Slashdot Mirror
New Net Neutrality Bill Headed To Congress (theverge.com)
Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) said today he would "soon" introduce a bill to permanently reinstate the net neutrality rules that were repealed by the Federal Communications Commission, led by chairman Ajit Pai, in 2017. From a report: Markey's announcement comes as a federal court is set to hear oral arguments over the FCC's repeal of net neutrality regulations in 2017. Markey, who is a member of the Senate Commerce Committee, has previously introduced a bill that would permanently reinstate net neutrality as a member of the House of Representatives, although the measure ultimately failed.
It's unclear when the bill would be formally introduced, but Markey said it was imminent. "We will soon lay down a legislative marker in the Senate in support of net neutrality to show the American people that we are on their side in overwhelming supporting a free and open internet." Further reading: Net Neutrality Repeal at Stake as Key Court Case Starts: Oral arguments are set to begin Friday in the most prominent lawsuit challenging the federal government's repeal of broadband access rules known as net neutrality. The Federal Communications Commission approved the rules in 2015 to ensure internet users equal and open access to all websites and services. The commission, under new leadership, rolled the rules back in 2017. The plaintiffs in the suit to be argued Friday, led by the internet company Mozilla and supported by 22 state attorneys general, say the commission lacked a sound legal reason for scrapping the regulations. The government is expected to argue that the rules were repealed because of the burden they imposed on broadband providers like Verizon and Comcast.
It's unclear when the bill would be formally introduced, but Markey said it was imminent. "We will soon lay down a legislative marker in the Senate in support of net neutrality to show the American people that we are on their side in overwhelming supporting a free and open internet." Further reading: Net Neutrality Repeal at Stake as Key Court Case Starts: Oral arguments are set to begin Friday in the most prominent lawsuit challenging the federal government's repeal of broadband access rules known as net neutrality. The Federal Communications Commission approved the rules in 2015 to ensure internet users equal and open access to all websites and services. The commission, under new leadership, rolled the rules back in 2017. The plaintiffs in the suit to be argued Friday, led by the internet company Mozilla and supported by 22 state attorneys general, say the commission lacked a sound legal reason for scrapping the regulations. The government is expected to argue that the rules were repealed because of the burden they imposed on broadband providers like Verizon and Comcast.
Not sure what the Democrats are introducing because my internet is still working fine? With the mobile industry driving the majority of traffic not sure if this is even relevant with all the competition out there.
You've simply assumed it's incorrect and completely overlooked the fact that parties like Mozilla are involved.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Now, the important question: Does Markey's bill include CALEA, which was the purpose of Obama's "NN"? The entire purpose of Obama's "Net Neutrality" was to impose CALEA on the internet. Timing was convenient for a populist vote push, but don't get confused.
Read it, it's incorrect on its face.
Right there in the summary. Tell me that's workable.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
imma teabag u
I wonder when someone will complain that browsers are not net neutral. Oh and by the way, yes Mozilla has plugins and yes THEY ARE the best and they are not the least bit ashamed to admit it.
No. I have not seen a stupid complaint like that before
It's workable.
We need a comprehensive common carrier statute, not one that discriminates against providers of the last mile service. If you think discriminating against some protocols is bad, you should be losing your mind at MasterCard telling Patreon "stop doing business with Robert Spencer or else." The least discriminator businesses overall seem to actually be the ones who just want to sell bandwidth.
Good thing that's not the actual text of the bill to be submitted, eh? There's a reason why our laws don't read like pithy bumper stickers. But we all know you're just trolling for "informative" or "insightful" karma points though. Quite transparent.
You want to bet the legalize is better?
At least we can discuss NN using a workable definition. /. should be better than this.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Would it solve the problem of Comcast throttling Netflix unless Netflix paid their extortion fee? Yes it would. But that problem is actually a just a symptom of a greater problem.
The real problem is that there's next to no competition among ISPs. If there were competition and Comcast throttled Netflix as a ploy to extort money from Netflix, Comcast customers who watched Netflix would simply cancel and sign up with a competing ISP. Comcast would be slitting their own throats with such a bone-headed move. We wouldn't need Net Neutrality. The only reason they have the gall to throttle Netflix, the only reason Net Neutrality helps, is because they have a monopoly or near-monopoly in most areas. They know their customers cannot flee to a different ISP, so they're free to do things which intentionally degrades the quality of the service their customers receive.
Why do Comcast, Verizon, et al have near-monopolies? Because the local goverments gave it to them. Often in exchange for service guarantees (e.g. to cover low-income areas) or financial kickbacks. The governments like it because it gives them control over the telecoms (who happily make campaign donations to retain their monopoly). The telecoms like it because the government gives them a monopoly so they can over-charge their customers (more than enough to offset the cost of they campaign contributions they have to make to maintain this arrangement). That is the real problem that needs to be fixed. Not only does it cause the problems Net Neutrality aims to fix, it causes a host of other problems like excessively high prices, excessively low data caps, poor repair service times, incentive money being spent on executive bonuses instead of improving the network, etc.
Net Neutrality is the politicians' way to have their cake and eat it too. They can pretend to be on the customers' side by striking a blow against the big, bad cable monopolies. But since the monopolies are government-granted, they retain control over those monopolies so the telecom companies continue to give campaign contributions to them. It just cements in place this terrible monopoly ISP system we have in place, by taking one of the biggest customer complaints off the table.
If you want to fix this, just rescind the government-granted monopolies. You don't even need national legislation to do this. Just elect people to your city or county government in favor of allowing multiple cable companies to compete in your area. Then it can't be countered just because some bozo gets appointed head of the FCC.
Now we know: You don't know what QoS is.
Define it (or give an example). Hint game packet vs. torrent packet.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Death to the regulatory state.
The American Federal Legislature has been allowed to shirk their duty for far too long. The plan was that representatives, representing the people and the states, would convene in DC and create the laws that would govern our country. This premise has been almost wholly abandoned, and the power slowly handed over to the Executive branch which is slowly approaching a monarchy.
I look forward to the representative branch of our government developing a spine and clawing back some of their power. Maybe DACA will be next up.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
This is a useless. Ask 10 people what NN is and you will get 10 answers. If the government simply puts back the NN rules as before, then it's broken. This is simply a political ploy. Here is the scenario:
Dems bring bill to reinstate (makes sound good) NN rules. Reps don't vote for it, and it goes no where (Reps say same reasons for broken NN rule that were there in the first place) Dems rave about how Reps are in it for the big corporations (gee where does all of the money from both of them come from) and they don't want equality. People this is this true because no one has any idea what NN is and if something is good for them or not. Next, Reps will bring out their own. Dems will say it's not good enough and vote it down. And around we go.
Nothing gets done. By the way, did anyone actually check with some networking experts on these rules they want to implement. With how the original rules were written, that would be no. But if they did, they paid a pretty penny for it.
Reed Hastings publicly acknowledged there was no serious issue with 'net neutrality', because he knew they were just being told to pay what they ought to pay.
On the other hand, the problem with the web barons is dripping off our faces. They need the ISPs constrained, because they recognize a superior power when they see it. Yesterday's example: Apple opening fire on Google and Facebook. Now imagine ISPs taking up the mantle of 'privacy protection' against Facebook and Google, and you'll understand why they are scared nasty.
Almost every single Democrat will vote in favor, almost every single Republican will vote against. May pass house, doomed in senate. American politics is driven entirely by partisan considerations - very few politicians dare to go against their party position. There may be one or two defectors, but that's all. The actual subject of the bill is not important at all.
You want to bet the legalize is better?
The legalese? Yes.
Are you new here?
That's not what you asked for.
You said:
Tell me that's workable.
So I did just that. Don't ask for it if you can't handle it.
Seriously, it would be far better to spend efforts on getting rid of dark money, balancing the budget, taking care of massive student debts, etc.
THis issue is easily solved by de-monopolizing communication.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The internet started in a state of net neutrality. It operated like that for years and years. It was not broken.
"QoS" is just a code word American telecoms and ISPs use in order to break the internet and make it bend to their will. In other words - increase profits.
To any serious developers and tech people here: I'll bet you can each give examples of how "QoS" has been used as a buzzword in order to fuck things up. If American telecoms really cared about "QoS", then their services wouldn't suck so badly.
You are welcome on my lawn.
We need net neutrality because the internet fell completely apart after the FCC repealed it..........
When government agents tell you it has to pass a law in order to be free....they are doing it wrong.
Is it 'fair' for some services to pay ISPs to collocate server racks/containers in head offices?
Seems to me the services are getting preferential treatment if allowed to do this, giving their customers superior service in exchange for the service paying the ISP.
Ken
You're not supposed to say things you don't believe and are unwilling to defend.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
DACA recipients aren't Americans - that's kinda the point/problem.
There are 800K that we're enrolled in DACA, Trump admin offered 1.7M protections, Dems refused to take the win because, we'll, because I can't remember why, but I'm sure it had mainly to do with Trump's name being on the offer.
Ken
Legalize being clear and correct about technical subjects is your expectation?
What planet have you been living on?
How much would you bet on that?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Bullshit.
The internet has had QoS almost since the invention of the router.
NN was a set of proposed rules that WERE NEVER ENFORCED or even legally passed.
Bet you can't even define QoS, nor give an example where it helps your daily internet use.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
In a scenario where power is split, both parties love to go to town with heavy rhetoric and the bills to back it up, safe in the knowledge that the other party will block it and take the blame. They get to largely throw any semblance of nuance out the window on divisive issues and *appear* to be ready to go all in to get that bill passed. Like a dog chasing a car being very loud.
Then when the dog catches the car, suddenly things are different. When one of the parties control the legislature and executive branch all that rhetoric can finally go. Well, actually they are not really a fan of those seemingly simplistic perspectives, and suddenly things grind to a halt. We want socialized medicine say the democrats that know they will be vetoed. They get power in congress and the executive branch, things get watered down and Obamacare happens. On the flipside, Republicans with a president that will absolutely veto anything that would threaten obamacare: 'we have passed many bills that would dismantle obamacare'. Republicans win congress and the presidency, 'oh... well, we don't *really* want to repeal it....'
It's a large cause of the seesaw. The tough reality is that some nuanced approach is generally best but the voters are bored by that so they vote for the energized oversimplistic view that sounds straightforwarde enough.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
That's what this article is about. Passing a bill in congress to codify net neutrality. And your complaint is that "they didn't pass a bill". Pay attention.
And your premise that net neutrality would ":ban QoS" is false on its face.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Uh, you are using NN as a legal term. The GP is using it as a functional term. in other words, NN was never a law. True. ISP throttling did not occur in the early days of the internet. True. ergo, NN as a law never existed, but the internet functioned as if it was in place, since throttling did not occur. Hope this prevents further confusion. btw, I can't define QoS, nor give any example of it. That doesn't mean we should let the ISPs throttle all they want. Oh no! the internet is going to come to an end! You really come across silly. Sorry, but you do.
Ummm our president and his loyal conservacucks do it all the time. LOL
Because he was only going
To do that if we gave him money to build a wall. So you know, he was holding people hostage in order to increase his bargaining power. If you can't see that, then you are a partisan fuckboy. That's why we turned that deal down, because it wasn't a deal;
It was a hostage negotiation, and in america, we don't negotiate with terrorist.
Packet prioritization by type is as old as hills.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Proposition 1: No traffic shall be slowed or prioritized for any reason.
Proposition 2 through 2000: All manner of SJW requirements, subsidies, entitlements, restrictions, oversight, requirements, etc.
This is essentially why the first NN was shit. Speed was an infinitesimal part of it. The rest was asserting broad government control over most aspects of the the internet.
Does this Bill suffer form that? Guess we'll see.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Read the title of your post. The definition in TFS would ban QoS, as would many of the simple minded rules that have been floated.
I'm pointing out that leaving the definition of NN in the hands of fucking government lawyers is a bad idea.
We geeks can't even agree to a clear definition here (through the noise). There are some that defend the broken definition (bet they're Java or Javascript programmers)
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Your telco monopoly likes your spending. Your monopoly telco can keep your network.
The federal rules get changed back so every federally NN approved telco monopoly can keep their consumers.
Welcome back to paper insulated wireline and its a permanently regulated NN network.
No community broadband will be connected as they are not a federal NN approved telco.
Want to build an network as an ISP? Thats the part when rules that are now permanently in place allow a monopoly telco to request a review of NN rules.
Can a competitive and innovative new IPS wait years and pay to prove legally to the federal gov its fully NN ready?
Cant prove an ISP, community broadband project is fully NN ready? No federal approval for that network to be part of the "internet".
That slows any community broadband and ISP network approval down thanks to NN federal rules that will be in place permanently.
NN is the way a monopoly telco gets full federal gov protection from any new internet projects.
Permanently securing a federal NN veto over all new telco projects.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Even after Pai put the kibosh on the last NN proposal.
"It's the end of the World as we know it and I feel fine"
it's just a different issue. There can be more than one problem with the internet. Yes, if there was a massive amount of competition you could just switch to an ISP that supported NN, but given the centralized nature of internet access and how much it costs to build out a network you're more or less stuck with natural monopoies.
Now, if you want to talk about red herrings, I'd say the real red herring is this notion that Internet should be provided by public companies in the first place. In 2019 it's too valuable a service. It's up there with water and electricity. My kid couldn't do her homework in bloody high school without it. I don't mean because she needed google, I mean because half her homework was delivered online and maybe 1/4 of her tests. And that got worse with college.
Here's a good video on privatization. Lots of things shouldn't be run by private companies because they're so universal that it's not just everybody wants them it's that society and civilization is improved when everybody has them. You can save more money giving stuff away sometimes.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Dems refused to take the win because, we'll, because I can't remember why, but I'm sure it had mainly to do with Trump's name being on the offer.
As a registered Democrat I would have it any other way.
so it can be brought up during elections. Not just national ones either, but state ones. The point is to make the GOP the party that opposes Net Neutrality (they are, after all).
As for how you get folks to understand NN, you don't. All Joe Schmoe needs to know is that NN == Lower Cable Bills. Hammer that point home.
We're a democracy, and a pretty corrupt one. But it's fixable if we try. I agree it's frustrating we can't just fix something this simple, but the way to do it is not throwing our hands up in disgust and giving up.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
That's an equivocation based upon thinking nothing will ever improve or be changed in any way.
It would probably be nice to create a level playing field for all involved for the people this does affect today, knowing that as better infrastructure comes along, those that are in the areas of improvement will also get the effects of this legislation.
You are advocating for "let's wait until the telecoms are screwing even more people over before we do something about it" which makes you sound like a massive shill for the telecoms.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Because there's absolutely no difference between speech rhetoric and actual legislative language, right?
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
How about telling him where he's wrong instead of insisting that just because some party is involved that everything is right. This kind of blind acceptance shit is part of what's fucking the US citizen today. Too lazy to give an honest answer? Then shut your fucking trap.
He loves "his" generals, they always agree with him on basic facts - except when the evil media misquotes them on camera in person saying verbatim that Trump is lying. Then they need to go back to school, ok?
No corrections!
And makes you sound like a massive shill for large government bureaucracies that abuse people. You are advocating for even more government power to give to Trump and whatever half assed idiot that follows him.
Fortunately, it doesn't matter whether or not we agree on a definition, because a clear and straightforward definition already exists, helpfully posted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation:
https://www.eff.org/issues/net...
You are welcome on my lawn.
and if you want TV or even netflix you better have it with your ISP.
Hell comcarp can force you to buy an X1 TV package just to get good Netflix if they wanted to.
ISP owning content is a big issue as well as ATT, Comcast, t mobile, can just may other video services slow or be under small caps.
Because 1. The democrats had already decided that they won't fund a physical barrier and that's the hill they're gonna die on and 2. because Domald Trunp was only offering to put back DACA for three years. Recall that he's the one who took DACA away? Three years of temporary protection in return for a permanent installation is a really, stupendously bad deal. Insulting, even.
People should read your cite. Especially this: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/... (cited by your cite).
A list of problems the EFF has found with the 'legalize' of the rules that are proposed for reinstatement (and that you appear to support).
For those that won't read: They punted, like the shyster that they are. 'Reasonable Network Management' with no definition is an invitation for legal shenanigans and many many billable hours. More or less, what I would expect. Good to get confirmation from the EFF.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
If they're doing it right* they are consulting with the EFF, Mozilla, etc.
IOW, the EFF, Mozilla, etc. have lawyers that write the draft legislation for the good Senator, and then his aides go over it looking for any place to earmark shit or write in loopholes for specific contributors and various other Congress critters to enable yes votes before it goes to the floor for debate.
* I have no idea if they're doing it right, or just slapping together some horse shit retread legislation and the supporters are getting on board because it's marginally better (for them) than what the FCC shoved up the national ass last year. I don't work for this, or any other Senator. Or any other politician.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
From another thread: EFF's take on the rules that are proposed for reinstatement. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...
TLDR. It's as fucked as I expected. Appears designed to be unclear and to generate billable hours for beltway law firms. You won't like what comes out the other end of that process.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Ball-less, supine Congress, which devolves things onto the executive and judicial branches lest they be held accountable, should have done this all along.
This is independent of whether it is a good idea or not.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Fortunately, it doesn't matter whether or not we agree on a definition, because a clear and straightforward definition already exists, helpfully posted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation:
Unfortunately, it doesn't matter what the EFF posts, or gets tattooed on their chests, or anything else. The definition that will count will be the definition in the law itself.
I predict that it will be a bad definition, based on historical bad definitions of technical things in laws, and then it will become a political football as some people vote against it because the definition doesn't really match what NN really is, and the opponents start yelling about how the first group "opposes net neutrality" because they voted against something that wasn't NN to start with.
If you think laws have good definitions of anything, remember the California NN law that defined "broadband" to cover dial-up modem service.
There is no reason for this comment to be marked -1 just because you don't like what was said. The comment is correct, most people could careless about net neutrally. There was nothing offensive in the comment, might as well have said something about Non-man made climate change.
We? Do we have Congressional representatives posting here anonymously and using that kind of language?
You don't get a vote in Congress. You didn't do a damn thing, and you are parroting what your tribe communicated to you through your bias-chosen media. I'm sure that the Democrats absolutely didn't turn down a win on DACA because they want the issue for the upcoming 2020 election which the Democrats are already tripping over themselves to declare their candidacy for, and they absolutely do not want to hand a win to Trump on a signature campaign issue from the last election. And they certainly aren't looking at polling data that shows the majority of the public blames the Republicans for the government shutdown more than Congressional Democrats, and definitely don't want to keep that ball rolling by not actually solving the problem or compromising on a deal.
Who's a partisan hack now? Hint, it's you. And before you start getting all over me about supporting Trump or whatever intellectually lazy rebuttal you'll come up with: I hate the guy, I voted against him in the primary and general election. There's no way I vote for him in 2020 in either the primary or the general election. I think the wall is a gross misappropriation of funds and legislative time, a horribly misguided policy that would result in zero substantive change in undocumented immigration or unlawful importation of illicit goods, and a complete waste of national attention and debate. Moreover, shutting down the government for an unprecedented amount of time over such a useless, ineffective, and misguided so-called policy was a massive exercise in one man's ego not dealing with the idea that in our representative Republic, he doesn't get to stamp his feet and get what he demands like a petulant child.
None of that changes the fact that you're a partisan shill who is incapable of objective thought or debate rebuttal without resulting to ad hominem attack, profanity, and cliche. Go back to Call of Duty and let the adults talk.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Which law was that? Under California law, broadband is currently defined as a minimum 10Mbps down and 1Mbps up.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Recall DAPA, based on the same questionable view of Presidential powers relating to immigration as DACA, had already been shot down in the courts, and Trump faced a deadline from about a dozen states that promised to challenge DACA the same way they just challenged DACA and won.
Remember also that Trump pre-emptively declares DACA ended some number of months later (6 months?), and PLEADED with Congress to come up with a constitutional response to DACA in those 6(?) months.
Congresses failure to address a crisis created by the previous administration is not only the fault of the President's.
Trump offered 1.8M so-called "Dreamers" paths to legal status last year in the state of the union address, we'll after he announced the end of DACA - all DACA offered was 4 years of possibly renewable protection from deportation for $429 in fees...
Trump offered a solution, Democrats wanted their unconstitutional protection racket reinstated.
Ken
Which party can understand net neutrality, at least well enough to actually stand in front of a camera and educate their community?
Ken
In other words, if you have a dedicated line to an ISP and have fixed 56.k modems at each end, you have "broadband", according to this bill. Or a fixed T1 service (1.544 Mbps). Anything except dial-up is "broadband". Is that a good definition?
Now, that's not saying that NN in the bill is wrong, it's just a stupid use of the word "broadband" where it does not belong. They could have omitted that word and referred simply to "internet access service", but they chose not to.
But isn't it nice to know, your dial-up service in California is not covered by the NN law, and the ISP is free to diddle with your traffic as they desire. All due to a stupid definition of a simple concept.
as long as moscow's senate representation (putin's puppet mcconnell has taken millions in campaign funds from the russians) is still there...
I demand 3 more trenches and 5 more poles in my street.
When your max bandwidth hovers between 1998 and 2005's definition of broadband depending on how many hundreds of dollars you're willing to pay, does it really matter if you don't get things delivered with the same priority as someone else?
There's a lot more at stake then how fast Netflix loads. Commercial considerations, retailer a pays ISP to degrade retailer b's site or because retailer b didn't cough up more money, their site doesn't load in a reasonable time. Political considerations, replace the retailer with political parties a and b. Things like voter registration sites can be degraded in certain areas where people don't vote the right way. Competing services like VOIP or possibly VPN gets degraded without paying protection money. Collateral damage, my ISP blocked the unions web site during a strike, this also included blocking a few hundred other sites that were on the same server.
With limited choice in ISP's (I have one choice), it is important for all legal content to be treated equally. Think roads, as long as a vehicle is legal, it should be allowed to use the road, even a toll road. There can be general limits, high occupancy lanes or VOIP lanes as long as they're not discriminatory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Can't have high occupancy lanes on the tollway as it'll be unfair and break the idea that all street legal vehicles can use the tollway.
All net neutrality should do, is make sure things like QoS is non-discriminatory, all VOIP traffic is treated the same rather then just the ISP's VOIP apps traffic. Conversely, all FTP traffic is downgraded equally rather then just competitors.
Think roads, all trucks might have to stay in the slow lane, rather then just Fedex trucks and all vehicles with 2 or 3 people in it can use the high occupancy lane rather then just Amazon vehicles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
That article is from 2011, I doubt it is about the new legislation. You are right though that the legislation can be very broken, perhaps even as broken as no legislation.
I haven't looked at the legislation and have enough problems in my country keeping up with the attacks on net neutrality by the ISP's and the media companies who really want the power to block any site on their say so.
With limited numbers of ISP's (I have one choice), it is important for them to be non-discriminatory. Ideally the pipe part of the business should be separated from the content part of the business. There's just too much conflict of interest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
and it's a common mistake among the Democrats that facts and fact checking can make a difference. Liz Warren just learned that the hard way when she proved her points about her Native American heritage were factually correct (e.g. she had enough that it wasn't unreasonable for her grandma to tell her that she had some India blood) but got nowhere defusing the "Pocahontas" situation.
Political debates are won with hope, fear and confidence. For the Dems to make NN an issue (and it would only be the Dems, as the GOP has way too much telecom money to be converted) they need to use fear, and fear of cable bills skyrocketing is the best bet because, well, it's fairly likely. They can lean into a little hope with more rural services and above all they need to double down on their talking points and never go on the defensive.
Go look up Alexandria Ocassio-Cortez. That's the one thing she seemed to have learned; when she gaffs she doesn't apologize or even acknowledge the gaff. Politics is a shark tank and they'll eat you alive the first taste of blood they get.
Bottom line, if we want NN (and anything good) for this country we've got to play the game and play it to win it.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
...a lot of Slashdot comments could include "We need neutrality through the FCC or not" or "The FCC shouldn't be doing this, Congress should!"
Now the goal posts have moved: "Nothing means anything because all parties are the same. This is a political ploy!" (one party revoked the regulations of another party but okay) or "Legislation will do nothing! The only way to do anything is to break up the big companies" (cool, so an all or nothing solution that cares little for pragmatism), or my personal favorite: "This would have never had happened without government interference. They created the monopolies!" This drum gets beat a lot and often will get +5 Informative or +5 Insightful. I'm not sure why. Even if we were to assume that we'd be in some heavenly Internet competition scenario with zero government involved (lol), it says absolutely nothing about what to do now (no lol).
Yes, you're going to see a lot of "show legislation" (because it's "show" by definition as any opponent can stop it in their own chamber) but do not for one second think a false equivalence, an obsession with the past or pessimism will disguise the fact that conservatives now oppose the idea. Liberals are very much for it.
This is just grandstanding by an idiot. Nothing goes to the floor without Mitch McConnell placing it on the agenda. And he will not mark this one up.
My minimum bandwidth is a gigabit and costs about $95/month. Pretty sure we didn't have that back in 1998-2005.
How about a little of that morally righteous neutrality being incumbent upon payment processor?
Just saying.
Legalese.
And no, my expectation is that the legalese would be better than the article summary posted here on /.
You should be more clear in your requests. I'll tell someone that grass is blurple if they insist on someone telling them so, but that doesn't make it true or create any burden of proof on me. If you want someone to tell you lies, and ask for someone to tell you lies, someone is going to tell you lies. QED. ;)
My ISP promises not to use QoS, shaping, blocking, anything, all the while guarantee you always get your provisioned bandwidth. $40/m for 70/70 naked, no bundling, no contract, no install fee, no hidden fees at all just pay $40 plus sale tax. Midwest USA.
what a scathing response. you must really dislike profanity.