FCC Says It Will Vote On Net Neutrality In February 81
schwit1 sends this report from the Washington Post: Federal regulators looking to place restrictions on Internet providers will introduce and vote on new proposed net neutrality rules in February, Federal Communications Commission officials said Friday. President Obama's top telecom regulator, Tom Wheeler, told fellow FCC commissioners before the Christmas holiday that he intends to circulate a draft proposal internally next month with an eye toward approving the measure weeks later, said one official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the agency's deliberations are ongoing. The rules are meant to keep broadband providers such as Verizon and Comcast from speeding up or slowing down some Web sites compared to others.
Congressional Vote? (Score:4, Insightful)
Just curious when America's elected representatives will vote to make Net Neurtrality the law of the land, not that I think they should. Just wanted to draw attention to the fact we're now living in Bureacrastan.
Re:Congressional Vote? (Score:5, Interesting)
Just curious when America's elected representatives will vote to make Net Neurtrality the law of the land, not that I think they should. Just wanted to draw attention to the fact we're now living in Bureacrastan.
What Congress doesn't get involved in, Congress can't damage. USA has a long history of failing to repeal bad laws that clearly aren't working. The one time they got this right (Prohibition) they took ten years to admit what was obvious from day one, and still failed to learn the lesson since other forms of prohibition continue for other substances, funding the same type of gangsters.
Congress passing on this one is a great thing.
Re:Congressional Vote? (Score:5, Insightful)
What Congress doesn't get involved in, Congress can't damage.
Instead we have unelected bureaucrats doing the damaging. Such an improvement.
Re: (Score:2)
Your opinion is that your isp should be legally allowed to not provide you with what you paid for?
Contract violations don't require the FCC to enforce.
Re: (Score:1)
Except none of this is a contract violation.
For pretty much every ISP, large or small, you really only have a limited guarantee that connection between your location and the initial entry point to the ISP works some of the time, and in the best case conditions, will transfer data at a certain speed. You have no guarantee that you can access any specific site at any specific speed.
Re: (Score:2)
Except none of this is a contract violation.
If it's not in the contract, then you didn't pay for it.
Re: Congressional Vote? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Have you read the entirety of the 21st Amendment? It completely breaks interstate commerce. Why can't I buy liquor on Sundays in some states and cannot cross a state line with some purchased in a neighboring state ever? Because the 21st Amendment makes alcohol special and allows each locality to have completely crazy laws prohibiting the TRANSPORTATION of alcohol through their jurisdiction.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, no. What it does is say you can't violate the laws of the various States you buy and sell things in. Pretty much status quo ante bellum, actually.
Or did you somehow think that alcohol was legal everywhere before Prohibition? Or prostitution, for that matter? (note that your argument would require that prostitution be legal everywhere if it were legal ANYWHERE (i.e. Colorado)).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Congres... elected representatives.... created the FCC. You're whining about nothing. Every stupid position in government is not elected. So What. I don't need to hold elections for the clerk at the DMV.
From Wikipedia.... "The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent agency of the United States government, created by Congressional statute (see 47 U.S.C. 151 and 47 U.S.C. 154) to regulate interstate communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable in all 50 states, the Dis
Re: (Score:3)
Congres... elected representatives.... created the FCC. You're whining about nothing. Every stupid position in government is not elected. So What. I don't need to hold elections for the clerk at the DMV.
The "clerk of the DMV" does not have the power to regulate. The DMV merely enforces laws passed by your State legislature. Therein lies the difference, and why GP is not "whining about nothing".
Nowhere does the Constitution give Congress the authority to delegate their law-making powers to some outside bureaucracy. The legal authority of the FCC is very questionable indeed, regardless of whether it has been accepted for many decades.
The proper role of the FCC would be as an advisory body to Congress,
Re: (Score:1)
oh please. it's hilarious that you consider yourself a "thinking American".
the GP is probably you, and you are whining about nothing.
and whole the Clerk at the DMV doesnt make rules, the DMV as a whole does, which is the proper level of comparison.
even Congress recognizes the need to do some things, to get them done, without them turning into poltical footballs.
thats why they created these agencies and delegated the necessary powers to them.
It takes an entire agency with inspectors at every big food factory
Re: (Score:2)
pointing out the constitutional authority and reasons for delegation to independent agencies is not flamebait.
stupid mod system.
Re: (Score:2)
And while some of your reasons may be valid... there are valid reasons to do lots of illegal things. So what? The fact that they may have justification does not make it more legal.
Re: (Score:2)
Congress already voted, when they created the FCC as an independent agency with a specific mandate and mission and empowered it with the necessary authority in order to carry out that mandate. That's how independent agencies work, and why they exist: to remove the need for Congress to do -everything-, particularly those things which would be undermined by political fighting.
Note that this still doesnt prevent Congress from passing laws changing that mandate or otherwise directing the agency to do something
when-all-the-astroturfing-is-accounted-for dept (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:when-all-the-astroturfing-is-accounted-for dept (Score:5, Informative)
It might be better that way. I know I can't out-bid $MEGACORP on the Congressperson-purchasing market, err I mean campaign contribution donations. Unlike letting Congress handle this, there's actually a chance some random bureaucrat will do the right thing. A slim chance, yes, but a chance.
This /. story about a "vote" tries to make this agreement among bureaucrats look like something other than an executive fiat from a single Hugo Chavez. The idea is to convince you the representative democratic process is involved somehow. But rather than pick up on that, you seem to think it's more expensive to buy off half of a handful of regulators than to buy off most of Congress.
The only big problem with the FCC scenario is the standard revolving door between the regulators and future cushy jobs in the very industry they're supposed to be regulating.
So it's better to have bureaucrats handling everything, except for the fact that bureaucrats regularly come from and return to the industries they regulate and can be bought off rather easily. Nice bit of reasoning there.
Re: (Score:2)
So it's better to have bureaucrats handling everything, except for the fact that bureaucrats regularly come from and return to the industries they regulate and can be bought off rather easily. Nice bit of reasoning there.
We could create new or strengthen existing laws about revolving doors in order to return bureaucrats to their role as non-partisan cogs in the machine of governance.
The entire concept of western bureaucracy was a direct response to previous western systems of government where nepotism and cronyism caused endemic incompetence and corruption.
In contrast, the Chinese had a (mostly) meritocratic bureaucracy for ~1000 years before it became firmly embedded in any Western Government. If you want to go back to the
Re: (Score:2)
Wow the Anti-NN astroturfing accounts are out in force today.
And using their sock puppets to mod up each other's idiocy as well.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem here is Tom Wheeler, afaik, already was a corporate bigwig in the telecom industry. So he has a vested interest in helping out all his buddies. His being chairman is a pretty big conflict of interest, but such is the US today.
Re:when-all-the-astroturfing-is-accounted-for dept (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's interesting how this top-down regulatory move without the input of America's elected lawmakers is being characterized as the true Will Of The People. There's serious Newspeak going on here.
WTF? Will of the people? As interpreted by "elected lawmakers? You must be joking.
Re: (Score:2)
"...without the input of America's lawmakers..."
These very same lawmakers who have refused to pass any meaningful laws for over six years now? The same Congress which has set multiple records for the least productive in history as our country struggled to recover from a near depression? The same 'lawmakers' who get paid and perked very well to do nothing except engage in partisan squabbling and the never ending quest to make the President look bad?
Unfortunately, we have to let bureaucrats and the President
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, we have to let bureaucrats and the President make laws or nothing will be done.
Sounds like we should have elected someone like Hugo Chavez, a politician always issuing executive fiats "for the people." It worked for Venezuela, right?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is easier to reclassify the broadband companies than to get them to play nice with the Internet. If there is REAL competition, they will get in line, because some new start-up can quickly state they have 'true' Net Neutrality.
Ironically you may have have hit on the real reason for passing Net Neutrality. The feelgood parts of the regulation touted on /. will be toothless. Meanwhile the fine print of the regulation will outlaw new start-ups and anything else approaching "REAL competition."
Why the big Pipes doesn't want Net Neutrality (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
They want to charge more! Remember when they wanted to charge for every byte? One big pipe is one cost, a hundred little pipes are individual billings. Imagine them charging for access to every site. If access to a site is too slow, you won't use it. If you want it bad enough you will pay. Sounds like Cable and Satellite TV. They control the Pipe, they control your access. And without their PIpe, how will we get access to the Internet?
What would go wrong with classifying them as common carriers? Don't want to be held liable for every illegal use of your network? Then don't screw with the traffic in any way. What downside would there be to treating ISPs this way?
Re: (Score:2)
It blocks pay to play, they want to old main stream media model where only the rich can broadcast their propaganda and basically legalised corporate censorship of the internet.
Fox/henhouse (Score:5, Insightful)
The FCC is the last organization that should be "voting" on Net Neutrality.
Re:Fox/henhouse (Score:4, Funny)
Put it on the ballot as a national referendum in 2016, you wanna see Big Pipes shit themselves.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Put it on the ballot as a national referendum in 2016, you wanna see Big Pipes shit themselves.
Since there is no such thing in the U.S. as a national referendum on laws or regulations, do you have any other suggestions?
The thing that net neutrality advocates fail to do is to describe the regulatory system they want to put in place. Take the comic from The Oatmeal, for example (http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality). "And I'm going to do that by being a super terrific A+ dude and explaining to you exactly how Net Neutrality works." There are lots of panels describing the goal, and none showing the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Since you asked, yes. A constitutional amendment ending corporate personhood and establishing that money is not speech.
That's horseshit. We have a very nice regulatory model to put in place. It's called, "common carrier".
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"Utterly failed"? Stop exaggerating.
The right answer (whatever it might be) begins by being honest.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, maybe the right answer is for you to give a few examples of where "free markets" have ever created lasting infrastructure on their own.
When it comes to infrastructure, as the man said, "You didn't build that."
Re: (Score:3)
A constitutional amendment ending corporate personhood and establishing that money is not speech.
How about let's not start with something stupid like banning speech you don't like and destroying the most successful business and non profit organization system humanity has come up with to date.
Free markets have utterly failed when it comes to infrastructure. Why should we trust it with something as important as communications?
Because you don't have anything better to replace it with? Free markets have "failed" here because they haven't been tried.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
an entity that cannot be held accountable as a citizen (cannot go to prison), has the revenue generating power of all its employees, access to financial markets unavailable to the majority (or all) citizens, able to live forever, and only accountable (if at all) to its share holders having the same rights as an individual and ability to influence our electoral process with vast sums of money
I don't see the previous poster getting worked up over the fact that the US government even though it's far more privileged than a corporation is.
But if we give the same rights to corporations and ignore the additional rights they have then their power is greatly outweighs that of the humans alone.
Corporations don't operate in a vacuum. They're run by and for people. The rights of the corporation are merely the rights of those people.
Re: (Score:2)
The guy just cited a half-dozen ways that corporate rights exceed those of individuals. Are you stupid? Corporate rights go way beyond those of the rights of the individuals involved. They are "super-rights" that have been created out of whole cloth and granted to nothing more than the aggregation of capital. It's an abomination. And it's an abomination to believe t
Re: (Score:2)
The guy just cited a half-dozen ways that corporate rights exceed those of individuals. Are you stupid?
Let's go over this:
an entity that cannot be held accountable as a citizen (cannot go to prison)
Why is that considered a right? There's nothing there to be held accountable "as a citizen". And in the real world of the US, when property is held accountable for a crime as a legal fiction, it's to seize assets that would otherwise be impossible to touch due to the higher standard of proof for showing a person committed a crime. In other words, the reality is both an end-run around the US Constitution and a solid demonstration that property such as corporations doesn't have the rights o
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. Businesses file for incorporation so their owners are legally separate from that business and cannot be held liable for the actions of their corporations. Businesses exist for one purpose: to make a profit. They do not have families, get sick, love or sacrifice for each other. They don't care if their backyard is a toxic waste dump or if fish can live in the
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. Businesses file for incorporation so their owners are legally separate from that business and cannot be held liable for the actions of their corporations. Businesses exist for one purpose: to make a profit. They do not have families, get sick, love or sacrifice for each other. They don't care if their backyard is a toxic waste dump or if fish can live in the river. We don't get rid of people when then stop being profitable.
How is that even remotely relevant to my claim? Reasons or purposes aren't rights. Presence or lack of emotions aren't rights. Does a car have more rights than you because it doesn't have a family or feel emotions? Does your computer have more rights than you because it doesn't care if your backyard is a toxic waste dump? These observations are nonsensical in any context.
Corporations are not people and money is not speech. We are coming very close to fascism in the US and it should scare the hell out of everyone.
Corporations aren't people anywhere in the world today, including the US. And money isn't speech, but speech isn't free as in beer.
Re: (Score:2)
But as the other poster said, the owners of a businesses are legally separate. This is relevant to your claim, because rights don't just mean natural rights, but also legal rights.
Ok, how is it relevant then? I didn't restrict consideration of rights to natural or legal rights. You have yet to speak of rights.
You can't just say you're incorporated on your own, and expect other people to not come after you if your company did something to them. No, it takes government law (read: force and coercion) to redirect grievances towards your company.
A fact which supports my assertion that corporations aren't being treated with special privileges or rights (aside from their raison d'etre, providing limited liability for limited ownership).
See, you wondered why another poster doesn't get so worked up about the US government, I would ask the same of you in reverse: why aren't you getting worked up over corporations, what with them being legal entities created and supported by governments the world all over, and they've been doing this long before the US existed as a country.
Because they don't cause the harm that governments have caused even over recent times: they don't control the world's militariesor fight the world's wars; they didn't kill a few hundred mil
Re: (Score:2)
How is it not relevant? He has shown that you are wrong about legal rights. A corporation's legal rights are not merely its owner's rights. Corporations are a separate legal entity, with a set of legal rights of their own. That set of rights isn't just decided by what legal rights their owners have, but by the whims of government.
Again, this is irrelevant. The corporation can't act independently of its owners and employees. It is merely a tool of their interests.
When you ban the speech of a corporation, you're banning the speech of people acting on the corporation's behalf and hence, violating those rights. When you seize corporate property in violation of the respective amendments, you are violating the rights of the people who own that corporation. That is why there is corporate personhood in the first place.
False dilemma. You're not stuck between corporations and government doing all those other horrible things, nor would the disappearance of corporations automatically lead to those horrible things.
Nonsense, a key pre
Re: (Score:2)
No, what you said is irrelevant. Whether you can act independently doesn't change the fact that your rights are still your own. Your rights are still yours even if you're born crippled.
The analogy doesn't work for corporations. Their owners and employees have a control over the corporation that would be illegal for people to have over each other. A typical example is ending the corporation outright. Even a complete vegetable of a human has more protection against being killed than a corporation does.
Treating a corporation as a separate entity is a legal fiction like corporate personhood. It is not done to protect the corporation from its owners, but rather to help prevent the owners of
Re: (Score:2)
Free markets have never been tried anywhere, ever. Do you know why? Because they don't exist outside the fantasies of people who have bought into neoliberal philosophy and economics which have been thoroughly and repeatedly discredited.
Re: (Score:2)
Amending the First Amendment. On general principles, I'd rather have no Net Neutrality than start monkeying with the Bill of Rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, come on. You know better. If corporate personhood wasn't recognized during the first 200 years of the Bill of Rights existence, how can you see it as anything other than the result of corporatist judicial activism?
Genius, the "monkeying with the Bill of RIghts" happened at the Citizens United decision. Don't you care about the intent of the founding fathers? Don't you ca
Re: (Score:2)
Alas for your theories, it was. Which is why Corporations have always had the power to enter into lawsuits.
Or didn't anyone explain to you that the court system was for "persons"?
BLOCKQUOTE>Genius, the "monkeying with the Bill of RIghts" happened at the Citizens United decision.
Nope. Citizens United didn't touch the Bill of Rights. Read them sometime, if you'd like. Versions from the '40s look just
Re: (Score:2)
Since you asked, yes. A constitutional amendment ending corporate personhood and establishing that money is not speech.
Good. Let's wait to pass net neutrality after you ban corporations like the New York Times, and people aren't allowed to spend money to advance their opinions.
That's horseshit. We have a very nice regulatory model to put in place. It's called, "common carrier".
You're advocating a model like taxis where the regulators are overtly hostile to innovation, such as Lyft and Uber. Or if you want to go the utility route, where electric companies are forced to use a certain percentage of their electricity from favored producers such as wind farms and solar and rates are set by a centralized board. Maybe a slogan lik
Re: (Score:2)
We can change that: http://www.gallup.com/poll/163... [gallup.com]
Re: (Score:2)
We can change that: http://www.gallup.com/poll/163... [gallup.com]
And changing it requires amending the Constitution, either with the normal Congressional and state ratification process, or a Constitutional convention. I suspect what you really want is national referendums, and net neutrality is just the way you're bringing it up today, since you didn't respond to anything about net neutrality, or even propose a solution to making it law or regulation that has any chance in the near future.
Pretty much all the people want net neutrality (Score:2)
Only a few vested greedy people who want legalized extortion websites for more money don't want them to be classified as utilities.
It should be interesting if even under the spot light of all the eyes of people that they willingly do the wrong thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Y'know, for something that has "such unanimous approval", I never actually hear much about it outside /.
Somehow, I'm suspecting that it's like the "unanimous approval" you see for a larger DoD budget on Army/Air Force/Navy bases all over the USA. In other words, the people who think that they would come out ahead under the law approve of it unanimously, and most everyone else hardly notices it.
The courts already said the FCC had no ability... (Score:4, Informative)
This is stupid. The FCC proposed the Open Internet rules a while back, and we already took those to court in 2013 and 2014. A US Circuit court stated in 2013...
"That said, even though the Commission has general authority to regulate in this arena, it may not impose requirements that contravene express statutory mandates. Given that the Commission has chosen to classify broadband providers in a manner that exempts them from treatment as common carriers, the Communications Act expressly prohibits the Commission from nonetheless regulating them as such. Because the Commission has failed to establish that the anti-discrimination and anti-blocking rules do not impose per se common carrier obligations, we vacate those portions of the Open Internet Order."
I can't find a quick link to the 2014 decision, but it said basically the same thing.
So, are they common carriers? If so, they should be Title II regulated. Are they not Common Carriers? Then they're responsible for what goes over their networks, and they do NOT want that....
The FCC can throw out all the rules it wants. We've done this. They GAVE UP the ability to regulate these companies, and all it takes to get it back is for the FCC ITSELF to decide to do so once again. It's easy. They could do it tomorrow....
but Tom Wheeler, head of the FCC, is a former cable lobbyist... so....
What's disturbing... (Score:3)
... is that all the the commentary on the FCC vote seems to define net neutrality as not interfering with "web sites" from other parties (good, but... ) however, this is opening up a potential loophole where traffic to and from apps could be limited because they are not "web sites". We can only hope this is result of FCC trying to make their intentions more understandable to the public and that the actual proposal will be what it should be: .
ISPs should not be able to prioritize/ deprioritize IP traffic to or from the ISP client hosts with other internet hosts not affiliated with the ISP
This covers web site, app, OS, device and any other traffic. There probably should be an exception for traffic the client customer EXPRESSLY requests to be prioritized eg. VoIP or VPN to a particular hosts. Note that this all about the relationship with the consuming end-point, last-mile, customer. It should not impose any restriction on commercial connection, peering or other upstream contractual arrangements.
It's a trap! (Score:1)
The cynic in me is betting that if they vote "yes" on anything, it will be some watered-down or even totally-hijacked notion of "net neutrality" that isn't what anyone outside of "anti-net-neutrality" special-interest-groups want.
Since there are so many eyeballs watching this right now though, the "anti-net-neutrality" groups may realize they can't push through a "compromise" so they will use other methods to see that this gets voted down. A politically easy way would be to get the language changed to favo
Just like obamacare (Score:2)