Slashdot Mirror
Net Neutrality Bill Sails Through the House But Faces an Uncertain Political Future (washingtonpost.com)
House lawmakers on Wednesday approved a Democrat-backed bill (alternative source) that would restore rules requiring AT&T, Verizon and other Internet providers to treat all Web traffic equally, marking an early step toward reversing one of the most significant deregulatory moves of the Trump era. From a report: But the net neutrality measure is likely to stall from here, given strong Republican opposition in the GOP-controlled Senate and the White House, where aides to President Trump this week recommended that he veto the legislation if it ever reaches his desk. The House's proposal, which passed by a vote of 232-190, would reinstate federal regulations that had banned AT&T, Verizon and other broadband providers from blocking or slowing down customers' access to websites. Adopted in 2015 during the Obama administration, these net neutrality protections had the backing of tech giants and startups as well as consumer advocacy groups, which together argued that strong federal open Internet protections were necessary to preserve competition and allow consumers unfettered access to movies, music and other content of their choice.
For all the people that say both parties are the same, here's a clear difference in policy.
Unless you're against Net Neutrality, don't vote for the GOP next cycle
My internet is still working for me for what I reasonably expect from my ISP for the price I am paying. If my ISP starts fiddling with my connection I'll pick another ISP.
Remember buying internet access is a voluntary transaction between two parties if you don't like the service pick someone else.
Yeah, I'll make sure to switch from my one cable provider to my one cable provider if they start acting up.
Yup. Unfortunately, it's not an issue that's going to change anyone's vote. I'm all for an open market and less government regulation, but if we're going down that road with ISPs, we should go all the way - stop giving out government-sponsored monopolies to cable companies (read: ISPs) and the like, and have real competition. Then, the cry of "if your ISP isn't giving you what you want, switch to another provider!" can really happen.
Mitch McConnell should not have the authority to deny a vote on a bill passed by the House. Nancy Pelosi should not have the authority to block a bill passed by the Senate.
We need a rule that forces a vote on any bill passed by the other body after a suitable period of time for debate. We as voters have a right to know where our elected officials stand, otherwise the people lose control to wealthy donors.
Greed is the root of all evil.
Actually, it's even worse than that; these Internet monopolies have their foundation in government-granted monopoly rights, and thus you want government to save society from government.
Well, yes. IF you're going to give out government-granted monopoly rights (which IS what has and is happening), then ALSO ensure government-enforced neutrality.
Otherwise, get government COMPLETELY out of the business and don't give out the monopolies in the first place.
Political grandstanding by one party in congress, controlling one house, will not pass the other party, controlling the other house, nor the presidency (who has to sign it).
Thank God for divided government.
-Styopa
Yup, you can always move from one place where the local gov't gave out a monopoly to another place where the local gov't gave out a monopoly. This behavior is endemic and widespread. You'll just move from one monopoly to another.
Really.
So in order to get around a bad-faith company abusing their market position, I should conduct a multi-hundred-thousand dollar transaction to sell my house, pack up all my earthly belongings at financial and time expense, and move to where another company may or may not be abusing their monopoly position already?
There is a non-zero probability that you are a massive idiot.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Without even trying c-span channel surfing yesterday I found republicans explaining their opposition in the form of bashing Title II.
Democrats could have avoided this problem. They could have defined clean NN. If republicans still wanted to attack clean NN at least their excuses for doing so would be more transparent and less defensible to voters.
Way to respond without actually giving an example of how it could be done with the current infrastructure.
The opposite should happen. The government is only able to grant the monopolies through their power of eminent domain. To me, that is the doctrine that says the public's need is so overwhelming that we're going to use the force of government to seize someone's property.
Well, if it is so important to the common good that the use of force is justified, then the resource should not leave the public's control. Just like the roads, the communication and power infrastructure should be taken over by the government. ISPs and power generation should remain private businesses. The government should create rules to control how the resources are accessed and used, just like the roads. It should have always been this way.
Ever notice how the worst parts of our system are the result of poor decisions early on?
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Otherwise, get government COMPLETELY out of the business and don't give out the monopolies in the first place.
"In the first place" was many decades ago. You can't stop what already happened. However, you can stop it from happening again -- and more than two decades ago federal law stopped anyone from handing out a cable communications exclusive franchise to anyone. That's about ten years more than any existing franchise was good for, so for more than the last decade there have been and are no cable exclusive franchises anywhere in the US.
But cable isn't the only Internet service method, and no ISP has every been granted a monopoly anywhere in the US. Ever.
For many people cable really is the only viable Internet service method. DSL bandwidth isn't adequate unless you live very close to the DSLAM, and wireless is way too expensive.
Because building out a cable network is massively expensive as well as a bureaucratic nightmare, it basically means that incumbent operators are de facto monopolies, even without the monopoly contract.
Remember when Google was trying to throw billions of dollars around making city-wide fiber networks, and then gave up? Yeah, if they can't get it done, what chance does some small-time operation with orders of magnitude less capital and political might?
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Cable service is a natural monopoly. The first company to enter a market has to pay (Or get the taxpayer to pay) the vast costs of infrastructure - digging up roads to lay cable, buying rights to install distribution cabinets, the expensive stuff. Once done, they can charge whatever they want, for there is no alternative for the customers. For a second to enter, they would have to pay just as much - to gain access to a contested market, where all the potential customers are already signed up with an incumbent. Not worth the expense.