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Markey (D-MA) said today he would "soon" introduce a bill to permanently reinstate the net neutrality rules that were repealed by the Federal Communications Commission, led by chairman Ajit Pai, in 2017.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 The government is expected to argue that the rules were repealed because of the burden they imposed on broadband providers like Verizon and Comcast.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.
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?
If you give all 'users equal and open access to all websites and services.', you've just banned QoS and broken the net.
That's the problem with all NN proposals, they put the definition into the hands of clueless fucking government lawyers.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
DACA was already offered up for a compromise, the DNC FLATLY turned it down. They don't care about DACA unless they can use those kids to gain more power. They shit on any possible compromise and will never get one now.
All praise Pelosi on failing yet another large group of Americans in her quest for personal power/wealth.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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/
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/
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.
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.
Which party can understand net neutrality, at least well enough to actually stand in front of a camera and educate their community?
Ken
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.
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.
How about a little of that morally righteous neutrality being incumbent upon payment processor?
Just saying.