GOP Congressman Introduces Bill To Reinstate Net Neutrality Rules (theverge.com)

Rep. Mike Coffman (R-CO) today announced his support for a bill that would institute the basic outlines of the FCC's 2015 Open Internet order, which banned the throttling and blocking of content as well as harmful paid prioritization practices. He is also the first Republican to sign on to the Democrat-led discharge petition, which aims to force a vote on the House floor to roll back the FCC's December decision to repeal net neutrality. The Verge reports: The 21st Century Internet Act aims to restructure the current framework by which the internet has been governed since the '90s. Coffman's bill moves past this argument by amending the 1934 Telecommunications Act and adding the new Title VIII. This new classification would "permanently codify into law the 'four corners' of net neutrality" by banning providers from controlling traffic quality and speed and forbidding them from participating in paid prioritization programs or charging access fees from edge providers.

On top of providing stable ground for net neutrality rules to be upheld in the future, the legislation also makes it illegal for providers to participate in "unfair or deceptive acts or practices." It directs the FCC to investigate claims of anticompetitive behavior on behalf of consumers after receiving their complaints. Transparency requirements are heightened for providers as well, as companies must publicly disclose information regarding their network practices to allow consumers to "make informed choices regarding use of such services."

Comments

His turn

[Anonymous Coward]

It's this congressman's turn to pretend to be for net neutrality. As long as it still gets abolished.

Re:His turn

[kaoshin]

This isn't the first time this congressman has taken this position. He also stepped up to try and delay a time sensitive NN vote citing "unanticipated negative consequences". Those weren't the actions of a poser. If you genuinely cared about this issue more than silly partisanship, you wouldn't be making accusations like this against someone who is clearly sympathetic to the NN cause. The GOP has not been on the right side of this issue, but attacking any of them regardless of what they do (right or wrong) is both typical and sad.

Re:His turn

[Areyoukiddingme]

The GOP has not been on the right side of this issue, but attacking any of them regardless of what they do (right or wrong) is both typical and sad.

Random comments on the Internet are not an attack on this guy. The primary challenge he's going to face for failing to toe the party line is the attack he should watch out for.

Re:His turn

[Anonymous Coward]

but attacking any of them regardless of what they do (right or wrong) is both typical and sad.

What are you talking about? All they did was express their opinion that they think net neutrality should die. That isn't attacking someone regardless of what they do, that is attacking someone for a very specific thing they are doing.

Re:His turn

[kaoshin]

Or what? There are a number of republicans who regularly oppose the party line or the president with impunity. This particular congressman is taking what I would consider to be a common sense position on an issue that shouldn't even be a partisan one, and I can only hope this goes further. My intent wasn't to take up for the poor congressman, but rather to point out the lunacy in partisan bickering distracting from real issues which isn't very random.

Re:His turn

[Anonymous Coward]

In Russia internet dots you

Re:His turn

[kaoshin]

The parent post was criticizing the congressman for pretending to want to support net neutrality and the sarcasm was obvious when they said as long as it gets abolished. My point was that after liberals railed against the GOP for trying to abolish NN, it seems hypocritical and counter productive for them to then criticize someone who shares their own views (in other words, regardless of what they do). This is a pervasive pattern in American politics right now. I can only hope that people see NN, not as another partisan wedge issue, but as a serious topic worthy of genuine consideration, and putting politics aside.

Re:His turn

[grep -v '.*' *]

it seems hypocritical and counter productive for them to then criticize someone who shares their own views

EVIL. They're all evil, all of them. They eat babies, rape women (or men, Equal Opportunities you know), kick dogs, and step on ants. They hate their neighbors -- they're not even HUMAN. They should all be destroyed.

Pick a side, that's the rhetoric being applied to (one of) the OTHER side. If they're not human it's easy to ignore them and dismiss the bastards. FAR be it to imagine that they're actually thinking people with concerns and a different point of view. The world is black and white; it's not complicated at all, that makes it much easier to process.

On the other hand, what do you do when you've got one person who says, "I insist (something), and I absolutely will not rest until it is" against a different person, "I insist (something opposite), and and I absolutely will not rest until it is." There's only one world, that's the problem with an immovable rock and an irresistible force. (You both want it so much? I suggest pistols at 20 paces.)

And actually, they both sound like kids: "I'm going to hold my breath until I get my way." And with kids, sometimes the answer is "No." Or at least it used to be -- not everyone on Slashdot gets their own pony.

Re:His turn

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand, what do you do when you've got one person who says, "I insist (something), and I absolutely will not rest until it is" against a different person, "I insist (something opposite), and and I absolutely will not rest until it is." There's only one world, that's the problem with an immovable rock and an irresistible force.

Then what you do is to dissect what they insist on and see if the matter can only be considered as a whole. Often times, what the matter they are talking about would agree to one side under certain circumstances and agree on the other side under different circumstances. The problem is that extreme people will not want to look at the matter on case-by-case basis but rather oversimplify the matter to support their own agenda. So yeah, there is only one world, but the world is not a 2 dimensional world, it is 3D!.

Hey look

[ravenshrike]

This is what should have been done in the first place.

Re:Hey look

[geek]

Yep. All the hissy fits from people the last two years has been annoying. Here's a tip, rather than pass executive orders left and right and try to govern like a fucking monarchy, try following the system and pass some fucking laws properly for a change.

Re:Hey look

[sjames]

Because it wasn't possible until events of the last few days made a lot of GOP legislators anxious to distance themselves from Trump.

Re:Hey look

[e432776]

Thank you. As you point out, this is how it is supposed to work. Good to see a rep at least trying to do his job.

Re:Hey look

[fish_in_the_c]

yep, let the congress pass the laws, the president enforce them and the courts do there level best to interpret them to mean what they meant at the time they were passed. If someone doesn't like the way things are 'rinse and repeat'. We seriously need to start finding ways to take the president to task for not enforcing the laws ( like ignoring immigration law -Obama ) or ( ignoring health car laws - Trump) , we seriously need to take the judiciary to task for 'finding' new 'rights' in the law that the people who passed them never meant to be there. Then we can start expecting the legislatures to pass the laws they were elected to pass or get booted.
 

Re: Hey look

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe it took some time to write a thoughtful and thorough law that incoprorated some sort of market analysis and theory of governance. Having watched a crappy healthcare law get slapped togethet and negotiated language and provisions as the roll call went down the list, I much prefer this. Rule of law is way bettet than rule by decree.

Re:Hey look

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you mean a vote from congress instead of Obama's rules that only helped large monopolies? I'm all for NN, but Obama's rules only hurt the small guys.

Re:Hey look

[Anubis IV]

I agree that this is how things should happen, but what executive orders are you talking about in this context? To my knowledge, there haven't been any. It's just been the FCC overturning its own orders, which it is doing via the authority granted it by Congress in the Telecommunications Act and subsequent amendments to the Act.

Codifying important matters like these into law is certainly the way that things should work if we want them to have any permanence, but broadly speaking, it's not a bad thing for Congress to delegate the handling of day-to-day activities to an agency or commission. Not only can an agency act more quickly than a legislative body in response to issues that inevitably arise, but it can—when functioning properly—also have qualitatively better responses based on their awareness of and specialty in that particular field. Of course, these sorts of organizations don't always function properly, as has sadly been the case recently, so it's good that Congress retains the final authority in terms of directing the organizations towards serving their intended purposes.

Re:Hey look

[Anonymous Coward]

Where were you when Obama invented that technique and ruled as a king, "I don't need congressional approval. I have a phone and a pen"?

That is why Trump was elected president. That is why the GOP has majority power. People like you applauding tyranny when it suits you, and damning the pendulum you put in motion when it swings away from your control.

Think and act for all Americans, not just ones that you agree with.

Re:Hey look

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd argue that the right thing to have have done was something else, however it's far too late for that now though.

That would have been to separate the companies that own the infrastructure from those that were ISPs. That plan worked pretty well where it was implemented. If you have a robust market of ISPs NN isn't quite so important, though some baseline service requirements would still be nice.

Re: Hey look

[sjames]

And it just happened to get done right as GOP representatives became anxious to distance themselves from Trump?

Don't get me wrong, I think the bill is a good thing. I'm just answering the question "why wasn't this done in the first place?".

As for the ACA, you do realize it was implemented legislatively, right?

Re:Hey look

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama didn't rule anything. If he had then the red line wouldn't be a bad joke today. Mitch McConnell made it quite clear he would pass no law or work with Obama at all. Since the GOP was running the senate what options does that leave Obama to try and achieve his campaign promises?

Here's a hint, you're pointing the finger in wrong direction. This selective ignorance of how Obama was treated as President is why Trump got elected. People that felt slighted because other people's lives were improving while they were standing still. Class anxiety is the reason Trump was elected and why the GOP is in power except the GOP never does anything to help the working class people but they still vote for them in droves anyway.

I love all the people pointing at his tax cut which put a whole $100/month back in my pocket, except the cuts required to pay for it are going to cause state and local taxes to go up to pay for services that will be gutted. So now instead of one CHIP program we'll have 48 or so local programs that will have far less power to negotiate, that is some 'smart' business. I'm assuming Texas won't replace it and Mississippi won't afford it.

Re:Hey look

[Anonymous Coward]

Which NN rules hurt small guys? That's right, you're just talking out your ass because it did no such thing.

Re: Hey look

[MachineShedFred]

Never forget that elections have consequences, and the consequences of the Democratic ramming through of the ACA was handing the speaker's gavel to the GOP and a whole bunch of Tea Party douches being given an outsized influence over budget bills and "social issues" that the government shouldn't be within 200 miles of. The consequences of the administration attempting to usurp power from a gridlocked Congress by way of signing statements and executive orders / memos is the Senate and the White House being given to the GOP. And now we end up with a steaming heap of douche at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Mitch McConnell may be an obstructionist jackass, but don't forget the obstructionism of Harry Reid - NEITHER of these guys would work with the other to craft legislation the country needed, in favor of pounding each other through sound bites on cable news and horse shit headlines on Drudge and The Huffington Post. They are / were both more concerned with holding on to a majority and squeaking in unpopular riders onto first-class legislation in order to advance a massively partisan agenda, or be a poison pill to block the other party from getting a win at all costs.

Remember the 1980s when we had a "reactionary GOP president" (who looks more and more like a moderate Democrat each day in comparison to today's GOP), and a DNC-controlled House, but shit still got done? That's because the cameras turned off and they could sit down and talk, and work out compromises that moved the country forward. Today everyone is so afraid that if they try to compromise even a little, it turns into a hashtag internet meme that a primary challenger will beat them to death with from their own party's flank, and the seat goes to some even-more-extreme shithead who thinks running for Congress (and taking fat checks from monies special interests) is a good gig, not because they actually have any good ideas or burning desire to make a difference.

Moderates are an endangered species on Capitol Hill, and they are the most effective legislators. I might be a bit cynical though.

Re:Hey look

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of engaging in a red herring reference frame, I'll repeat myself:

People like you applauding tyranny when it suits you, and damning the pendulum you put in motion when it swings away from your control.

Think and act for all Americans, not just ones that you agree with.

Re: Hey look

[Anonymous Coward]

For ACA, I mean it was rewritten very poorly (e.g conflicting language on scope, timelines, and state reimbursement of exchanges), didn't target a lot of what it should have to lower rates (e.g no tort reform of FDA approval mods), didn't provide a long term solution (e.g. left burden on states after a number of years), unfairly favored some to gain votes (e.g. nebraska). It was passed legislatively, but for such a wide ranging law, the lack of foresight is astounding. Laws are supposed to move slowly so that there is ample time for due dilligence and impact analysis.

Re: Hey look

[Anonymous Coward]

"Both sides are bad" is a joke. The horrid, hyperpartisan ACA that Obama "crammed down your throat" was based on REPUBLICAN policy. Don't take my word for it, consult the paper from the Heritage Foundation(Direct PDF link shown on HF website, see page 8 of the PDF for page 6 of the document) to see the conservatives arguing for the mandate, which is the only part of the ACA I've ever heard coherent objections to. Moderates are only endangered on the GOP side of the aisle, Obama bent over backwards to try and compromise, and the likes of Pelosi and Manchin regularly take fire from the left for not fighting hard enough in their eyes.

Of course, elections DO have consequences, so the left seeing the repeated electoral victories of the extremist and politically incorrect Trump playbook (Extending back to the Tea Party) may mean that moderation is endangered after all because you supposed moderates can't be arsed to VOTE for moderation. But that's about the future-Democrats are regularly voting for Trump's confirmations in the current congress, to the dissatisfation of their left base.

Re:Hey look

[bluefoxlucid]

We give the executive powers because he's fast. The Congress has all the power and passes it through law to the executive; the Congress actually can't execute, and so leaves some details open to the executive so as to tweak the implementation.

Down the line, the Congress can make more-specific instruction about how the executive may execute the powers of Congress.

Re:Hey look

[bluefoxlucid]

The President executes the law. That's a lot more than simple enforcement.

As for immigration law, the provisions give the power to take action against an offense. They don't give the mandate. That gives the executive flexibility: we can put you in prison, fine you, or whatnot, but we might put you on probation. In the case of immigration, the executive can choose to monitor: so long as you don't cause too much trouble, we take normal action to keep the situation stable, and make sure you pay taxes. The Congress has not forced this, nor has it passed law with the mandatory minimum sentencing of deportation or imprisonment.

Re: Hey look

[fish_in_the_c]

Correct and until they do one can expect the excessive ambiguity to be abused by the executive

Re: Hey look

[Anonymous Coward]

"You supposed moderates can't be arsed to vote for moderation" - what the hell does this even mean? When neither major party party runs a candidate that is worth voting for, we're supposed to do what?

Myself, I voted third party to deny a vote in a critical swing state to either of these losers that the GOP or the DNC put up. I found both of them to be unfit for office, so I voted as such. Don't tell people how to vote when you couldn't possibly know how they voted to begin with. Don't preach at people like you know them, when you don't have a clue.

It's MY vote, and I'll use it to endorse someone I think can actually do the god damn job, and if you don't like it, that's too god damn bad for you. The beauty of the system is that you get to use YOUR vote any which way you choose as well, and when all of them are tallied we figure out who has the most people willing to endorse them for any reason they choose, up to and including how pretty they look on TV.

That's the nature of democracy, and shove it up your ass if you don't like it.

I never heard of this guy

[Type44Q]

I never heard of this guy (I detest politics) but I figured "Damn, I bet he's here in Colorado." The smugness I now feel is, of course, satisfying.

I'll believe he's sincere when there's a vote

[bjdevil66]

A vote, on the floor, by the entire House - that actually passes. Until then, this is nothing more to the Net Neutrality cause than fruitless posturing.

Re:I'll believe he's sincere when there's a vote

[Anonymous Coward]

A vote, on the floor, by the entire House - that actually passes. Until then, this is nothing more to the Net Neutrality cause than fruitless posturing.

And not when he votes for it? It has to pass? What if he spends weeks getting the rest of the GOP to listen to logical arguments about personal freedom, monopoly power, and the evils of letting Big Media control individual communication?

Re:I'll believe he's sincere when there's a vote

[El Cubano]

A vote, on the floor, by the entire House - that actually passes. Until then, this is nothing more to the Net Neutrality cause than fruitless posturing.

You are conflating the sincerity of an individual with the inertia of a legislative body. This individual Rep and others no doubt will look at this and sincerely believe it is the right thing to do. The challenge will be if enough them do that overcome the inertia of the status quo.

Besides this is already more than Democrats have done to try to fix immigration.

Re:I'll believe he's sincere when there's a vote

[Anonymous Coward]

Besides this is already more than Democrats have done to try to fix immigration.

You and I both know there's no point in a democrat proposing immigration legislation until the dems have majority and a democrat president (or a veto-proof majority). The democrat solution will make republicans very upset, and there is no middle ground to be had on this issue, so nothing's going to happen until Texas turns blue in 2024 or 2028, and then the Republican party as know it will cease to exist overnight, since it'll have to shift all of its platforms two steps left to find the electoral college median.

Re:I'll believe he's sincere when there's a vote

[ckatko]

Posturing... to a party that's against net neutrality?

Do... does your brain activate your logical hemisphere before you post? Or does it just spew whatever random neurons fire off into key presses?

Re:I'll believe he's sincere when there's a vote

[bluefoxlucid]

You and I both know there's no point in a democrat proposing immigration legislation until the dems have majority and a democrat president

You show the American people what is to be done and why it is not being done.

EVIL GOP

[PortHaven]

How dare they!!!

Re:EVIL GOP

[Anonymous Coward]

I know right? Why pass a law creating a proper classification for the internet and the rules to govern it, when you can just have a bureaucrat apply rules made for phone companies?

Re:The GOP always stands against the people.

[Octorian]

The small guys haven't been able to compete in the ISP market since the 90's, back when we were all on dial-up and "the phone lines" didn't have to be provided by the same company as "the Internet service".

Ever since the advent of broadband, this separation has not usefully existed. We now have to get our service from the same companies that run wires to our houses, which tend to be gov't regulated/mandated monopolies.

Re: The GOP always stands against the people.

[Type44Q]

Now there's a new one... why didn't you anti-NN shills use that line when they were scraping the bottom of the barrel for disinfo/propaganda ideas??

Oh, wait; I know: because it's fucking retarded.

Re:The GOP always stands against the people.

[Rick Schumann]

Trollololololol.

3/10 made me comment.
Now go back to http://boards.4chan.org/b/ and STAY THERE.

Re:The GOP always stands against the people.

[MoralCharacter]

Funny, the most common thing I hear about problems competing when it comes to the 'small guys' is the 'big guys' pushing them out with every dirty trick they can think of.

Following some ground rules for being fair to your customers is probably far easier compared to competing with incumbent big name ISPs. Besides, I bet small ISPs don't do enough business to make screwing over customers a valid business strategy. I fail to see how it'd be overly demanding of a small company to expect them to provide their advertised speed and service quality, to not demand they pay extra to use certain websites, etc.

No, I think the companies that stand to lose the most are big ISPs. Perhaps they should have dealt more honestly with the American people and we wouldn't need to legislate them into behaving.

Re:The GOP always stands against the people.

[sjames]

Small ISPs (are there any now) don't even have the budget for the hardware required to violate net neutrality.

Re:The GOP always stands against the people.

[MoralCharacter]

Or perhaps you were referring to the part about 'not participating in anti-competitive behavior' making it to harder for the 'small guys' to compete? I imagine it would make it nearly impossible for a small ISP to operate if it couldn't be a monopoly. That makes perfect sense then, as being a monopoly means they wouldn't need to compete at all! /s

Not like they have a choice

[WillAffleckUW]

WA, OR, and CA have already reinstated Net Neutrality, and we're half of the US GDP.

Re:Not like they have a choice

[CanHasDIY]

WA, OR, and CA... [are] half of the US GDP.

That's a negatory, Ghostrider.

Re:Not like they have a choice

[Anonymous Coward]

~18% per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_GDP

Re:Not like they have a choice

[Anonymous Coward]

The west coast is the "ugly American" that all other countries complain about. Self-centered, materialistic, impulsive, ignorant about anything farther than an arm's reach, and a belief that they are not just the center but the most important people in the world.

Re:Not like they have a choice

[Anonymous Coward]

Not quite.

Washington has passed a net neutrality law.

Oregon virtue signaled by passing a law dealing with what companies the government can deal with -- leaving normal customers out in the cold, and exempting the government in some cases.

California doesn't appear to have actually passed the law yet. The Senate has, the Assembly has not. It ain't a law until the governor signs it.

Re:Not like they have a choice

[Anonymous Coward]

To get half the US GDP in the smallest number of states you'd need the 9 states with the highest GDP: California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Jersey and Georgia.

Washington is #14, and Oregon is #25.

Re: Not like they have a choice

[MachineShedFred]

That's adorable that Oregon thinks they matter because they are sandwiched between California and Seattle.

I grew up in Oregon and lived in Portland for 15 years. Oregon doesn't matter nearly as much as you think on a national stage.

Re:The GOP always stands against the people.

[fish_in_the_c]

Right ... like that law about how everyone should have a right to vote.
Oh, and don't forget all those laws about making sure people get fed so they don't starve on tax money ...
and those horrible laws that stop 'the little guy' from selling tainted meat and medicine that poisons people.
I got you, every law is against the little guy, he never gets a fair shake , we need to go out and pull down those ivory towers comrade.
Just remember what happens to the horse in the end of animal farm.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/w...

I have news for you, there is only one group of people who a rational reason that the powerful shouldn't eat the poor and it's not Darwinist.

I do not understand...

[Anonymous Coward]

That would actually be a great and wonderful thing for America and Americans... and a GOPer is doing it? I hate to look a gift horse in the mouth, but... experience has taught me to be sceptical of literally everything they say or do. (The GOP and the DOPâ"both, by the way.)

Re:The GOP always stands against the people.

[OYAHHH]

In 1992, when I first got on the Internet, I accessed it via a dial up modem which got it's feed over a Pacific Bell owned wire. There were, to my knowledge, ZERO alternatives.

Later in the 1990s I began to receive my Internet through a microwave connection offered by Sprint. At that time the cable companies probably had an offering somewhere, someway, but I did not have access.

Eventually I went to a DSL connection which utilized wires then owned by AT&T.

Today, I can get Internet via a satellite dish, cable company wire, DSL over an AT&T owned wire, over cell transmission services offered by AT&T or Verizon, Google fiber, or a WISP.

The options for internet service have only been growing under free markets. More & more & more.

I don't buy your assertion about limited Internet options.

Re:The GOP always stands against the people.

[Anonymous Coward]

It does make it harder for us small guys. We share a lawyer with three other ISPs, but even that is incredibly expensive. Obama really screwed us.

Re:The GOP always stands against the people.

[jythie]

Since the 90s I've seen my options for broadband providers go from dozens to 2. So yeah, far fewer options.

Re: The GOP always stands against the people.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your own argument is self defeating. The Satellite company (DirecTV) is owned by At&t, as is the DSL and cell services you mention. That's half of your options under one company. Plus, where I live (60 miles from DC) there is no fiber option, and satellite is too inconsistent + doesn't support VPN connections, DSL is too slow to be true Broadband, and cell services have data caps to make it not useful for home use. Guess what, in reality I only have 1 option, Comcast Cable, to get actually Broadband internet.

Re:The GOP always stands against the people.

[Anonymous Coward]

How much do they pay you, anonymous POS, to repeat the same lie again and again ?

Re:It's a fact, the GOP doesn't help constituents

[Anonymous Coward]

They who? I was talking about NN, not some political party or what the hell you are talking about.

Also, i'm not a traitor, i'm a scary FOREIGNER!!!! UUUUUUuuUUUuuUUUUu Shake in your panties!

Re: The GOP always stands against the people.

[ole_timer]

net neutrality does absolutely nothing for you. your local utility commission has done a deal to lock the others out.

Re:The GOP always stands against the people.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't know why you were voted down. Obama's rules were ridiculous and we spent six figures in lawyer fees to try to understand them.

Re:The GOP always stands against the people.

[ole_timer]

back in the day you called locally to a stack of modems in the central office and used ppp to authenticate. the phone company still uses much of that infrastructure for authentication on dsl (pppoe - point to point over Ethernet). nowadays it's fiber in the CO or at the cable head end owned by Comcast or Verizon (in my old neighborhood) and they've cut a deal with the local city or county to have a monopoly. None or that has anything to do with net neutrality but it was good to travel down memory lane!

Re:We're going to hang that Traitor

[Anonymous Coward]

But you still vote for him.

Re:The GOP always stands against the people.

[Anonymous Coward]

"It does make it harder for us small guys"

It does make it harder for you precisely because you aren't 'the small guys'.

Re:The GOP always stands against the people.

[Anonymous Coward]

"... we spent six figures in lawyer fees ..."

You actually spent a lot more than that marketing and lobbying your lies.

Back to the net

[AHuxley]

that is a series of paper insulated tubes.
Now with more federal paper work.
With some extra big federal rules.

No new network innovation for you.

Oh good

[Anonymous Coward]

Another useless Federal law that company lawyers will destroy in court. But average Americans will get trapped by it.

Somehow, we are going to be paying more for internet service, no matter what happens.

But this satisfies the need of the "do something anyway" crowd, and the statist Republican and Democrat parties.

Re: The GOP always stands against the people.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure sounds like you don't understand net neutrality then. Comcast can't favor Netflix over Youtube or some new guy. As a result you get consistency regardless of end-user. While Comcast's network is going to suck and net neutrality won't help there it will at least ensure it will suck for Netflix as well as Youtube so the end-user will understand that it is Comcast failing to deliver service instead of Netflix.

Re:The GOP always stands against the people.

[Ogive17]

You must be in the minority, then. In the 90s my small town had 4 or 5 dial-up options. Then DSL came in at a much higher price. The dial-up providers survived for awhile then started to drop out one-by-one. Cable then came to the area, finished off all the dial-ups and pushed DSL out. Frontier did come to the area about 10 years ago giving us 1 cable (Spectrum) and 1 very slow DSL (Frontier). I'm paying $85/month to Spectrum just so I can have 2 good quality streams going at the same time.

Re:The GOP always stands against the people.

[Darinbob]

I have very few options if I want broadband. So dialup and basic DSL are out. I have basically two choices - cable internet, AT&T u-verse internet. Satellite internet isn't very good, I don't know about any good or affordable cellular internet that I can get, certainly you can't get any Google fiber within 50 miles of Google's headquarters.

Re: The GOP always stands against the people.

[Darinbob]

What net neutrality does though is stop Comcast from favoring its own services versus the services you actually want to use.

Re: The GOP always stands against the people.

[MachineShedFred]

Everyone doesn't live in the Bay Area.

There are places where the only viable option is the cable company, and the cable company knows it.

Re:The GOP always stands against the people.

[Darinbob]

Back when DSL was the main option for those without cable, there were lots of DSL providers all sharing the same physical copper lines. It would be great if congress would declare that cable company cables were common carriers so we could get some real competition again

Re: The GOP always stands against the people.

[Anonymous Coward]

You must live in a metropolitan area. Have you tried the satellite internet? It is not great unless it is the only thing you can get besides dialup.

Re:The GOP always stands against the people.

[BlueStrat]

NN makes it harder for the small guys to compete since it adds so many rules and laws that ISPs must follow.

As with most laws, Acts, etc etc from Congress, the devil is in the details including but not limited to the implementation & enforcement.

I'll reserve judgement on it until I have more detailed information. On the surface it sounds good. I don't want shady shit going on by/with backbone providers/ISPs or Netflix, Amazon, etc etc any more than anyone else does.

Even if this bill is not what it touts and gets tossed, at least this is the proper way to go about putting these kinds of rules in place...by Congress who we can vote out, not some political appointee at a federal agency that can change with every new administration/Party.

Strat

Re:The GOP always stands against the people.

[PopeRatzo]

Today, I can get Internet via a satellite dish, cable company wire, DSL over an AT&T owned wire, over cell transmission services offered by AT&T or Verizon, Google fiber, or a WISP.

No, you can't. There are developed, populated areas that only have one possible broadband provider or 4G. Nothing else.

The options for internet service have only been growing under free markets. More & more & more.

Amazing. Every single word of what you wrote is provably wrong.

I believe...

[Anonymous Coward]

...he's sincere in his efforts. Throttling makes it tough for him to discuss his next job with his Russian overlords.

Example, Sen John McCain elected for 34 years

[raymorris]

An example would be GOP Senator John McCain. He was elected over and over again for more than 30 years. He 's said some pretty bad things about Trump, and certainly doesn't tow the party line.

There are quite a few Republicans whose views and understanding of the issues go well beyond the "us vs them" you get from Bill Maher and many liberal figures.

Re:Example, Sen John McCain elected for 34 years

[Oswald McWeany]

An example would be GOP Senator John McCain. He was elected over and over again for more than 30 years. He 's said some pretty bad things about Trump, and certainly doesn't tow the party line.

There are quite a few Republicans whose views and understanding of the issues go well beyond the "us vs them" you get from Bill Maher and many liberal figures.

John McCain is one; Lindsay Graham is another. What I think of as common-sense politicians (not that I always think they're right). I respect a politician who will vote in opposition to his party when it makes obvious sense. I don't respect politicians who just follow a partial line and don't use common sense or realize that their party might not always be 100% correct on every issue.

Fool me once

[rsilvergun]

shame on you, fool me twice... you can't... you can't fool me again.

Seriously though, I'd like to make the point that while the Democratic Party has a wing that refuses corporate PAC money forget a wing, I don't know of a single GOP politician who does.

I'm not saying it's impossible, but actions speak louder than words. The Republican party have done a lot of bad to me and mine. They're currently working on eliminating the protections for pre-existing conditions for Obamacare and argue that we should end Social Security & Medicare for people under 55 (they're careful not to piss off their base of older voters until it's too late). Their tax cut is causing out of control inflation and interest rate hikes. They just repealed Dodd-Frank (albeit with the help of several right wing Democrats). They cut funding to my kid's schools. They tried to take away my Type-I diabetic buddies insulin for christ's sake (seriously, I'm not even exaggerating here, the ACA and Obama made them back down when he threatened to pull Medicare for the old folks in my red state). I can go on and on.

When I see real, positive actions from them I'll give credit where it's due. But after 40 years of policy that has a demonstratively negative impact on my life you'll forgive me if I'm just a wee bit distrustful.

Re:Fool me once

[Anonymous Coward]

And a wee bit confirmation bias, but whatever.

The Ugly American (1968)

[Anonymous Coward]

It is apparent that you haven't read The Ugly American (1968). The only character so indicated was actually the good guy in it. So the title is sarcastic.

Re:The GOP always stands against the people.

[Anonymous Coward]

I ran a dial up ISP until from 1997 until 2003. Had 2000+subs and life was good. In 2000 Comcast bought the local cable co and in 2001 started rolling out 1 way cable access (still needed a modem for upstream) and we lost about 5% of the subs. These were the high end fold already doing things like ISDN or PPP line bonding (what a nightmare to make these people happy) and I was glad to see them go.

Then in 2002 Comcast went to full cable access at 2mbps and we lost 30-40% that year.

In 2003 we were down to less than 1500 subs and I sold out.

There was no way to compete, and even if there was, they could make up any arrangement they wanted to make my service less attractive. I tried wireless but it was to time intensive and what people wanted was cable, not high latency (gamers).

But in the last 3 years there was MASSIVE CLEC discounts, ILECS were going fiber to DSLAMS (which they used for DSL, couldn't get in on that, either).

Nothing any NN rules would help with.

Re: The GOP always stands against the people.

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite to the contrary, under Obama's CALEA power grab, your ISP just has to classify their VOD service differently to get away with throttling Netflix.

Re:The GOP always stands against the people.

[AvitarX]

Lucky you, I live in a non rural areas and I can get decent internet from cable (starting at $60/mo for 25/5).

I can get 25/? Satalite for $100

That's it for any reasonable definition of broadband

There also "up to 7mbps" DSL for $40/mo

Depending on the tree situation, some people in my area of the city can get 75/75 LoS wirekess for $55/mo

If you go to the burbs, there's about 1/5th covered by FiOS with better prices than the cable (and better prices for cable in that 1/5th

I suppose for $200/mo o could get cellular too, and of course, since we're listing terrible options, I could still use dial up I bet.

Re: The GOP always stands against the people.

[AvitarX]

And that has what to do with them favoring Netflix over YouTube or some new guy?

Re:The GOP always stands against the people.

[AvitarX]

NN isn't about protecting other ISPs, it's a recognition of the fact that multiple runs of wire are not going to provide the most efficient solution, and therefore the industry needs regulation (similar to how utilities work).

It's to protect the consumer, since it's not practical to have competition.

Re: The GOP always stands against the people.

[astrofurter]

CALEA was the Bill Clinton era anti-patriotic law that mandated all cellphones be built for surveillance ("lawful intercept") from the hardware on up. Afaik it has jack to do with Net Neutrality.

Re: The GOP always stands against the people.

[Anonymous Coward]

Consumers in San Franshitsco and New Jack City have just as few & crappy broadband providers as most other places.

Re: The GOP always stands against the people.

[The Cynical Critic]

You really couldn't be more wrong here.... Net neutrality most definitely protects him when Comcast eventually starts throttling and demanding fees for not doing so from various internet content providers they may or may not be in competition with. Sure, it doesn't allow him more choice in terms of ISP, but does protect him from anti-customer business practices that would be deterred by competition if there was any.

Re:The GOP always stands against the people.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you can't. There are developed, populated areas that only have one possible broadband provider or 4G. Nothing else.

Yeah, but those are all in California. Fuck them anyway.

Re:We're going to hang that Traitor

[Anonymous Coward]

Lock him up!

Re:The GOP always stands against the people.

[Hodr]

You seem to have missed the parent poster's point entirely.

While you only had access to one provider for your physical phone line, you almost certainly had access to many providers for internet access (local ISPs, Prodigy, AOL, etc).

In the early 90s (and before) I lived in tiny town in Northern California (6k people, 20+ miles to the closest real city) and had Pac Bell as well. However within my "local" calling distance I could reach several small ISPs and all of the major national ones.

Pac Bell only got paid for access to that physical line, a base charge for local calls and per-minute charges for long distance. Their rate didn't change depending on who you called, only where. And they had zero influence on which internet provider you went with.

This resulted in lots of competition in my area and prices going from around $5 an hour for access in 1990 (Compuserve) to around $20/month in 1994 (Sonic.net) to practically free by 1998 (NetZero, AOL free trials for hundreds or even thousands of hours).

Re:The GOP always stands against the people.

[bluefoxlucid]

Those markets are heavily-regulated to prevent companies from buying all other companies, although most of your options are owned by the same company. There are also provisions pushed by municipal authorities to force these providers to roll out to people in less-densely-populated areas where the cost is higher.

Re:The GOP always stands against the people.

[PopeRatzo]

No, there are large portions of the country, including in big cities like Houston, Dallas, that don't have any choice of provider.

https://arstechnica.com/inform...

Re: The GOP always stands against the people.

[ole_timer]

"... Sure, it doesn't allow him more choice in terms of ISP..."

Re:The GOP always stands against the people.

[Anonymous Coward]

The right to vote doesn't come from a law. It comes from you. Laws restrict who can vote and under what conditions.

Re:The GOP always stands against the people.

[cthulhu11]

Careful of that "broadband" term, it's widely misused.

That said, were those dozens of options distinct, or were a bunch of them channels for others?

Re:The GOP always stands against the people.

[cthulhu11]

Been going on for a long time in lots of industries, cf. the 1948 Tucker.

Re: The GOP always stands against the people.

[Anonymous Coward]

And so, they tried to pass the CALEA and what happened? It didn't pass. False equivalency. The GOP'ers are all about making a buck. That is what this is all about every time.

He must be in a tight race

[Anonymous Coward]

He must be facing a tough challenge from a Democrat this fall and is trying to win over the moderates and independents.

Don't worry, Trumpicans, he'll rip the bill up right after he wins re-election.

#maga

lol wut?

[Anonymous Coward]

If someone repeatedly punches you in the fucking face, is that confirmation bias, anecodtal data, or what? You can't just throw out a logical fallacy and not explain yourself. Logical fallacies are only a fallacy if not true. It's in the name. So am I only being punched in the face because all I'm wanting to see is punches to the face or is there, in fucking fact, someone punching me in my goddamned face?

Re: The GOP always stands against the people.

[tbannist]

You know, the laws against murder also don't give him more choice in terms of ISP... What's you point? That the law wouldn't do something that wasn't intended to do? In any case, Net Neutrality is most useful in the case where customers don't have much (if any) choice in ISP, by limiting the company's ability to subvert and distort the service it is providing to its paying customers.

Re:The GOP always stands against the people.

[Anonymous Coward]

In the 90s getting even 1mb/s was absolutely mind blowing. You had dozens of providers who could do that?

Re: The GOP always stands against the people.

[ole_timer]

no they don't give him more choice in isp's

Re: The GOP always stands against the people.

[fish_in_the_c]

Interesting theory. How do you define right? Legal rights come from the law. If other rights exist independent of the law how do we know what they are and everest do they come from?;

Re:The GOP always stands against the people.

[dddux]

But you know... greed. Greed is infinite and you American people say you love it. These companies only do this because of greed. If they weren't this greedy, you wouldn't have any problems with the Net Neutrality or Internet speed in rural areas. Maybe think about greed more. Give it a thought. ;)

Re: The GOP always stands against the people.

[tbannist]

Net Neutrality laws are not supposed to give him more choice in ISPs.

Re: The GOP always stands against the people.

[ole_timer]

exactly