Slashdot Mirror
FCC To Officially Rescind Net Neutrality Rules On Thursday (reuters.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: The U.S. Federal Communications Commission is expected to publish on Thursday its December order overturning the landmark Obama-era net neutrality rules, two sources briefed on the matter said Tuesday. The formal publication in the Federal Register, a government website, means state attorneys general and advocacy groups will be able to sue in a bid to block the order from taking effect. The Republican-led FCC in December voted 3-2 to overturn rules barring service providers from blocking, slowing access to or charging more for certain content. The White House Office of Management and Budget still must sign off on some aspects of the FCC reversal before it takes legal effect. Congressional aides say the publication will trigger a 60-legislative-day deadline for Congress to vote on whether to overturn the decision. U.S. Senate Democrats said in January they had the backing of 50 members of the 100-person chamber for repeal, leaving them just one vote short of a majority. The December FCC order will be made public on Wednesday and formally published on Thursday, the sources said.
This should be more evidence that there are real and substantial differences between the Democratic and Republican parties. Yes, there are a small number of Democrat senators who aren't in favor of net neutrality, and there are a small number of Republican senators who are in favor, but the vast majority of each group have taken positions exactly as expected. There are real differences between the major political parties.
Thank you, Chairman Pai! Thank you, Trump voters!
Even though a Presidential veto and a Republican-dominated House would stand in the way of a 51 vote Senate rejection, the "one vote shy" premise is heartening on the surface... unless you consider these claims don't get held to any scrutiny.
The Democrats are saying, "Look we are trying!" while accepting campaign contributions as fast as the Republicans from ISPs.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
If you want Net Neutrality, then actually pass a law. Government should act by the consent of the people, not the whims of kings or dictators.
That's right, Banana Republic rules!
No, but the ones posting those things sure have
In Soviet Russia, government owns the companies.
In Amerika, opposite is true.
You have only been here too long when you pour hot grits down Natalie Portman's trousers.
We've lost, right?
Comcast will be charging those goats extra to show you the good part.
These rules were not "obama era". This imperial dictate was deliberately timed to impact after Obama's reign ended so that he wouldn't have to take any heat for them. This is not the "net neutrality" you're looking for. This was a giveaway to the incumbents and a CALEA handout to law enforcement. You suckers.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
That's a Beowulf cluster of hot grits, you insensitive clod!
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It's the End of Days, queue Mass Hysteria - we'll look back on these days wistfully, with a tear in our eyes for the liberties lost when the FCC stopped it's nearly thousand day watch over a briefly Neutral Net...
Ken
after the "blue wave" takes control of Congress. The weird part is that net neutrality is good for everyone and everyone wants it (except ISPs).
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
I made a bet that all the doomsaying will be found to be total bullshit, and any attempt to bring about the doomsaying will end in slews of lawsuits and accusations of endorsing [insert non throttled site here]. Can you imagine a headline saying "Comcast throttles YouTube but the KAY-KAY-KAY is A-OKAY?" Such things would be a nightmare for any company.
The weird part is that net neutrality is good for everyone and everyone wants it (except ISPs).
That's true but everyone other than ISPs profits from it indirectly whereas ISPs have a direct incentive to kill net neutrality. Direct incentives almost always seem to win out over indirect ones at least in the short term because those with direct incentives are willing to fight harder for them. Google probably benefits from net neutrality but the benefits are hard to point to on a profit and loss statement so it's harder to get them to fight for it.
...hot grits down Natalie Portman's trousers.
Trousers? MY Natalie Portman is standing here naked and petrified.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
If the Trump admin can rescind the rules this quickly, the next Dem administration can just put them back.
will this change how anyone votes in the mid terms (or in any other election for that matter)? And change doesn't just mean "I'm not voting for so and so" it also means "I'm going to show up at the polls this year".
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
And every idiot who voted for our Russian fuhrer
You will never be brainwashed into liking the music!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'm shocked--shocked, I say, that most of these Net Neutrality threads devolve either into vague, hypothetical, dystopian predictions, or libtard versus Nazis...
It would be refreshing to see fact-based criticisms based on the content of the 313 page order from 2015, (https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdf) versus opinions about rumors and summaries circulated about. It fundamentally is a lesser of two evils (Lo2E) type argument of which outcome seems more likely and painful: Government regulated content distribution that controls the limits of big business practice, or market driven semi-monopolistic providers determining their practices provided to customers.
There are legitimate concerns on both sides, but I've read the document, and since I'm more distrustful of big government than big business, I'm settling on the side of rescinding the 300+ pages of potential harm, even at the expense of the 12 pages of goodness, because I can always fire and shop my provider services, but once the US government determines what "lawful" content, services, or protocols I can use, I'm screwed.
Faster! Faster! Less Regulations!
LESS!
The last thing I want is a government committee overseeing my internet. I want a free internet not a 'neutral' internet. neutral is just another socialist/marxist word for 'I know what's best for you'. The internet has managed to be free and open up until now, why does anyone believe that letting the government 'regulate' it is a good idea. I just don't understand. I realize that there are places in the country where there are isp's that are manipulative and controlling, but that's why there are other places to live. If you live in one of those places then rise up and cast off your shackles and find one of the places where freedom reigns. If my carrier was stupid enough to start throttling some data that I wanted, I'd switch to another carrier. There are at least 4 that I know of that I could use, probably more. Free market competition is the answer, not government regulation.
It's easy to get votes for something when the politician knows there is zero chance that vote is going to actually do anything. Witness the attempts to repeal the ACA. If they actually got across 51 some of those votes would likely evaporate. If the House and presidency flipped some of those votes would certainly disappear.
Another sad day for democracy, if you can call it that, a political system which is bought and paid for is hardly democratic.
The trend is a bit disturbing and it would be easy to start looking for a plot for world domination akin to a comic book plot. But, there is no need for an evil plot when greed, avarice, and apathy can achieve the same results.
Net neutrality predates Obama by almost a decade. During the aegis of the Obama administration just saw the 2015 tightening of the definition of net neutrality as a result of court actions by AT&T, Comcast, and others to destroy the concept in law. Neutral traffic routing except in case of war was one of the fundamental properties of the network from its first iterations as ARPAnet. Calling net neutrality an Obama Administration thing is a calumny trying to piggy back on the disgust with a destructive administration.
Large corporations now have the control and legal permission to edit all of what you watch and read.
Hmmm, a plot comes to mind. Combination of Skynet and Fahrenheit 451. Population control by hacking and nuking any computer containing unauthorized ideas. Might be too close to reality to sell well.
NRRPT/RCT