a pile of clowns right now. It won't make it to the pie throwing part come this summer...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:It will FAIL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Net Neutrality is just a broken car that doesn't run, but the paint looks shiny..."

      What are you talking about? NN isn't a partisan issue, someone running for office, or even a abstract concept. This is about making sure all the nonsense you rather simplistically try to 'splain with cars and tents can't come to the Internet.

      And you do realize your characterization of political discourse falls into the trap of nomalization of bad behaviour, right? Why not just say what you actually mean: 'Just let this issue pass, pay no attention please.'

    3. Re:It will FAIL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In both the Senate and the House, it *will* fail.... But this isn't about passing, it's about getting a vote record for the silly election season we rapidly approach.

      Sounds like a waste of money.
      No-one who actually looks up how the parties vote on specific bills would be on the fence.

      One party have been voting for anti-democratic measures and against the peoples interests for 50 years now.
      The people who still vote for them aren't going to suddenly start reading up on what they vote for.

      Yeah, I'm not going to tell you which party you should support, there are enough records for you to do your own research.
      Also, people who tell you that the parties are the same are saying so because they know they can't defend their guy and doesn't want to get into it.

  2. OK... by Brett+Buck · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So, they are actually making a law about it, as they should have in the first place, rather than a proclamation from an unelected regulatory body? Seems like that is exactly what *should* happen.

    1. Re:OK... by Obfuscant · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So, they are actually making a law about it,

      No, this is not a law about NN, it is a law ordering the FCC to continue an Obama policy, which was a proclamation from an unelected regulatory body. Kicking the can, so to speak, instead of doing what they should.

    2. Re:OK... by ArhcAngel · · Score: 2

      NOPE. They aren't making a law. They are voting to prevent new FCC rules from going into effect. The FCC can turn right around and resubmit the rules.

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    3. Re:OK... by RedK · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You know, instead of passing a law to order the FCC to enforce arbitrary policies set by a commission, they could use the opportunity to pass actual consumer protection type Net Neutrality rules.

      Leave it to Congress to not do anything right.

      --
      "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
      Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
    4. Re:OK... by bobbied · · Score: 0

      So, they are actually making a law about it, as they should have in the first place, rather than a proclamation from an unelected regulatory body? Seems like that is exactly what *should* happen.

      Nope, they are *trying* to use the Congressional Review process and reverse the FCC's rulemaking that reversed the NN rules made 2 years ago.. Complex sounding? Yea, but the simple truth is they will fail, likely in the Senate, but if they manage a majority there, in the House.. IF they get really lucky and manage to swing the House, then it will be vetoed by Trump... At that point, the Senate would have to override the veto... No chance we get a veto override...

      What they really are doing is trying to create a wedge issue for the 2018 midterms. Problem is, nobody but the left really cares as long as their Netfilx keeps streaming, so this will only be good for a few precious campaign donations which *might* buy a few votes from the sheep, but the issue won't win them any support from the middle. But I guess, the left is *way* behind in raising cash so they are clawing at anything they can dream up at this point.

      Mark my words, we won't be talking NN by March, other issues will dominate.. If we are discussing it still come summer, democrats are going to loose big.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    5. Re:OK... by naubol · · Score: 2

      Your point is regulatory bodies shouldn't regulate?

      --
      Reality is a slackware box running on a 386 tucked away in god's sock drawer.
    6. Re:OK... by bobbied · · Score: 2

      Actually no.. If they manage to get Congressional Review passed though both the house and Senate (unlikely to be sure) and Trump actually signs it (a snowballs chance of that) it reverses the FCC's decision. Further the FCC cannot re-issue the rule making and Net Neutrality would remain in force unless congress acted. Lucky it won't get out of the Senate... It would be a huge mess if this actually happened. The CR process is supposed to stop rules from being made, not deleted, and the unintended side effects are nasty if used to stop a rule from being deleted.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    7. Re:OK... by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      You know, instead of passing a law to order the FCC to enforce arbitrary policies set by a commission, they could use the opportunity to pass actual consumer protection type Net Neutrality rules.

      Leave it to Congress to not do anything right.

      To be fair, a law would be like texting your intentions to a partner in a sketchy relationship versus promising something verbally with neither witnesses nor readily available recording equipment.

      A reversible Presidential proclamation has the ambiguity necessary for those in power to get behind vigorously until the test proves out.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    8. Re:OK... by MachineShedFred · · Score: 2

      Sometimes it's worth it to get a vote on record. By being able to force a floor vote, during a mid-term election year, they can force these Senators to either side with the 80% of the public that disagrees with the FCC, or side with the monopolistic corporate asshat ISPs that are jamming this down everyone's throats through lobbyists and schmoozing 5 unelected guys who apparently set the rules with their sole oversight being a Congressional rubber stamp session.

      Let them vote no, and then hammer them with it relentlessly for the next 10 months, showing that Senator Porkbelly votes against not only your interests, but 4 out of 5 voters' interests. Make it the biggest issue of the campaign, and make Senator Porkbelly explain themselves and their vote at every single public event of their campaign.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    9. Re:OK... by Brett+Buck · · Score: 2

      Actually, my point is that lawmakers shouldn't ever in any circumstance be permitted to create regulatory bodies in the first place. Every single law should be voted on by Congress. It would then be *impossible* to have a spew of regulations emitted at the whim of the participants, but that the representatives would be personally responsible for the effects at the polls.

    10. Re:OK... by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Regulatory bodies are the appropriate place for REGULATION.
      That is why Congress authorizes those bodies,yes?

    11. Re:OK... by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Problem is, nobody but the left really cares as long as their Netfilx keeps streaming,

      Actually, Americans have spoken to the Pollsters and by 2/3, WANT NET NEUTRALITY!

    12. Re:OK... by spitzak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      nobody but the left really cares

      This is because some are being lied to, capitalizing on their inability to distinguish the word "neutrality" from "communist plot".

      When the right sees the internet turned into a giant Safe Space where nonconforming opinions are not allowed because they hurt business, and there is no more free porn, they might realize they were misled.

    13. Re: OK... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Itâ(TM)s a stretch to claim any percentage of actual people who actually care more about what passed for NN than they do over a choice of their next fast food meal.

    14. Re:OK... by pots · · Score: 1

      I think I'm going to repeat this every time someone apes this stupid talking point:

      It is a law. The short explanation is that congress has made a couple of laws which apply here, the most recent is the Telecommunications Act of 1996. In that law they set some standards how to classify different services and assigned the FCC to apply and enforce this law. Initially the FCC classified DSL as a telecommunications service and in 1999 applied the provision of the law which required line sharing of telecommunications services. But in 2002, with a new set of FCC commissioners, cable ISPs were classified as information services, which did not require line sharing (thus no competition). Then in 2005, DSL was reclassified as an information service. Then in 2015, both were reclassified as telecommunications services along with wireless providers. (fiber and other options fit in there somewhere, I'm not sure about classifications or dates) Now the new FCC is trying to reclassify all options as information services again.

      Why doesn't congress enforce the law themselves? Because congress is not law enforcement.

      Why doesn't congress determine for themselves the classification for each and every service? Because there are new services all the time, and also because congress lacks expertise on this, so they wrote the law in this manner to ensure that it would stay current.

      Doesn't that give control of the internet to a bunch on unelected dweebs? No, congress is still in control and congress members are elected.

      If congress is in control, then why isn't congress reversing this decision? Because this decision is exactly what congress wants. This is what Pai was put in place to do. Not every congress member wants this, which is why we have the vote mentioned in the story, but the vote will fail to change anything because this is what most of congress wants.

    15. Re:OK... by mrlinux11 · · Score: 1

      I think your response has one to many words "Leave it to Congress to not do anything right." Should be Leave it to Congress to not do anything.

    16. Re:OK... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No they won't make it a law.

      They want to keep it a nice can change anytime arbitrary rule from a non-elected position.

      Why?

    17. Re:OK... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Interests are in the eye of the beholder.... NN doesn't matter to the majority of voters as long as their Netflix works.

      I suppose the democrats can try to *make* it an issue by yammering on and on about unfairness, but that takes time and money, both of which are in short supply on the left. So if this is all they got, they are in serious trouble.

      Truly, the left needs to stop wasting time on the trivial like NN and come up with some bigger issues for their stump speeches and campaign ads. Times a wast'n and money is short. Maybe resurrect that impeachment thing? Russian collusion narrative? Or, that obstruction of justice fiasco? Oh right, those are not working for you... "M-peach 45!" just doesn't have the ring in the middle it once had and eventually voters get tired of the chicken little act.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    18. Re:OK... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      LOL... Yea, but does it matter enough to get them to vote when "Hey look, my Netflix still works even with out NN... What in the (h e double hockey sticks) are they yammering on about?"

      I think you wildly over estimate the importance of the issue to voters or the ease with which the issue is defused by the "We don't need government regulation messing up the internet" argument.

      So, what polls tell you this? Can you give us a reference that includes the poll results, raw data and the method used?

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    19. Re:OK... by galenanorth · · Score: 1

      The reason we have these regulatory bodies, collectively like a fourth branch of government, is that Congress always hyperfocuses on the most controversial parts of its agenda (implementing Obamacare, repealing Obamacare) first immediately upon taking office. It leaves the details of regulation to a committee of experts who aren't lobbyists, which works until someone comes into office who appoints lobbyists. If these agencies weren't there, Congress probably wouldn't pick up the slack.

    20. Re:OK... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      LOL... Keep trying to amp up the riot... Crying "Give us Barabbas" from the back of the crowd isn't going to work long term.

      First, I see no advantage for ISP's to filter content. That takes equipment and manpower to do. Both cost money and impact profit so there is no incentive to do it. They also didn't do this before NN was made a rule so why do you think they would suddenly decide it's a good idea now, two years later? What changed? Nothing I can see.

      Second, Net Neutrality didn't regulate content providers in their choice of content. Facebook was still in full control of it's content and could filter to it's heart's content with no "neutral" unbiased requirement for filters or content. There was no "equal time/space" requirement levied on content providers, and never could be with the 1st amendment remaining in full force. You can publish what you want and refuse what you don't under NN and now without it. If Facebook wanted to suppress specific opinions, they can, and actually do now.

      Third, there is no such thing as free content (porn or otherwise) because it costs somebody something to put it up there. I'm pretty sure that the motives (advertising profit or what have you) that puts this stuff out for free isn't going to change. It was there before NN, during NN, and will remain after NN is gone.

      So why are you yelling at the back of the crowd again?

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    21. Re:OK... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aye, many have been lied to, and it's almost all from the "Preserve Obama's Legacy" side.

      Take a look back at the two weeks prior to this FCC decision. Look at blogs, reddit, youtube concern videos, wherever. People were being told that repealing a 2 year old regulation that had only partially been implemented would be the end of free porn, or the end of discussion forums, or that going to "unsanctioned" web sites would require multiple fees. There were Facebook concern trolls pretending that individual comments would become pay-to-read if the vote went through.

      It was all hogwash, and some of those pushing it even admitted later that everything they said was a lie because "the masses aren't smart enough to understand why this is important."

    22. Re:OK... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And others swallow what they are being told by a bunch of huge corporations.

      It is not the right that has been trying to silence non-conforming opinions. I'll refer you to Facebook, Google, et. al. throughout the last two years. They have not been shy about their efforts to ensure that only their preferred viewpoints are seen.

      Here's a hint.... just because the regulation had the word "neutrality" in it, don't believe that it has anything to do with neutrality.

      When techies think about net neutrality, they think about being protocol or content agnostic. Just ship the packets. Of course that comes with stipulations if bandwidth is limited. You need QOS for VOIP or low latency apps like gaming if your bandwidth is limited. But we don't count that as some great evil.

      There are legitimate concerns about ISP secrecy as to their throttling of certain traffic. The Obama era rules were not about that. They were about a power grab by the FCC to control an industry that was beyond their authority. Certain huge companies were for it. Others were against it. One (google) was against it before they were for it.

      But it ends up where it always ends up. With big money interests buying influence with regulators to gain an advantage in their business.

      This move by the FCC is an attempt to push the whole affair over to the FTC and force ISPs to have complete and accurate TOS agreements and be held to them. So they would be required to disclose everything about what the do with your traffic. And then the people get to choose if they will pay for that service.

      It might not work. And if it doesn't, it is incumbent upon congress to come up with a law detailing the regulatory system to be used.

      So basically everything that is dominating coverage and gossip about this issue is wrong. The big money (google, netflix, amazon) is all on the side of regulation. The less big money (Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Charter) wants to be free to handle it their own way. And a bunch of useful idiots on the internet are running around thinking that in doing the bidding of the largest companies on earth they are "fighting big corporate interests".

    23. Re:OK... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What he said... net neutrality isn't about preventing companies from controlling content. In fact, the biggest proponents of controlling political viewpoints are behind the net neutrality push. Facebook has been loudly proclaiming their intent to filter content and block viewpoints. They are the biggest proponents of net neutrality regulations.

      The real rational behind the whole thing is about bandwidth, not content. And the driver of the bandwidth issue is video. Namely Netflix. At one point they were about half of all internet traffic. Don't know if that still holds true, but it brought about a legitimate problem for the ISP. Because of the way internet traffic is billed at the backbone level, Netflix heavily skewed the billing. This in addition to slowing the networks and requiring upgrades. So ISPs had good reason to do something about all that traffic.

      Simultaneously, some of the ISPs are also content providers (the cable companies). This puts them in a very strong conflict of interest. Hence the worry from Netflix et. al.

    24. Re:OK... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, they are actually making a law about it, as they should have in the first place, rather than a proclamation from an unelected regulatory body? Seems like that is exactly what *should* happen.

      WTF? There is a law. More than one law. And the courts have already ruled that the FCC was following those laws. So stop pretending to be stupid. You already knew this.

    25. Re:OK... by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      So, they are actually making a law about it,

      No, this is not a law about NN, it is a law ordering the FCC to continue an Obama policy, which was a proclamation from an unelected regulatory body. Kicking the can, so to speak, instead of doing what they should.

      That could explain why it doesn't have the support we would think it would have; it's not really the right way to go about it.
      Politicians use this as a tactic against each other all the time in debates, bringing up opponent's voting records; "Senator foo voted against Bill xyz ..Clearly, he hates you!"... in reality, Senator foo maybe liked a a number of the provisions included and the general theme, but thought the bill was written half-assed and didn't go far enough or cover enough contingencies; or that some of the provisions would actually be harmful. The worse congressman is the one who has a sparse voting record (absent, abstain, etc..), they're not even doing their job.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    26. Re:OK... by spitzak · · Score: 1

      Holy fuck you people are stupid.

      Without NN there will be nothing *but* facebook! Don't you get it? Do you have a clue at all? The stupidity being presented here, and the endless confusion of NN with some kind of "fairness doctrine" is disgusting.

      You have to realize that within a few years the "slow lane" will have a speed of ZERO. Think about it and stop being an echo chamber.

    27. Re:OK... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Sometimes it's worth it to get a vote on record.

      Mostly if you are trying to create a symbolic issue that you can disparage your opposition over. Like "Senator Foo voted NO on NET NEUTRALITY! He wants you to pay more for Netflix and let the greedy ISPs charge you more! He's not on your side! I am."

      The truth is, this is not the way to go about it, and voting "no" doesn't mean you don't support NN anymore than it means you hate kittens.

      Let them vote no, and then hammer them with it relentlessly for the next 10 months,

      In other words, let's turn NN into a hotbutton political issue with lots of heat and very little light.

      but 4 out of 5 voters' interests

      Citation required. I doubt that 80% of the public knows what NN is, much less in going to worry about how Senator Foo votes on it -- until they're told how to think about it by talking points.

    28. Re:OK... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Without NN there will be nothing *but* facebook!

      How so?

      I've been around for *most* if the internet's history and personally witnessed the rise and fall of all sorts of "They will take over the world!" things it spawned.

      I remember when Netscape was the only browser, when AOL was pretty much the world's ISP and Yahoo was the only search engine anybody ever knew. None of that is true today and it all happened without the help of Net Neutrality regulations mandated by some government agency. We developed HTTP, got annoyed by animated GIFS, then struggled to contain Style sheets and Java Script as it exploded websites from a collection of text and clickable links into interactive user interfaces. All this, no government involvement or interference in the development of these technologies.

      Facebook is the only thing because the haven't figured out how to make a profit with it so nobody has an incentive to duplicate, adapt and beat them. There is no money in it. Yahoo used to be wildly successful and the ONLY game in town and once it started making money, competitors came out of the wood work for a piece of the search engine pie. Now we have Google, Bing AND Yahoo and a pretty long list of failed attempts to field search engines. Again, with no help from the FCC's rules...

      I don't know what all ya'all are worried about in this regard. Competition has been working since the late 80's on the internet just fine thank you and I see no reason that it cannot continue to work the same way in the future w/o massive government involvement. What do you think has changed here?

      I'm also old enough to remember how things worked when the government was regulating the Airline industry, were routes where doled out by the government with tweezers and how the service and prices of airline tickets was regulated. There was zero innovation, no price competition and everybody made money, except the people who wanted to get into the business and couldn't. Then these oppressive regulations ended, the airline industry was deregulated and guess what? The number of airlines grew, service increased, innovation drove efficiency, better and more profitable routes where found and developed and more money was made. All the while, Prices fell and availably went up, WAY up and now just about anybody can fly, not just the well to do and business customers.

      We don't need to make the same kinds of mistakes with the internet... Leave government regulation out of this, it really doesn't help anything.

      An often repeated saying goes like this: "Those who don't know history are bound to repeat it" to which I ad "While those who DO study history are forced to watch."

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    29. Re:OK... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Actually, Americans have spoken to the Pollsters

      "Dewey beats Truman!"

      Push-polling is a wonderful perversion of the political process. If you don't know the specific questions, then you don't know what a poll means. I've had push-pollers call me and I've heard what kinds of leading questions they ask for myself.

    30. Re:OK... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ISDN, InterLATA, IntraLATA...ugh...all driven by Title II. Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.

    31. Re:OK... by spitzak · · Score: 1

      Endless repeating of the lie that there was "no NN before this" is not going to make it true. But this appears to be the lie that your overlords have chosen. Sad.

    32. Re:OK... by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and Rasmussen is the master
      That said, 8 DIFFERENT polls said Americans agree "Screw you" to the Tax cuts for the very richest
      Oh, Dewey beats Truman was even closer than Trump Beats Hillary, which we all know didn't happen among the voters.
      But dirt apparently decides whose vote counts more.

    33. Re:OK... by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      It will matter more than you imagine once your favorite RW spew site is too slow to read.
      Or they'll have to sell out to the Koch Brothers or their ilk

    34. Re:OK... by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Oh, boy, got distracted.
      By 2/3, get it? 67% in fact americans WANT Net Neutrality
      We've an abhorrance of profit based censorship

    35. Re:OK... by bobbied · · Score: 0

      LOL... Don't understand history eh? Think we need government protection form the evil corporations on the internet eh? That's just stupid talk.

      On the Koch brothers... Do you even know who the Koch brother are or where they live?

      Not that I've actually met them, but I've seen them in public, know people who work for them and even know precisely where they live (drove by it around Christmas time and saw their Christmas lights actually). I can tell you they are not Satan in the flesh or worthy of your scorn. However, I get how the left has their favorite whipping boys and hobby horses you just have to ride... So Yeeee Hawwww! you loony leftist type, here's your buggy whip..

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    36. Re:OK... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Endless assertions that it's not true, with no evidence doesn't make it false either... But that's all the cards you have left to play...

      Are there no lessons to learn from history? Are we really that stupid to think it doesn't have anything to say here?

      So you proceed to repeat your claims that the sky is going to fall and kill us all if we don't keep these rules around.... Lather up the crowd, rinse and repeat.

      Look, if we actually end up having an identifiable issue and not these "it might happen" things you guys have invented, why don't we agree that in the event something actually happens that needs to be adjusted in the regulatory structure we can do it later when everybody agrees it is necessary. Throwing regulations at hypothetical problems invented to justify the proposed regulations is just plain stupidity of the highest order. Besides, if we have an issue you get to say "See! I told you so!" and gloat, and do it with my blessing.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    37. Re:OK... by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      You want a citation? here it is.

      This is one of the biggest slam dunks in bipartisan issues going today. 83% overall support keeping the rules. 75% of Republicans polled support keeping it. 89% of Democrats polled want the rules to stay the same. 86% of Independents polled want the rules.

      Very rarely do issues come along where it is a slam dunk with voters.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    38. Re:OK... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what exactly are these unintended side-effects?

    39. Re:OK... by lexman098 · · Score: 1

      Competition has worked on the internet thus far because the means of transmission have traditionally been landline phone cables. You mention AOL being pretty much the "world's ISP", but there were still local upstarts that would/could compete because ultimately you connected to AOL through a dialup service. These days the fiber has been laid and the cell towers have gone up and they're all owned by a few massive entities. Net neutrality comes from people's worry that these large companies (who actually compete with services like netflix) won't just keep the gate wide open like AOL had to in the dialup days. They would stand to profit quite a bit by prioritizing their own services and making Facebook or Netlifx pay extra to get their content across.

    40. Re:OK... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      So, this is based on a hypothetical "Wow, this COULD happen you know!" set of events? That's not a good idea, given the thing being regulated has survived just fine for two decades.

      How about we forego regulations until they are necessary to correct some thing that's actually happening instead of just going off half cocked throwing massive regulations to cover a load of hypotheticals that may or may not happen? That way we can write targeted regulations which have fewer unintended side effects, which are easy to understand and apply. NN was a massive "regulate everything and the kitchen sink" regulation that created a huge government organization at the FCC to enforce it. We don't need the complication or government expense.

      So I propose that we simply wait until there is an identifiable problem, THEN discuss the possible solutions and pick the solution with the minimum of impact. There is no need for this preemptive crazy train.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    41. Re:OK... by lexman098 · · Score: 1

      So why didn't you lead with that 3 posts ago instead of disagreeing based on falsehoods? It seems you're just against it regardless of what anyone says.

      As to your latest rebuttal, I'm pretty sure "wait until it's a problem" isn't a good strategy. At that point a lot of damage could be done and it may be too late to fix with the glacial pace that the government moves.

    42. Re:OK... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      That ridiculous there libby... The FCC can easily make a regulation anytime it is necessary.

      What prevents the FCC from passing Net Neutrality in it's current form in the future? Nothing, but folks like me objecting. So if you come up with a reason that justifies it and people like me don't object, it can be done. Your fears are unfounded and your objection is moot.

      And I DID say "Let's wait for a problem, then regulate" multiple times in this thread in other branches.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  3. Second Post! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    This could have been First Post ! if only my ISP wasn't throttling Slashdot.

    1. Re:Second Post! by Fly+Swatter · · Score: 1

      Bad news, your connection is even slower than you thought.

  4. Allow right of way to the polls and conduits by Karmashock · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... literally the whole problem is the result of government created monopolies where in a few companies are allowed to run cable and no one else is...

    https://www.wired.com/2013/07/...

    A little competition and the entire argument becomes moot.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:Allow right of way to the polls and conduits by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The problem with 'competition' in this case is this: who owns the cables on the poles? Lots of smaller ISPs have to lease lines from, say, AT&T for instance. There's nothing preventing AT&T, in this example, from either saying "nah, we don't want to lease them to you" or "okay, but we're going to charge you up the ying-yang for them". Even making everything wireless won't solve this problem, there's only so much bandwidth.

    2. Re:Allow right of way to the polls and conduits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      who own the poles?

      HITLER

    3. Re:Allow right of way to the polls and conduits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Literally the whole problem is government created monopolies not being regulated as utilities strictly enough to prevent them from abusing their monopoly.

      Competition is not the answer in every case, and Adam Smith knew this and wrote about it hundreds of years ago, however, the problem with regulation is and has always been regulatory capture, such as installing your own lobbyist as head of the agency regulating you.

    4. Re:Allow right of way to the polls and conduits by ShoulderOfOrion · · Score: 2

      You nailed the real problem. Let's not forget that a number of telecoms also actively lobby for (and win) legislation against any form of community broadband, condemning vast areas of the country outside of urban centers to outrageously expensive wireless or dial-up.

    5. Re:Allow right of way to the polls and conduits by pots · · Score: 1

      This argument is about competition. You are arguing for redundant infrastructure, but that isn't necessary to promote competition: there are line sharing rules baked into the Telecommunicaitons Act. Why haven't these line sharing rules been implemented? Because they only apply to telecommunications services, and ISPs were only (re)classified as telecommunications services in 2015. What is this argument about? The current FCC is trying to reclassify ISPs away from telecommunications services.

    6. Re:Allow right of way to the polls and conduits by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      The cables should belong to the ISPs the poles and conduits should be a public utility like roads.

      Any ISP no matter how small or humble should with reasonable limited regulation and fees be allowed to run their own cable from any point A to any other point B. Like roads. You pass some very basic regulation, you are licensed to travel on the road, you pay taxes and fees to pay for the maintenance of the road system, and then you do as you like on it.

      You want a Ma Bell Monopoly to run the cables... probably under a quasi socialized wire network... and then to lease bandwidth on the wire network to smaller ISPs.

      I don't want that. I want the poles and conduits to be opened up to right of way access to third parties.

      The reason we have a duopoly is because of your thinking. And the reason we have companies that exploit the monopoly is because they are given a monopoly by the government.

      Open them up to competition and the monopolies will no longer be monopolies.

      Do you know what it takes to become an ISP in Los Angeles where I live? You have to promise and present a business plan to provide internet access to the entire city of millions upon millions of people.

      Then people wonder why only a few mega corporations compete.

      An ISP should be able to run cable to a single neighborhood or even a single building if they want. You bill them for the per pole or per foot conduit rate... you ensure they have complied with basic reasonable regulation to prevent any obvious problems... and then you just leave them alone.

      The city can build and maintain poles. I trust them with that task. I also trust them with the building and maintenance of conduits.

      Do this and the monopolies will be broken and the whole argument of NN will become irrelevant.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    7. Re:Allow right of way to the polls and conduits by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Sure it is, because who says the reigning ISP has to provide good infrastructure in teh first place. You're assuming that ATT or Verizon's cables are WORTH subletting in the first place.

      As to redundancy, we have redundant sandwich shops. We have redundant shoe factories. We have redundant search engines.

      Redundancy ALLOWS competition because you can switch from X to Y. If there is no redundancy then I can't because the alternative does not exist.

      So yes, I am arguing for redundancy because competition and redundancy are basically interwoven concepts. If the big ISP sublets broadband and everyone uses the sublet ISPs then you're still giving money to the big ISP.

      I don't want to do that. I want to give them NOTHING. I want to totally cut them out of the system by allowing the American people to vote with their feet and wallets.

      Your solution would preserve the monopolies and give people no ability to bypass them ever. It would be permanent market domination where your ISPs set the quality standard that everyone else has to tolerate because you can't buy bandwidth the big ISP doesn't lay in the cable. And the prices will be set by supply and demand as determined by the monopoly.

      Your solution is no solution. It is an illusion of competition proposed to confuse people that don't understand that subletting from the big ISP is still leaving you as a customer of the big ISP.

      I want that to stop. I want to be able to bypass them entirely. Cut out. Done. Fired.

      Your solution is unacceptable. It will change nothing.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    8. Re:Allow right of way to the polls and conduits by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Sure, if you won't simply stop granting them monopoly power you must regulate them heavily.

      That is one path.

      Consider the other... break the monopolies by allowing competition. Then you don't need to heavily regulate them. If any ISP does something shitty, another ISP will eat their market share.

      Running cable and running an ISP is not expensive. If you look at what it costs to run out cable to a single neighborhood, it is comparable to starting a sandwich shop as far as what it costs. That isn't expensive either. The country is full of sandwich shops.

      What people tend to insist with ISPs is that if they run cable they must run it for large regions or not at all. This is like saying if you want to open a sandwich shop you must open a thousand sandwich shops.

      In a city like Los Angeles, where I live... there are thousands of sandwich like eateries. Thousands. Would it be reasonable to say that if you wanted to open one you'd have to open a thousand or even THOUSANDS? That is what prospective ISPs are told.

      And it is why you only get the same mega corps laying cable. Reasonable? Nope.

      Enough with the socialist internet ideas... it only works when your government is competent and cares. What makes any of you people think that is what we'd get in the US? What does the government run that you think is done very well? Name it and I'll come back at you with the documented incompetence.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  5. Pass or Fail, it'll have an impact by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If this passes a vote, then Net Neutrality lives to see another day.
    If it doesn't pass, then those who voted against it will have declared themselves on the issue.
    Either way it's time for them all to get off the fence.

    1. Re:Pass or Fail, it'll have an impact by quantaman · · Score: 2

      If this passes a vote, then Net Neutrality lives to see another day.

      If it doesn't pass, then those who voted against it will have declared themselves on the issue.

      Either way it's time for them all to get off the fence.

      If this passes a vote in the Senate then Paul Ryan can simply ignore it and it will never come up for a vote in the house (and congressional GOP members won't be on record as voting against it).

      If Paul Ryan does schedule a vote, and it does pass congress, then Trump still has the option of vetoing it.

      In fact, if they were being really devious, the Senate could pass the bill unanimously and the House could never schedule a vote. So NN is still dead and no one is on record as opposing it.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    2. Re:Pass or Fail, it'll have an impact by naubol · · Score: 1

      Dems have quite a good shot at taking back the house, but not so great a shot at taking back the senate. Having republicans vote for NN in a cynical vote, that could later be flip-flopped on when R is no longer the majority, does not help republicans and it especially wouldn't help Paul Ryan whose got to run for reelection if he refused to have a floor vote. Essentially, the republicans do not want a vote on this in the senate. Dems know it has little chance of reaching DJT's desk, and less of being signed there. Forcing a vote does have democratic value to the voters, and it has political value to the dems.

      --
      Reality is a slackware box running on a 386 tucked away in god's sock drawer.
    3. Re:Pass or Fail, it'll have an impact by ElizabethGreene · · Score: 1

      If you believe that net neutrality should be the law of the land then make it apply to wireless carriers as well as wired carriers. The former was exempt from the old version of NN.

    4. Re:Pass or Fail, it'll have an impact by grasshoppa · · Score: 1

      You are assuming the GOP want it to fail. I'm sure some of them do, their opinions are bought and paid for after all. However, the problem with the old NN ruling was...well..what we saw. Administration changed, and suddenly things like DACA and NN are out the window. Why? Because they weren't rule of law. How do we make these things rule of law if procedurally there's no pressure to do so?

      Do I think the GOP is crafty enough to force the issue in such a manner? No. Do I think they all are anti-NN? No again. Am I thankful the opportunity has come along to codify appropriate ISP behavior in something a bit more sturdy than a partisan council? Absolutely.

      --
      Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    5. Re:Pass or Fail, it'll have an impact by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      then those who voted against it will have declared themselves on the issue.

      You say this in bold as if this makes any difference what so ever.

  6. DEMs are like white prize fighter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    always - i mean always - gonna lose.

    great white hope

    hear of it?

  7. The Internet is a necessary public utility. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "... who owns the cables on the poles?"

    Cities and counties should own and lease dark fiber. The Internet is a necessary public utility, like water, electricity, natural gas, sewage, and trash pickup.

    1. Re:The Internet is a necessary public utility. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. The natural monopoly is the last mile infrastructure. It should be controlled by local government. ISPs could lease their use and compete with each other by offering different levels of neutrality and let the market decide.

      But that's not the world we live in. So we need net neutrality regulations.

    2. Re:The Internet is a necessary public utility. by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      And tax their citizens 80% of their income to pay for it.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    3. Re:The Internet is a necessary public utility. by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I get charged a pretty reasonable rate for my utilities. I see no reason why a fiber optic network should be significantly harder or more expensive to maintain than a bunch of water or sewer pipes, or electric lines.

      I see a reasonable case for eminent domain here. I think municipalities should be allowed to pay market price to the ISPs for the fiber they've laid and set up last mile connections in local communities if they want to do so.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    4. Re:The Internet is a necessary public utility. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. I've seen remarkable technological innovation in the utilities sector. Let's put the Internet in that camp and great things will happen.

    5. Re:The Internet is a necessary public utility. by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      In theory I agree with you and almost said that myself but it's better that someone else said it first.
      Internet has reached the point where you can't think of it as a 'boutique' or 'luxury' service, not when the government uses it to conduct business with the citizenry. Therefore private companies shouldn't be allowed to have a business model that treats it as such. If that continues it'll kill the Internet entirely.

  8. The value: by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 2

    There is value in what they are doing. They are making the issue more public. They are causing government leaders to have to declare their positions.

    1. Re:The value: by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      There is value in what they are doing. They are making the issue more public. They are causing government leaders to have to declare their positions.

      But, why would they not want to actually introduce and push for actual, not temporary and 'adminstrative', NN laws?

      Whatever reason you wish to assign their refusal to create NN laws through Congress, it still means that whatever those reasons are, they matter more to them than actually getting real NN enacted in a relatively permanent way.

      It seems the sticking point is the Democrats' intense desire to place ISPs under Title-II. Why is placing ISPs under Title-II such an imperative for the US Left if enacting NN is the only goal, here? They would very likely garner significant Republican support for reasonable NN legislation. Hell, the Republicans are the only ones who have introduced new NN legislation, WTF? What's up with that, FFS? Why won't the Democrats just say what they actually, really want instead of playing stupid games and winning stupid prizes over NN and meanwhile not getting NN done?

      The Democrats wouldn't be trying to get something else accomplished by alternate methods that they are certain the majority of people would reject if fully informed and allowed to choose for themselves, are they?

      What is the other hand doing while this one is waving the 'FCC Title-II NN or I riot' banner?

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    2. Re:The value: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is placing ISPs under Title-II such an imperative for the US Left if enacting NN is the only goal, here?

      Because the other goal is to use Title-II powers to begin banning 'hate speech**', 'fake news**', 'AGW deniers**' and 'Nazis**'.

      ** Definitions to be determined and may vary widely depending on demographic group and racial/cultural/religious identity. All definitions subject to addition, deletion, or modification at any time without notice. We reserve all rights, ours and yours, too.

  9. 19 Senate Democrats... by greenwow · · Score: 1

    haven't signed on yet. Just sad.

    1. Re:19 Senate Democrats... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      They are:

      Cory Booker (D-N.J.)
      Tom Carper (D-Del.)
      Bob Casey (D-Pa.)
      Chris Coons (D-Del.)
      Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.)
      Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.)
      Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.)
      Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.)
      Doug Jones (D-Ala.)
      Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.)
      Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.)
      Bob Menendez (D-N.J.)
      Chris Murphy (D-Conn.)
      Patty Murray (D-Wash.)
      Bill Nelson (D-Fla.)
      Tina Smith (D-Minn.)
      Jon Tester (D-Mont.)
      Tom Udall (D-N.M.)
      Mark Warner (D-Va.)

      No surprise for Patty Murray since she's always worked to prevent people in the Seattle area from having faster than dial-up access to the Internet.

    2. Re:19 Senate Democrats... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they're smarter than you. Maybe they see that this will not pass Congress or ever be signed by the President. Perhaps they know, as you don't, that this is a waste of the Senate's time.

      Not everybody thinks as you do. Seeing as you probably get your news from Twitter and Reddit and form your opinions in your closed circle, you may not understand these words.

      But let's keep the litmus tests going instead of Congress passing real laws.

    3. Re:19 Senate Democrats... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps they know, as you don't, that this is a waste of the Senate's time.

      What, exactly, do you think they're doing with their precious time? They literally have nothing better to do. And they do that fuck-all for like three weeks a year when they pretend to do something. There's absolutely nothing that could waste their time, because they don't do anything with their time in the first place beyond raising funds. They could sit and do crossword puzzles all day and that would be more productive than whatever they're doing now.

    4. Re:19 Senate Democrats... by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 1

      But let's keep the litmus tests going instead of Congress passing real laws.

      This congress? Pass laws? Impossible. Hell, they haven't been really passing laws for a good while now. The division is so bad, neither side can do jack shit without screwing with the law-making rules to make shit happen. Which is always amusing cuz it always turns around to bite the other side in the ass later.

      And even then, it's all one sided, just like under Obama. The tug-o-war continues, and nothing substantial gets done. Just bandaids to cover their asses while they squabble and bitch, and do nothing real.

      Our country is ripping itself apart in slow motion. At some point, the political ping pong is going to get ugly (it already is.) And at some future point, one side is going to decide the other side is completely out to lunch and can't be reasoned with. Then Americans will do what they do best: Start killing each other. We got another civil war brewing, if you asked me.

    5. Re:19 Senate Democrats... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm also shocked that Diane Feinstein couldn't be bothered. I'm pretty sure if you looked up 'incumbent' in the dictionary, she'd be smiling back at you.

      What does she have to (not) do for California to kick her to the curb?

    6. Re:19 Senate Democrats... by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Yes, because the Senate's time is far better spent giving yet more speeches to an empty gallery on non-binding resolutions to limit non-binding resolutions. Or having a 'colloquy' with another Senator that has the exact same stance on something, playing like it's an actual discussion when it's just more noise to get some footage from CSPAN for the Committee to Re-elect to use in the next 15-second TV spot that will aire during Monday Night Football.

      If the Senate isn't actually debating on and voting for legislation, then what the hell do you think they should be doing? Attending fundraisers being thrown by the telecoms?

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    7. Re:19 Senate Democrats... by dgatwood · · Score: 2

      Feinstein won't ever get kicked to the curb, because the Republicans can't seem to find anybody to run who isn't either racist, xenophobic, homophobic, or some combination of the above. All they would have to do is find one single fiscally conservative, socially moderate Republican to run, and she'd be gone, because I don't know any Democrats (at least in the Bay Area) who wouldn't vote against her in a heartbeat if the alternative weren't just to the right of Breitbart.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    8. Re:19 Senate Democrats... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      All they would have to do is find one single fiscally conservative, socially moderate Republican to run

      Ah, you mean another Democrat, because that is essentially where they stand today.

      There is a reason Republicans can't find fiscally conservative, socially moderate people. They haven't had that position for 50 years so all with that stance have gone Democrat.

    9. Re:19 Senate Democrats... by Obfuscant · · Score: 3, Insightful

      the Republicans can't seem to find anybody to run who isn't either racist, xenophobic, homophobic, or some combination of the above. All they would have to do is find one single fiscally conservative, socially moderate Republican to run,

      and the next day the Democrats would be running ads accusing him of being racist, xenophobic, homophobic, or some other similar thing, and your initial statement would still be true.

  10. Re:Mindless virtue signalling flapping by Dems by Ichijo · · Score: 2

    "May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one." --Mal Reynolds

    --
    Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
  11. I think everyone's expecting Trump by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    to veto it. As for Trump, this is mostly an issue that matters to east/west coasters. Middle America and the rust belt don't really care. Politically speaking that is, e.g. there's not enough people who will vote against Trump over this in those regions.

    California Repubs are gonna hurt a little, but they'll manage. Meanwhile Trump's message of economic populism will catapult him to another win unless the Dems follow suit, but with Trump nobody really expected him to do anything, so he can get away with it. The if the Dems make promises like Trump did (health care for all, jobs for all, school for all) they'll be called to task if they don't make it happen. And there are lots of right wing Dems who's donors don't want that stuff happening.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  12. It's better if this fails by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When people started talking about building municipal networks I was getting hopeful because someone was going to legitimately take a financial bite out of the incumbent ISP's, but now if this passes people are going to give up fighting and accept this as a win and just let the status quo continue.

    We are still going to get the same monopolies and the same big businesses trying to buy protectionist regulation and continue to buy off legislators and regulators. NN still has Zero Rating in it and there will be plenty of ways to spy on you, stuff your bills, and cap your connections.

    We are going to just kick the can down the road again. We need to destroy the monopolies and until we do, this fight is not going to stop even if NN passes back into law.

  13. Pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As long as the republicans have the majority and that orange faced moron is in the white house, Net Neutrality is going away. They prioritize businesses over the people, that's the whole republican motto.

    1. Re:Pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if republicans increased earning and democrats distributed it (in their respective terms) , that wouldn't be a terrible system, but I am afraid, that's not what's happening, is it?

  14. Re:Federal NN rules will keep the net slow for eve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're full of shit, traitor.

  15. Re:Mindless virtue signalling flapping by Dems by bobbied · · Score: 1

    Hey, it will only serve to raise money for the left.. But they are soooo far behind on that now even this won't matter.

    The democrats are accustom to being able to out spend their republican counterparts by wide margins in contested elections, but with so many house and seats on the margin and with so many Senate seats at risk for the democrats, they are in serious trouble money wise. They simply MUST find some kind of traction on some issues here but if NN is all they got, their collective congressional goose is cooked. Their opponents will be able to out spend them for the first time in decades and they are not good running under those conditions.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  16. FUCK AJIT PAI by Nick · · Score: 5, Informative

    Fuck Ajit Pai

    --
    Fuck Ajit Pai
    1. Re:FUCK AJIT PAI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Doublefuck Sen Grassley! https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1505

    2. Re:FUCK AJIT PAI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Such a learned comment on the subject. What was your overall evaluation of the FCC network neutrality regulation? What were the best and worst parts? Or is it all best parts because it was written for Obama?

      Who of you have read it? Any one?

    3. Re:FUCK AJIT PAI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We know the line Ajit, if it isn't a legal argument you ignored it. SAD!

    4. Re:FUCK AJIT PAI by Anubis+IV · · Score: 4, Funny

      My company had an Ugly Christmas Sweater contest this year. One guy wore a typical Christmas sweater...with an unlabeled picture of Pai pinned to it. He handily won the contest with the most votes by far.

    5. Re:FUCK AJIT PAI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With a cactus. In the ass.

    6. Re:FUCK AJIT PAI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck Ajit Pai

      Yes, direct all the blame at Ajit Pai.
      I'm sure he isn't paid to be the fall-guy you are supposed to be angry at.

  17. Re:Mindless virtue signalling flapping by Dems by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

    Yeah, forcing elected representatives to actually publicly declare their stance on government policy that affects their constituents on a day-to-day basis in a recorded vote has no virtue whatsoever. Why bother with something like that? What a waste of time!

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  18. Obama's NetNeutrality = a sham by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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!

    * Under OLD "net neutrality", content providers (like /., facebook, YouTube + google) are notorious for this to promote "their own agenda"!

    (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).

    (As /. does for OpenSORES, Google YouTube 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)).

    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

  19. more millenial moron manipulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is just another Democrat fraud to fool idiot millenials, who have proven themselves to be the most gullible dupes on planet Earth.

    Obama gave them a whitehouse petition website which he ignored, and they totally bought the idea that he was listening to them.
    Obama gave them Obamacare, and 10 million lost their insurance and most other people saw their rates and deductibles skyrocket.
    Obama gave them "net neutrality" which really just gave certain big rich companies (like netflix, amazon, google, and facebook) advantages in negotiations with other big rich companies (AT&T, ComCast, Cox, TimeWarner, etc) and those millenials nearly orgasmed.

    Now, these Democrats co-sponsor a bill that will never go anywhere with not even enough sponsors to clear the House to say nothing of the Senate, and the millenials think this means something important. Even if the Bill got the 218 House votes necessary, the 51 Senate votes necessary, and Trump's signature, all it would do is transfer more power back to Apple, Facebook, Google, Amazon and Netflix.

    So what?

    The politicians doing this are NOT morons. Contrary to the popular idea that politicians are inept, they know precisely what they are doing; they are duping people into thinking they are "good guys" on "the right side" of an issue they are micro-targeting with polling. They know a key demographic component of their voting base cares about this and will view them favorably if they pretend to be outraged and pretend to be trying to fix things. The Republicans are no better towards their base voters - they spent 7 years pretending they would repeal Obamacare, not just sponsoring bills but actually passing them through the House. Of course, when they finally got a Republican Senate and President, they junmaske themselves by NOT doing the repeal and having no more excuses for why they could not do it.

    This is the standard career politician, Washington DC swamp creature, scumbaggery, and average voters in both parties need to stop being duped by it.

    Incidentally, STOP EXPECTING WASHINGTON DC TO SOLVE YOR PROBLEMS! They won't, unless you have a million dollars to bribe....err... offer as "campaign contributions". The real problem with the internet is not the big ISPs throttling or prioritizing data, it's that most Americans only have access to a single ISP offering high-speed service and thus are victims of monopoly. Shifting the controls to government just alters the nature of the monopoly. The solution is to force the local politicians to allow (or better still, encourage) multiple high speed providers to compete for each consumer in the community.

  20. READ - zionist/illuminati behind it facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jews believe this of all they call goyim/gentiles (any non-jew): Jews = biggest racists of all (for which they "jew guilt" you for no less! They're hypocrites known as thieves all thru history or were Argentines in the 1940 under Perrone, Spanish inquistion, France (1306), Egypt (despoiled/robbed by jews), Arabs (pre & post 1948), England (1330 Edward longshanks), Romans under titus, Russia pogroms and Germany who got rid of them from their nations nazi german's too? No. Driven into DESERTS ages ago! Don't wonder why after all those exilings above. Should anyone doubt any of this see Jacob Javits' crony Rosenthal spill the beans on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4zMVZ8HnFI/ where he called all Christianity fools for helping Israel and the biggest scam of all time per their beliefs below from their Talmud. This is the province of the synagogue of Satan (Khazar/Pharisees whom Jesus Christ himself kicked to the curb out of the temple & they killed him for it. Jeremiah did the same to them also + the Essenes could not stand them either breaking away from the pharisee corruption):

    Barbara Spectre, a jew, tells everyone it's jews orchestrating the muslim migrant problem in Europe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ/ . No migrant raping of women in Poland. Tons in Sweden. Do the math. Use common-sense. This is to get muslims and other goyim/gentiles to wipe one another out as incompatible cultures that will clash and always have.

    George Soros who funds groups to create division in the USA?? A jew. One who sold his own jew people into death for the nazis. Zucker @ CNN is another frying publicly for lying about "russians" and John Bonifield a producer @ CNN said it is bs. Van Jones did also.

    What World-famous Men have said About the Jews https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MYPzKNQUE0/

    Bernie Madoff (who made off with everyone's money, especially construction union pensions) shows the thieving nature of the JUDEN!

    Maria Abramovic (satanist spirit cooker pal of Hillary Clinton the Voodoo queen) A jew https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22Maria+Abramovic%22+and+%22jew%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/ just like Hillary Clinton's mentor Saul Alinsky (rules for radicals book dedicated to Lucifer)

    "Most Jews do not like to admit it, but our god is Lucifer â" so I wasnâ(TM)t lying â" and we are his chosen people. Lucifer is very much aliveâ Harold Rosenthal http://www.thetruthseeker.co.u...

    Harvey Weinstein the sexual predator tops it all off.

    There are 4 types of people who call themselves Jews:

    1. True Torah Jews = Descendants of Prophet Jacob-Israel (Jacobites or Israelites) (about 5%-10% of all Jews)

    2. Sephardic Jews = Persian descent.

    3. Khazarian or Ashkenazi Jews: these are the descendants of a Turkic idol/phallic worshiping tribe who migrated to Russia in the 7th Century A.C. and whose nobility converted to Judaism in the 8th Century A.C. and now inhabit mostly Europe. (about 90%-95% of all Jews)

    4. Zionist Jews: these are the ones from the 2 above who are pretending to be Jews for political reasons but whoâ(TM)re are actually Illuminists-Luciferian-Masonic-Satanists as Harold Wallace Rosenthal admits in this interview.

    They are led by the neo-Pharisees (occult-priest-banklords). They want to establish a Zionist Luciferian state from the Nile to the Euphrates from where they plan to rule the Earth. The new Israeli Supreme Court funded by the Rothschilds Banklords is full of Masonic Symbols, just like the B.I.S. Bank of International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, which is