Slashdot Mirror
Can Democrats In Congress Restore America's Net Neutrality Rules? (nbcnews.com)
"Democrats are expected to use their upcoming control of the House to push for strong net neutrality rules," reports NBC News:
"The FCC's repeal sparked an unprecedented political backlash, and we've channeled that internet outrage into real political power," said Evan Greer, deputy director of Fight for the Future, a digital rights-focused non-profit organization. "As we head into 2019, net neutrality supporters in the House of Representatives will be in a much stronger position to engage in FCC oversight...." Gigi Sohn, a former lawyer at the FCC who is now a fellow at the Georgetown Law Institute for Technology, Law and Policy, said she expects Democrats to use their new power to push for the restoration of strong net neutrality rules -- and for the topic to be on the lips of presidential hopefuls. "I have no doubt that bills to restore the 2015 rules will be introduced in both the Senate and the House relatively early on," Sohn said....
Jessica Rosenworcel, an FCC commissioner who has been a vocal supporter of net neutrality, noted that it has become a national issue -- and one that has broad approval from Americans. She pointed to a University of Maryland study that found 83 percent of people surveyed were against the FCC's move to undo the rules around net neutrality... Ernesto Falcon, legislative counsel at the Electronic Frontier Foundation...said he is "extraordinarily confident" that proponents of net neutrality will win. "It really just boils down to how one side of the polling is in this space," Falcon said.
Jessica Rosenworcel, an FCC commissioner who has been a vocal supporter of net neutrality, noted that it has become a national issue -- and one that has broad approval from Americans. She pointed to a University of Maryland study that found 83 percent of people surveyed were against the FCC's move to undo the rules around net neutrality... Ernesto Falcon, legislative counsel at the Electronic Frontier Foundation...said he is "extraordinarily confident" that proponents of net neutrality will win. "It really just boils down to how one side of the polling is in this space," Falcon said.
What they should pass:
"If you are an ISP, you cannot charge for preferential treatment of packets based on their destination"
What they will pass:
"If you are an ISP, you can't touch packets for any reason unless they are illegal or if the MPAA or RIAA wants them throttled or if they are in relation to a hate site or related to foreign involvement in government.." and two hundred more pages of nonsense that have nothing to do with net neutrality.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
The FCC's repeal sparked an unprecedented political backlash, and we've channeled that internet outrage into real political power
Come on, the House win was because of something the FCC did over a year ago?
Sounds like an awesome way to squander what political power they did gain on a fruitless fight for something almost no voters understand or care about.
By the way, if it was such a clear-cut political victory how did the GOP gain two senate seats over what they had before?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
NN has a cool name, but it's price control and censorship. Net neutrality wasn't passed by law. It was decreed by Obama.
Net neutrality is actually a basic manifestation of something you right wing-nuts like to harp on about: a free market
NN regulations protect a free internet..
Yet we didn't see so much censorship on the internet til AFTER NN was pushed though by the left. Notice how sites like youtube started doing most their censoring of people's views while NN has been in place?
You are confused. NN is not about what websites publish. It's about how service providers shape traffic.
As for Youtube and other sites, it's entirely up to them what they allow. You have freedom of speech, but Youtube is under no obligation whatsoever to hand you a megaphone.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
NN has a cool name, but it's price control and censorship. Net neutrality wasn't passed by law. It was decreed by Obama.
Regulation of pricing, enforced contracts, and government enforced censorship is "free market". Right.
The original rules they tried to use were so bad, the EFF came out against them - they were neither "free" nor "market". The later revision was slightly better, but still allowed several types of priority content (while banning some of the worst), and ALSO allowed censorship of content - along with all the other shitty things that companies can do under the Title II provisions.
If you want Net Neutrality, you need to get Congress to actually pass a Net Neutrality law. Trying to force pre-internet laws written for phone and cable networks onto the internet is a bad idea. Do it right.
You can take your us-vs-them Obama is the anti-christ rhetoric and deposit it where the sun does not shine. Net neutrality, by definition provides a free market environment on the internet because big players, such as Amazon, would not be able to choke competitors at birth because they, unlike the competitor, get more and better bandwidth. Net neutrality is the natural consequence of an environment where there is true competition between all telecommunications providers. In such an environment of true competition there is always somebody who offers fairer treatment to undercut his rival who does not, so the end result is basically net neutrality. I know this because in my corner of the world we have several telecommunications companies who compete fiercely with eachother nation-wide and the result has been net neutrality by default. In the absence of true competition, and the US is after all patchwork of regional telecommunications monopolies, the only way to provide net neutrality is to impose it if you are not willing to break up the monopolies and create a free market. You can be against the imposition of net neutrality in a landscape of regional monopolies but all that will get you is being screwed over even more thoroughly by those monopolies than you are currently. Judging from your: 'net neutrality is government censorship' rhetoric you thoroughly enjoy being screwed over.
My thesis was that Democrats will spend all their time on "we hate Trump", rather than doing anything useful for the country.
Your rebuttal is:
We hate Trump.
I'm not 100% sure if you're an actual Democrat, or a parody of one.
Price control? Net neutrality doesn't prevent ISPs from charging whatever they want for the bandwidth. It just means they CANT DISCRIMINATE against specific websites or content. They can still treat video different than email for QOS but they have to treat all video the same... No fast lane for their preferred content while slowing down or charging extra for other content of the same type. They can even charge customers extra for faster speeds but again that faster speed is for whatever the customer wants - they don't get to charge extra for specific destinations. Whatever net neutrality was, and whoever first instated it doesn't matter because it's gone. What we need to do now is make a law about what net neutrality WILL BE.
The troll thing is getting old.
Hey, it's better than a rapist (Bill Clinton), a war crminial (Bush), or another war criminal (Obama). Remember when Obama bombed a Doctors Without Borders hospital, and then sent gunners in to gun down the fleeing doctors and patients? He needs to stand trial at The Hague. How many wars has Trump started? Zero so far. In fact, he tried to get us out of Afghanistan and Syria, only to be overruled by the unelected government.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
More regulation is a freer market??
Well, ideally not, but it is more free than a market dominated by few players.
If you want a free market you have two choices:
1) The government steps in, takes over and breaks up AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon and Charter.
2) Net neutrality.
The alternative is a non-free market controlled by a few companies with the same problems you get with a government controlled internet together with the demand for ever increasing profits.
The free market model only works if you can keep taking your business elsewhere.
If you run out of alternatives and have to go back to someone you were unhappy with then the free marked doesn't work and the vendors can just collude and offer equally bad and overpriced services.
So yes. We all love a free market and would like to see it, but the market isn't infinite so if left unregulated all markets end up as monopolies with less demand for efficiency than a government controlled alternative and no incentive to keep the prices low for the consumer.
They didn't lose the rules... some power hungry cuck that was paid off by corporations abdicated his responsibility to maintain a level playing field so that the citizens of this country don't get fucked by fascist shit stains like you. I am really sorry you're so fucking stupid. It's really a pity you're nothing more than a partisan waste of flesh.
https://www.snopes.com/news/20...
Given that Nazism is traditionally held to be an extreme right-wing ideology, the party’s conspicuous use of the term “socialist” — which refers to a political system normally plotted on the far-left end of the ideological spectrum — has long been a source of confusion, not to mention heated debate among partisans seeking to distance themselves from the genocidal taint of Nazi Germany.
That epitomizes stupid cunts like you: distancing yourself from your ideology in the eyes of others, all the while being worthless shit stains. No honor, no integrity,party before country.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
Net neutrality is actually a basic manifestation of ... a free market
More regulation is a freer market??
You can almost count the companies for who it is 'more regulation' on one hand: Charter, Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile.
But it ensures a free market and level playing field for the hundreds of thousands of companies that are actually providing services on the internet. Without net neutrality, you only reward the current big dogs, while the next Netflix, Youtube, Facebook or Amazon may never stand a chance to even be visible to the public at large.
There are 2 axis on the graph of political systems: left to right is Collective ownership / private ownership, the up/down direction is how much control the government has over people (Totalitarianism). Fascism is the merger of corporations with government (top right on graph), essentially the Republicans in a world where nobody tells Trump NO. As for economic ruin, are you suggesting Trump is a Socialist? He's certainly destroying the economy (think Argentina).