Net Neutrality Rules Die on April 23 (theverge.com)

The Federal Communications Commission's net neutrality rules will be no more in two months, as the agency takes the final step in removing the regulation from its rule book. From a report: The date -- April 23 -- was revealed today after the Federal Communication Commission's order revoking net neutrality was published in the Federal Register. You can read the full order here. The publication means that a new fight around net neutrality is about to begin. States and other parties will be able to sue over the rules -- some have already gotten started -- and a battle in Congress will kick off over a vote to reverse the order entirely. While that fight likely won't get far in Congress since Republicans by and large oppose net neutrality and control both chambers, there will likely be a long and heated legal battle around the corner for the FCC's new policy. The FCC's new rules are really a lack of rules. Its "Restoring Internet Freedom" order entirely revokes the strong net neutrality regulations put in place back in 2015 and replaces them with basically nothing. Internet providers can now block, throttle, and prioritize content if they want to. The only real rule here is that they have to disclose if they're doing any of this.

Comments

Throw out the Republicans

[Anonymous Coward]

Republican politicians are paid not to understand that utilities such as Comcast and Verizon were heavily subsidized by taxpayers to create the foundation of their service, and hence need to be regulated so that they don't just do whatever the heck they want to make the most coin for themselves.

And of course it's the same with gun control, with the NRA; with climate change, with the fossil fuel industries; and with food safety, with big agriculture.

Not saying Democratic politicians are more ethical, but their traditional big money interest (organized labor) is frankly dying anyway.

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[gnick]

Laws that wouldn't have stopped the last shooting.

I'm more interested in stopping the NEXT shooting. That means looking at more incidents than just the single most recent.

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[penandpaper]

If the proposed law wouldn't have stop the last shooting how would it have stopped the next shooting?

Mass shootings from the mentally ill are rare and are damn near impossible to predict. At least we know that the FBI and law enforcement are doing a shit job enforcing existing law. There might be something to address there and that has the potential to "do something" more so than any gun ban that we hear paraded by media.

Something changed in our culture and it wasn't the guns.

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[gnick]

You're right. Why try? Let's start handing out pistols when kids get their driver's license and let them fend for themselves! NOTHING is going to prevent the next shooting, but handing an AR-15 to a mentally deranged teenager with a history of threatening violence seems like a common-sense bad idea.

It confuses me that some of our lawmakers are saying that laws are pointless.

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[Archfeld]

The last 2 shootings would have been prevented if the FBI would just follow through with the existing laws and procedures. That is the saddest part of a tragic situation. What we don't need is more political grandstanding and passing legislation that fails to address the underlying issues. If the individual doing the shooting has been reported to the FBI but they fail to follow though how is that going to help anyone ?

Bill ISPs ?

[psergiu]

If the ISPs are no longer Common Carriers, can i bill AT&T for the use of my land for their buried cable and distribution box in my front yard given that i'm not their customer ?
$10/day/feet sounds reasonable :)

Mini poll

[rsilvergun]

Is this going to change how anyone votes? Will you be voting against a candidate because of this? Will you vote in a party primary? Will you vote in other elections you otherwise wouldn't (like mid terms) or be voting for the first time in years?