Slashdot Mirror
Amy Klobuchar Calls For Net Neutrality 'Guarantee' In 2020 Presidential Announcement (dailydot.com)
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) said she wanted to "guarantee" net neutrality for all Americans during her 2020 presidential campaign kickoff speech. "[T]he senator bringing it up in her announcement marked perhaps the most high-profile stage the issue has had in terms of recent presidential politics," reports The Daily Dot. From the report: The Minnesota senator brought up the issue among other technology platform goals, including privacy and cybersecurity. "Way too many politicians have their heads stuck in the sand when it comes to the digital revolution. 'Hey guys, it's not just coming. It's here.' If you don't know the difference between a hack and Slack, it's time to pull off the digital highway," she said. "What would I do as president? We need to put some digital rules of the road into law when it comes to people's privacy."
She added: "For too long the big tech companies have been telling you, don't worry, we've got your back," she said. "While your identities, in fact, are being stolen and your data is being mined. Our laws need to be as sophisticated as the people who are breaking them. We must revamp our nation's cybersecurity and guarantee net neutrality for all. And we need to end the digital divide by pledging to connect every household to the internet by 2022, and that means you, rural America." Other Democrats seeking the 2020 nomination have shown support for net neutrality in the past. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) tweeted late last month about reports suggesting that telecom investments have not risen since the FCC's controversial repeal of net neutrality, calling the decision "another handout to big corporations & telecom giants."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) also told a crowd in Iowa last month that she believed "in net neutrality the same way I believe everybody should have access to electricity," according to the Washington Post.
She added: "For too long the big tech companies have been telling you, don't worry, we've got your back," she said. "While your identities, in fact, are being stolen and your data is being mined. Our laws need to be as sophisticated as the people who are breaking them. We must revamp our nation's cybersecurity and guarantee net neutrality for all. And we need to end the digital divide by pledging to connect every household to the internet by 2022, and that means you, rural America." Other Democrats seeking the 2020 nomination have shown support for net neutrality in the past. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) tweeted late last month about reports suggesting that telecom investments have not risen since the FCC's controversial repeal of net neutrality, calling the decision "another handout to big corporations & telecom giants."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) also told a crowd in Iowa last month that she believed "in net neutrality the same way I believe everybody should have access to electricity," according to the Washington Post.
That she passed out?
Have you?
Is that before or after she beats her aides.
If by "Net Neutrality" you mean I cannot pay for prioritization or some kinds of traffic, nor have free delivery of some rate listed video over mobile connections - then I, and millions of others, want no part of it thank you very much.
The kind of Network Neutrality people do want - equal ability to access any location on the internet - we enjoy already, and all you can do is fuck it up if you mess with it.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Net Neutrality was a bullet point in the campaigns of many Democratic candidates last year, even those I'm sure have little to no understanding or interest in the issue. If a politician doesn't demonstrate a deep understanding of something beyond "we need to do this for jobs and to secure America's future" then they don't know or care about it (or aren't being honest) and I count it as pandering. We need less pandering and more fixing of actual problems, which are legion. If Klobuchar said "stop the FCC's regulatory capture by the corrupt telecom oligopoly" THEN I'd pay attention.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
Which is the shorter list - Democratic politicians who are (or are expected to be soon) running for president, or those who are not planning to run for president?
#DeleteChrome
I want the ISPs assets confiscated and given to the people! And then, the owner class will be enslaved and forced to dig the ditches for the new fiber that will paid for by their confiscated money!
And then, we will live in a Socialist Utopia of free beer, free porn, and free internet!
Amy made her big announcement yesterday - how come Slashdot is only caught up to it today?
Wasn't there an articles just days ago that countries with paid prioritization have higher internet prices?
Follow this through with me.
Suppose AT&T strikes a crooked smoke filled back room deal with Netflix. AT&T says that if Netflix pays it some extortion money, then Netflix traffic will have a good connection to AT&T customers watching Netflix. Now Netflix is not just going to eat this cost. All of Netflix customers end up paying for it. Including Netflix customers using, say, Verizon. So Verizon customers watching Netflix are subsidizing AT&T customers watching Netflix.
Next, Verizon strikes a crooked extortion deal with HBO so that HBO pays Verizon to ensure that HBO traffic reaches HBO's Verizon customers okay. Gee, that's a nice video streaming service you've got there. It would be a shame . . . but now AT&T customers watching HBO are subsidizing Verizon customers watching HBO.
None of this is needed. All it does is raise everyone's prices, while obscuring the true costs.
If AT&T needs to build more network infrastructure to support my Netflix watching then CHARGE ME for it!!! I'm AT&T's customer. I'm going to pay to build out AT&T's network either way. So just charge me for it. AT&T needs to build out its network to support the 21st century. So does everyone else. And thus customers using that bandwidth should reasonably pay to build and operate the network, plus some reasonable profit. That's capitalism.
What AT&T and Verizon, and others, should do: Focus on being the biggest, bestest, dumb pipes there are! Nice dumb pipes that route traffic efficiently and smoothly. That's what people are wanting when they sign up. Despite AT&T's service agreement having terms saying that AT&T can sneak in the middle of the night and steal your and your familiy's organs, unless your cable tv company has already harvested them first. And the FCC allows such conditions.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
So a president promising a policy dictated by someone who is appointed by them is ok when its FCC but not attorney general? Or is she personally planning on getting this done.
She must be lying again. Her lips are moving...
That called for something to be done about global warming while standing in the middle of a snowstorm ?
The thought that net neutrality will be an issue for the 2020 presidential election instead of being put to bed this year is very discouraging. The speed increase I get when using a VPN connection with streaming services is steadily increasing.
On a related note, I'm having frequent connection issues, up to a few times a week now for around an hour at a time, using multiple major public DNS systems including Cloudflare, Google, and OpenDNS. Interestingly, I can get to them through the VPN when I can't get to them directly. I believe my provider is interfering with competitive DNS systems that are taking away information that my provider sells.
I speak for the freedom of all to get the internet service they want, for whatever purpose they want it.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
since the chicken littles predicted doom and bladerunneresqe internets with the disappearance of net neutrality and so far the only censorship I see is still almost all from the upstream social media and media platforms (Google/Facebook/Amazon etc) which the mainstream conception of net neutrality does nothing about and in fact most of the supporters of NN and aforementioned corporations love for some reason. Maybe we should, I dunno, actually do something that solves problems we do have?
Would you please provide a cogent explanation of why paid prioritization is a good thing for consumers?
Very simple: I would like to be able to pay some additional fee to designate traffic from any source of my choosing to be of higher priority than other traffic.
To put that in simpler terms, I want Netflix to stream as fast as possible to the possible detriment of random browsing or other update traffic from my house.
Why is it so hard to understand people would like to watch Netflix without skipping just because someone else in the house decided to visit Facebook? Or to be able to allocate enough of the pipe so that 4k delivery with a decent bitrate was practical at all times without having to pay for a faster connection for all traffic?
There are tons of useful scenarios if you think for even a second. Please do not kill them over some abstract sense of purity.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
So I'm waking through the airport and someone is announcing her for president in the middle of a blizzard, it was pretty impressive.
She gets my vote just for not being afraid of the weather.
Back when Facebook and Twitter came out, I looked into it. I remember Zucherberg stating that they make their money selling your data.
So, I never signed up. Likewise, my 17yro grandaughter here does not do it either. Why would I want to have that company use MY data?
On the other hand, if FB was not allowed to use your data, it would go belly up shortly.
I wonder if Amy Kochublar is on F.B.? I wouldn't know. But if she is (Twitter is similar), the what the hell is she complaining about?
to paper insulated wireline.
More NN laws to keep a monopoly telco in place.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
It would be good to split up companies that own both content and infrastructure, as they have a built in bias that screws up free market competitiveness. But since that is unlikely to happen any time soon, we need to have enforceable net neutrality in the meantime.
When websites, not ISPs, are the ones censoring people through double standards and selective enforcement of rules, sometimes of rules that don't even exist, Net Neutrality is demonstrably irrelevant.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
nobody cares. It's a nerd issue. It's not a campaign issue that will resonate with voters, most of whom have no idea what net neutrality is even about. You can say, "It's all about sticking it to the Man and those big, bad, evil corporations!" and you'll get a vaguely positive response. But as a campaign issue, it sucks. Her candidacy is already dead in the water.
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
Why wait until the election? There's broad based support in favor of it, and it was a travesty that the unelected body like FCC got to decide on this in the first place (I wonder what Obama had in mind when he enacted NN shortly before the end of his presidency). You're a lawmaker, make this a fucking law of the land. 100% guaranteed Trump will sign.
Ask her what "net neutrality" actually means.
Do you have ESP?
Dear candidates, propose whatever you want, but please do not rig the caucus this time.
Vote down and not a single answer of what people like about the DNC.
Translation: DNC is complete shit, everyone knows it, they don't like it being pointed out.
You bunch of fucking racist misogynists klansmen.
It wouldn't be so bad if you didn't support KKK leader Robert Byrd for 60 years and Bill Clinton, serial rapist, forever.
Warren says she wants the internet to be like electricity. So, does that work both ways? Will the electric company start refusing to power conservatives homes? Some Cuban dude who is a leader of "The Proud Boys" just had his personal bank account closed by Chase. It's basically getting to be like China's social credit score. Publicly suggest orangeman may not be quite so bad, and be banned from everything.
Why is she conflating privacy concerns with net neutrality? Any chance she knows the difference between the two? Probably not.
Ken
but now AT&T customers watching HBO are subsidizing Verizon customers watching HBO.
AT&T customers already subsidize HBO since AT&T owns them. I'm sure they won't bundle HBO with my internet bundle and keep trying to sell me a land line though. Synergy.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
Regarding pronunciation, Klobuchar rhymes with "Frau Blucher" from Young Frankenstein.
Not sure if horses whiny when her name is spoken, though.
Actually that sounds good to me! I'm not opposed to people sitting on their couch paying more for Netflix because it requires more bandwidth. This doesn't seem like an important basic standard of living. You can live without Netflix. If you NEED more bandwidth, most likely you are doing something that can earn you money and can afford it.
So metered and pay out the nose for every byte?
How internet works. Or they know it, and they need it for their benefit like google. Doesn't really help consumer at all.
The root of this problem is that you have massive broadband monopolies in the US. If Netflix doesn't work on AT&T it's not like customers can just go somewhere else, because chances are they only have one provider in their area.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
They are completely in support of taking away internet freedoms through their support of "net neutrality" and, of course, everyone will applaud and give them their votes. Then when it's all said and done and we all have restricted internet rights the voters will sit around wondering what happened and blame others for it.
HaHAha... HBO investing in streaming...? Have you used HBO Go?
I've worked on Amy's campaign, since the 1st time she ran. She will not win:
- She is a moderate, while Americans want things to get done in their 50yr dysfunctional government they do not want to elect moderates anymore. Even a somewhat conservative democrat like Amy who 60 years ago would could have been Republican if they weren't so racist (they were much so worse back then, Millennial's heads would explode.) She is a law and order prosecutor type; that is her background... total opposite of Trump, more like Muller (a real republican.)
- She is from MN. It's a curse that MN has clearly superior nominees that lose horribly (I didn't say candidates, we have our share of crackpots too.)
- Older MN think little of the weather stopping them. Amy even responds moderately, she really could have nailed Trumps idiotic global warming tweet but instead had a moderate response while feeling strong on her position. Like a lawyer, her position might be rock but acting professionally, you won't see how strong expressed any different than most other opinions. Voters today desperately want authenticity! She is authentic but her presentation does not stand out from the rest. People will go for the most fake Reality TV star because they still think Reality TV is real.
- Amy knows the actual "deep state" and the anger at dealing with it is why she has a hard time getting along with her staff; who is always suspect with their hidden agendas. I've seen this stuff 1st hand. You'll always have a "deep state" situation; that is, the real version of it is in the nature of human organizations. This means that anything remotely able to be turned into a scandal can be leaked as rumors to our mostly poor quality press and then weaponized by Agent Orange with his naturally Russian tactics (he is an asset even if he doesn't try to be. If you actually know something about this, you can clearly see it.) Experienced staff pulling their own agendas being called out will just change tactics and continue; I've done it places I've worked myself. Everybody does... you'd rather work for somebody who lets you get away with shit; incompetent slow people are the best. It's hard to not feel resentment when do not have the power you are used do; I can see some of her former staff hurting her. She is squeaky clean but truth doesn't matter anymore; at least she's not a man. I can't see any man against Trump without some crazy attacks... hell, they tried Pizza-gate against Hillary and that insanity still continues (even after they found out there was no basement in the pizza shop!)
- Net Neutrality doesn't have the pull of other big issues but it won't get a huge industry as pissed off against you - like Amy, it's a moderate safe position... except for the morons who are a lost cause anyway and the payed shills now posting on slashdot on the issue. Making a Neutrality law that works will not be easy, no tech will ever be completely happy with it. Comcast's own leaks prove they are paying for fake support and holding off most their evil schemes for a slow roll out. boiling the frogs..
- I think she is aiming for a VP slot; the more populist candidates should win this time because the conservative Democrats who've crippled the party for decades must by now see that is why they lose so much. To "BALANCE" the change out they will have to pick a moderate somewhat conservative VP position like Biden was balance for Obama (who hardly ever acted on his personal positions, he'd sound vaguely to lower middle but was vague and in action he was to the upper right quite a sizable distance...anyhow the perception of great change resulted in Biden.) No, Biden won't have a chance either.
Sorry, I had to post anon.
...service agreement having terms saying that AT&T can sneak in the middle of the night and steal your and your family's organs, unless your cable TV company has already harvested them first. And the FCC allows such conditions.
Make license agreements great again!
PS - I agree wholeheartedly.
The bottom line: metering always affects the bottom line. The heavier and more convoluted the more costly.
Can you really claim to be on the internet when constitutionally protected speech can and will get you banned from facebook, twitter, youtube, itunes, paypal, uber, lyft, airbnb, netflix, patreon, all of the app stores, etc?
Yes.
It turns out, the government not throwing you in prison for your speech (aka "Constitutionally protected") does not mean private companies are required to contract with you.
If you want to stop deplatforming, you want the government to run those sites. Then "Constitutionally Protected" would actually be relevant.
Because consumers are helped when you limit their choices via back-room deals between large incumbents.
Re: Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) also told a crowd in Iowa last month that she believed "in net neutrality the same way I believe everybody should have access to electricity,"
This is funny because "paid prioritization" and "throttling" (load shedding) are already accepted practices in providing electrical power.
Didn't anyone see this comment:
"While your identities, in fact, are being stolen and your data is being mined."
This has NOTHING to do with Net Neutrality. This is a female politician talking out of her ass about things she does not understand at a basic level.
AND, all the U.S. politicians have repeatedly demonstrated that when they talk out their ass they are also lying as well.
So stop getting upset over what a lying, scumbag politician says when talking out of their ass. They all do it, they never stop doing it, and you have to be smarter than people that talk out their ass.
Did you read what I wrote? I said that if my Netflix watching makes AT&T need to build more network infrastructure, then AT&T should charge me for that? How is that not fair?
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
LOLz the liberals are controlling my life wahhhhhhh. Wahhhhhh liberals and Democrats are different wahhhhhh.
Another useless cuck crying about Democrats in a thread. Your tears freshen my taste buds. Keep it coming.
ANOTHER repubtard who doesn't know the difference between An ISP and a social network.
Jesus Christ you cucks are so ignorant. But have the most to say. Even though you are 100% wrong. How do you live with yourself telling yourself lie after lie when a little googling will tell you all you need to know.
TLDR: stop muddying the waters with your FUD.
Citation needed.
The dems are really scraping the bottom of the barrel this time around. It's like they're in a race with the Republicans to see if they can come up with somebody as unlikeable as Trump. This is a mistake. Bigly. The digital revolution was in the 90s btw, bimbo.