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.

Comments

Define what you mean

[SuperKendall]

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.

Re:Define what you mean

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you please provide a cogent explanation of why paid prioritization is a good thing for consumers? If you can make a reasonable argument for that, I'd really like to hear it.

Re:Define what you mean

[PopeRatzo]

Does it ban QoS?

No, it does not.

Does it leave things so nebulous and undefined, nobody will know the actual rules until 200 million are spent on beltway law firms?

Again, no it does not. The millions those beltway law firms spent was in an effort to circumvent the rules, which will happen with any rules. Fuck them. The fact that people break rules (and laws) does not mean we should not have them. It just means they need to be enforced better.

Re:Define what you mean

[The Evil Atheist]

You're an idiot if you think you'll be paying for prioritization. You'll be paying to not be de-prioritized.

Re:Define what you mean

[Anubis IV]

The kind of Network Neutrality people do want - equal ability to access any location on the internet - we enjoy already

Tell that to the Madison River Communications customers who were blocked from using a competing VoIP service until the FCC stepped in. Or the Comcast customers who were blocked from using BitTorrent until the FCC stepped in. Or the Comcast customers whose service was throttled (i.e. less than equal access) when attempting to reach Netflix until Netflix caved and agreed to pay for a service that Comcast was already being compensated for (via subscription fees). Or even little developers like Panic Inc., who found themselves getting throttled by Comcast.

Ever since cable Internet was classified as an information service in the early 2000s, we've seen one bad actor after another cropping up (though Comcast is easily the worst) and it's been a constant battle to keep them in check. An FCC that regularly asserted and reasserted its authority to enforce neutrality—despite cable being classified as an information service—through both Bush's and Obama's administrations was our best line of defense. With Trump's FCC openly abdicating its authority and most US addresses lacking access to more than one cable/fiber broadband service, we have neither regulations nor market forces protecting us.

all you can do is fuck it up if you mess with it.

You seem to be under the incorrect assumption that the status quo is to NOT have neutrality. You couldn't be more wrong.

When dial-up was the king of the hill, we had neutrality because the Internet ran over POTS, all of which was classified as a telecommunications service thanks in large part to the AT&T breakup. When cable was classified as an information service in the early 2000s, the FCC issued statements making it clear that they intended to continue enforcing neutrality, despite the change in classification. When the enforceability of those documents was challenged in the late 2000s, the FCC rewrote them as rules so that they'd be enforceable. When those rules were challenged as being beyond the FCC's authority, the FCC reclassified cable as a telecommunications service, as per their authority. Again and again, net neutrality has been fought for and preserved for the last several decades, and the FCC has continued to do its best to enforce neutrality against bad actors who would try to abuse their special position between consumers and the outside world.

The FCC's 2017 decision to throw out all of their prior work isn't a restoration to how things were: it's a final step in a long war the cable industry has been waging to end the status quo we've enjoyed up to this point.

Re:This the same woman

[The Evil Atheist]

Wow. Are you still one of those fucking retards who are completely unashamed about their maliciously ignorant confusion of weather with climate? REALLY?!

Re: How is this not dirt simple to comprehend

[Anonymous Coward]

You can manage this at your own router for free using QoS software. You don't need to pay an ISP for this.