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

Everybody loves aids.

[penandpaper]

Is that before or after she beats her aides.

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

[HornWumpus]

Good definitions are important.

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

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

[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.

Wary of Populism

[mentil]

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.

Net Neutrality MUST eliminate paid prioritization

[DickBreath]

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.

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

[TigerPlish]

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.

Umm.. no. That's not what Paid Prioritazion, in the contest of this pissing contest called Net Neturality is about.

What it is about is this: "Gee, Netflix, if you don't want your packets mysteriously chopped up and sent out at random you must pay me One Billion Dollars! Muahahah!"

It's not about YOU paying for YOUR traffic faster. It's about Amazon getting preferential treatment over Joes Internet Bait shop. Or Netflix getting "QoS'd" to hell because Comcast would rather push their streaming instead of Netflix. Unless, of course, Joe's Internet Bait Shop paying up some ridiculous fees on top of what they already pay their hoster. Ditto netflix.

None of this is for our (the comsumer's) benefit.

People are so misinformed on this subject it makes the head spin.

Re:How is this not dirt simple to comprehend

[sjames]

That's never been on offer. What has been is that Crappee media inc. can pay your ISP to make sure Netflix never outperforms them on your internet connection. Does it still sound good.

It also means that your ISP can start dropping packets from Netflix and then you can pay them to allow it to perform the way it used to.

Re:How is this not dirt simple to comprehend

[Uberbah]

That's quite an amount of umbrage - at your narrative being shown to be complete corporatist bullshit. One that ignores the very real history of ISP's blocking competing services, or extorting Netflix to pay up least they be throttled.