Net Neutrality Bill 38 Votes Short In Congress, and Time Has Almost Run Out (arstechnica.com) 229
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Legislation to restore net neutrality rules now has 180 supporters in the U.S. House of Representatives, but that's 38 votes short of the amount needed before the end of the month. The Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution, already approved by the Senate, would reverse the Federal Communications Commission's repeal of net neutrality rules. But 218 signatures from U.S. representatives (a majority) are needed to force a full vote in the House before Congress adjourns at the end of the year.
Net neutrality advocates previously said they needed 218 signatures by December 10 to force a vote. But an extension of Congress' session provided a little more time. "[Now that the Congressional session has officially been extended, members of Congress could be in town as late as December 21st," net neutrality advocacy group Fight for the Future wrote yesterday. "This means we have until the end of the year to get as many lawmakers as possible signed on to restore net neutrality." A discharge petition that would force a vote on the CRA resolution gained three new supports in the past two weeks, but even if all Democrats were on board it still wouldn't be enough to force a vote. Republicans have a 236-197 House majority, and only one House Republican has signed the petition.
Net neutrality advocates previously said they needed 218 signatures by December 10 to force a vote. But an extension of Congress' session provided a little more time. "[Now that the Congressional session has officially been extended, members of Congress could be in town as late as December 21st," net neutrality advocacy group Fight for the Future wrote yesterday. "This means we have until the end of the year to get as many lawmakers as possible signed on to restore net neutrality." A discharge petition that would force a vote on the CRA resolution gained three new supports in the past two weeks, but even if all Democrats were on board it still wouldn't be enough to force a vote. Republicans have a 236-197 House majority, and only one House Republican has signed the petition.
Both sides are bad... Oh wait.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Except that Democrats are overwhelmingly in favor of Net Neutrality, while republicans are 99% opposed.
Hmm it's almost like there is a clear difference between the parties an a critical issue at impacts all of us.
You might even say that the bothsiderism that people who are stupid or intellectually dishonest constantly engage in is absolute fraudulent nonsense.
Re:Both sides are bad... Oh wait.. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Both sides are bad... Oh wait.. (Score:4, Insightful)
So, your sick burn is that it's not 99% of Republicans, but 96%?
Also, please understand that the Senate voting records are pretty noisy, because of the small sample size. The House commonly has the same number (or fewer) dissenters with a larger pool of voters.
Also, in fairness, it was 94%. Three Republicans voted for it. And the Democrats were 100% in favor of it. If you cannot tell the difference between Party D, 100% in support, and Party R, 6% in support, I cannot help you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The fraudulent nonsense is on you. Both are terrible, just because they have different rhetoric and ways of acting out that corruption does not change the end result that corruption is end to end, party before country, constant lies and deceit, dancing around the issues, backroom deals, rushing votes on recently changed bills, pork, omnibus, budget, gerrymandering, filibusters, taking bribes, lobbyists over citizens, fear mongering, and a general disconnect with reality BOTH FUCKING SIDES!!! People like
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Gerrymandering and a general disconnect from reality are Republican hallmarks in particular. Democrats at least pay lip service to reality, and gerrymandering is overwhelmingly a Republican-dominated activity. It's not that no Democrats have ever gerrymandered, but throughout our history they have done a lot less and and in recent years it's been all but 100% Republican.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that no Democrats have ever gerrymandered,
democrats never gerrymandered.
I see what you did there, and what you did was lie.
gerrymandering is overwhelmingly a Republican-dominated activity.
when democrats do it. it's legit.
when republicans do it. It's evil.
That is not the argument. The goalposts are over here, son. I said Republicans have done it more than Democrats, which even a quick glance at Wikipedia will tell you. I've done more research, but I shot my link-posting wad the last time this came up and I'm not going to be arsed to do it again. If you come up with any credible counter-citations, I'll read them. Can't say fairer than that.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Except that Democrats are overwhelmingly in favor of Net Neutrality, while republicans are 99% opposed.
Yeah, and Mary Poppins can fly.
You really take the theatrics for real [demsagainstthe.net]? How convenient that such a small group can hold things up so effectively. Makes the rest look good, doesn't it? Almost like it's planned that way.
House discharge petition
Oh good, Bruiser's Bill will pass!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There are many sides of a political issue. However, because of our electoral system, we slowly whittle it down to two sides. Kinda like most tournaments in sports. Sure, there was also side 3, but people argued and decided that side 2 was better than side 3, moving on, side 3 is eliminated.
Re: (Score:2)
"Except that Democrats are overwhelmingly in favor of Net Neutrality, while republicans are 99% opposed."
No, the Democrats SAY they support net neutrality which is a different thing altogether. Remember the rules the FCC overturned were called "net neutrality" but didn't actually block the abuses we are all concerned about. Providers could essentially do whatever they wanted with a bit of fine print "disclosing" it somewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, the democrats would have done the right thing, honest, if not for those damn republicans. The republicans would have done the right thing, honest, if not for those damn democrats. Round and round it goes to keep you spinning and believing the sociopaths actually mean whichever flavor of spun message they've chosen to sell sheeple.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Actually it shows that you are willfully blind to what's happening in front of you.
Re:Both sides are bad... Oh wait.. (Score:4, Insightful)
If by that you mean that I am able to correctly differentiate between the politicians looking out for our interest and the politicians who seek to destroy our internet, our country, and the concept of basic decency - then yes I have fallen into that trap.
Perhaps you should try a little basic observation combined with critical thinking sometime.
Unless you still haven't gotten bored of erroneously saying "both sides are bad"...
Re: (Score:2)
For the conservative half of America being gay is indecent. Everything is relative. What we hold as sacred will be demonized by our neighbor.
Re: (Score:2)
For the conservative half of America being gay is indecent.
Conservatives are not half of America. More than half of America is centrist, and they don't even bother to vote. And America isn't as red as it looks, either, because Gerrymandering is overwhelmingly dominated by Republicans.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What people who are deluded and people who are not have in common is they both think they see things correctly. So your self-reported ability to correctly differentiate means nothing.
Re: (Score:1)
Well... let's see if it's true that no politician is looking out for my interests.
My interests include Net Neutrality keeping the internet free.
Democrats support this, and enacted Net Neutrality in the first place.
Republicans oppose Net Neutrality and have ended it.
So far it looks like Democrats are looking out for my interests while republicans are trying to destroy the internet.
I guess that means you are wrong.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
There are some legislators in Congress who do not take PAC, corporate or lobbyist money.
Go see which party they're all from. Look it up. I'll wait right here.
You have to be careful when claiming a moral equivalence when the article itself is evidence that there is no moral equivalence. Things change in two weeks. Maybe reserve judgement for a little while.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Both sides are bad... Oh wait.. (Score:4, Insightful)
"saving thousands of American lives with access to healthcare"
You seem to be conflating insurance with healthcare. The only way this is helping is to allow people to get through the usual "do you have insurance" screen doctors use to determine whether people are likely to be able to pay the bill. Afterward they still get a bill and that bill is anywhere from 2-10x higher than before the "affordable care act".
Before the affordable care act my employer provided free insurance to everyone on the payroll. There was a $1500 deductible and afterward most things were covered 100% while a few categories were 90%. $5 prescriptions which started immediately not after deductible. Since the affordable care act that is a $6500 deductible before ANYTHING is covered including prescriptions, afterward 80% covered, and it costs me about $1200/month.
I had to go to the ER once and get stitches in the days without coverage. The bill was $200 and I was outraged there was ONE bill, from the hospital. My little brother went in with chronic stomach issues that meant he hadn't eaten in two weeks, they performed no tests, told him it was a thing they were starting to see and had no treatment. Subsequently, he was sent over $15,000 in bills from various parties, the hospital charges you, the doctor double charges you, etc.
If you actually think the affordable care act is a good thing you've lost your damn mind. We could have public healthcare, we could have private healthcare, but this half assed measured is definitely much worse than a serious effort at either system.
Re:Both sides are bad... Oh wait.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Both sides are bad... Oh wait.. (Score:4, Informative)
The only real opposition for the war in Iraq came from Democrats, and very few outlier republicans.
Obama opposed it, as did most Democrats.
And it was the republicans in the Bush / Cheney that intentionally cooked up the intelligence on WMD that ensured the biggest war of the last generation was fought on a lie.
But again, you would have to be able to see the obvious and distinguish between vastly different actions from different parties.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Kinda funny how I only really get sold out when my team loses power and republicans start thinking of ways they can destroy the internet and pollute the air and water, while killing Americans by denying them access to healthcare...
Also Obama, a democrat, ended the war in Iraq, a war which he and most Democrats opposed from the beginning.
This will be my last message as I'm sure you are already thinking of some idiotic way to ignore the glaringly obvious truth that's staring you in the face.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It'd be great if individuals gave a flying fuck about me.
But they don't.
I live in a city that votes 80% democrat, it leads to corruption (I'm a democrat, but I can see the corruption that a single party breads).
You'd think that in a place like this where the greens have both a chance of winning and zero chance to spoil the election for liberals they would field a candidate.
But no, they choose not to, instead to focus on elections where they have zero chance of winning and a small chance of spoiling.
This goe
Re: (Score:1)
No you aren't. You can vote for anyone you want. Just do a write-in. You might think it is ineffective, but voting for bad people is worse.
Re: (Score:2)
You discovered a problem with democracy or maybe all types of government, after about the 3rd term, they become complacent, which leads to corruption. As they say, "government is like diapers, need to be changed for the same reason".
Feel for you living in a system with only 2 parties who are active on every level of government. Here the Greens actually hold the balance of power Provincially and we don't even have parties at the local level.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you could read Heinlein's "Take Back Your Government".
If not, you're getting the government you deserve.
Re: (Score:2)
Shut up and watch the kardashians. Important things are happening.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
p>Also Obama, a democrat, ended the war in Iraq
That's actually pretty funny. When Obama was criticized for pulling the troops out of Iraq, his supporters responded by saying he was only following the timetable established by Bush.
Re: (Score:2)
Well here in Canada, we have much tighter campaign contribution laws, only individuals, limit of about $1200 now I believe (it's tied to inflation) and various other laws such as limits on advertising and there's still favouritism, often based on ideology, and not enough constituent ideology.
There's limits to how much you can restrict people and businesses from lobbying, you still end up with ex-industry people regulating such as the CRTC (=FCC) having a bunch of ex-telecommunications people, due to them ha
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, voting for people that don't want to represent me, a winning strategy.
Re: (Score:2)
And you seem to be conflating healthcare coverage with the obvious mess that is healthcare delivery. Your employer kindly shielded you from seeing much of that mess, and that's definitely a nice perk - for you, who happened to have such a good deal. For the rest of us, employer health insurance has come to look more and more like Obamacare at its worst. Or, put another way, Obamacare was a somewhat successful attempt to provide typical nickel and dime-ing employer-style health insurance for those whose e
Re: (Score:2)
Healthcare isn't coverage, healthcare is the actual treatment.
"Your employer kindly shielded you from seeing much of that mess, and that's definitely a nice perk - for you, who happened to have such a good deal. For the rest of us, employer health insurance has come to look more and more like Obamacare at its worst. Or, put another way, Obamacare was a somewhat successful attempt to provide typical nickel and dime-ing employer-style health insurance for those whose employers wouldn't provide it."
Are you kid
Re: (Score:2)
The only real opposition for the war in Iraq came from Democrats, and very few outlier republicans.
Obama opposed it, as did most Democrats.
And it was the republicans in the Bush / Cheney that intentionally cooked up the intelligence on WMD that ensured the biggest war of the last generation was fought on a lie.
But again, you would have to be able to see the obvious and distinguish between vastly different actions from different parties.
Clearly you weren't an adult during that period. Both sides voted overwhelmingly for the war. As did H. Clinton but not Bernie (which is why Bernie was so popular). Yes it was Cheney's game plan and we all knew it was flawed (well 50% of the population did anyway) but very few politicians voted against the war. Obama wasn't a federal senator yet during that vote so nobody really knows how he would have voted on the Iraq war. Try again...
Re: (Score:2)
"If you had a deductible, you had a cost. It was not free."
No, the deductible is part of the cost of healthcare that insurance isn't paying. The insurance company doesn't charge you the deductible, the healthcare provider does. The insurance can have a $10 million dollar deductible and be free, it wouldn't be particularly useful for reducing the cost of your healthcare but it would still be free. Again, this seems like another case of confusing insurance with healthcare. Now if you'd argued that it wasn't f
Re: (Score:2)
For everyone who opposes a public option. I encourage you to realize this. The democrats now control the house and the ACA isn't going to fixed anytime soon. This half measure has a devastating economic impact that is WAY more expensive than a full public option would be.
Supporting a genuine universal public healthcare system today would actually be a cost saving measure and it is also the only thing that would steal all political capital from support of the ACA. At this point the best move is to shift focu
Re: (Score:3)
Okay, lets look at that.
"Democrats support this, and enacted Net Neutrality in the first place."
We have never had net neutrality, we had a set of measures which CLAIMED to be net neutrality and permitted anything but. Providers could prioritize traffic, shape it, and black ports, in some cases without disclosure, with disclosure buried in legalese somewhere they could do anything they wanted.
But lets see, did they do this anywhere else? How about nsa warrantless wiretapping and domestic surveillance?
Again t
Re: (Score:2)
"At least the Ds fucking support net neutrality." "Your repubtard kind would have sold us out long ago for a buck."
"We have never had net neutrality, we had a set of measures which CLAIMED to be net neutrality and permitted anything but. Providers could prioritize traffic, shape it, and black ports, in some cases without disclosure, with disclosure buried in legalese somewhere they could do anything they wanted."
The D's want to be seen as supporting net neutrality, that is not the same thing as supporting n
Re: Well, you fail a basic IQ test (Score:2, Insightful)
Please stop confounding NN with content creators like Facebook. NN is about the transport layer, not the content. Treat all content equally, blindly. If it's possible to stream X mb/s from Netflix, don't throttle it to 1 mb/s to upsell your own competing content.
NN also means that all sites on the internet are reachable. ISPs should not be curating the internet nor deciding what's best for you.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Imagined moral equivalence is a far worse trap.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you think one team is more moral than the other one then I don't know what to say to you.
Don't bother. It's not even politics or morality. The tribalism around here is positively pathological. I'm convinced that the democrat supporters have it even worse than the republicans. They have to support a forked tongue party that has to play to both sides just to stay conveniently even.
Re: (Score:2)
the tribalism has been around as long humanity has been around.
Politics makes a lot more sense when viewed through the lens of tribalism...
Re: (Score:2)
The truth, the truth is apparently flamebait now.
Re: (Score:2)
That is because one side is getting paid to take one position by one group and the other side is getting paid to take the other position by another group. It really just shows the power of lobbying.
Should be modded up. Meanwhile, Net neutrality: A lobbying bonanza [politico.com]
The only thing in dispute is whether Dems are being bribed sufficiently to ignore the will of their voting base that overwhelmingly approves NN.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The cable monopolies stopped throttling data when Net Neutrality was enacted because it became illegal.
Are you really this stupid or are you just pretending to be?
Shameless Liar (Score:1)
Such absolute fucking bullshit.
Net Neutrality was enacted to stop rampant ongoing selective throttling of internet services, and that's what it did. Those 30+ other regulations (care to name / describe one?) didn't have any impact that I can see.
But my internet started working properly again when the Obama Net Neutrality rules that Turmp has overturned took effect.
So... It looks like you are shamelessly lying about a subject which is important to all of us, especially the nerds on Slashdot...
Re: (Score:3)
But my internet started working properly again when the Obama Net Neutrality
I find this very hard to believe. The Obama rules were barely in use (if at all) when repealed. If you saw a change in your internet service that drastic it's more likely coincidence. Did the squirrel chewing on your phone line die? Can you prove that it was the Obama rules that "fixed" your internet?
Net Neutrality was enacted to stop rampant ongoing selective throttling of internet services
Not the Obama rules. They gave entrenched ISPs guaranteed monopoly status by increasing the barrier to enter the market. And it applied different rules for how internet was delivered. Cable companies had differ
Re:Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Republicans favor the Net Neutrality we have today.
Yeah, it's so fucking awesome to have a single choice of broadband provider, one which now has carte blanche to implement whatever means they deem necessary to squeeze more profit out of a market they've monopolized.
Government regulation is not the best solution, but voting for regulation is all that remains when voting with your wallet is not an option. The fault is not with those of us who were forced into a corner and vote "left". The fault lies with businesses who have chosen not to play fairly at the game of capitalism. We're simply demanding they be held accountable.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no need for national legislation to solve that problem. You just have to convince your local city council not to award a cable monopoly. From what I've seen, the vast majority of these monopolies are granted by well-meaning liberal politicians. They grant them in exchange for a guara
Re: (Score:2)
It was never supposed to pass (Score:4, Informative)
I say this on every NN forum, but if this matters to you then you're going to have to change your voting. That means showing up at Primaries, voting against both the GOP _and_ the Clinton Democrats and putting actual, left wing candidates in office who are in favor of government regulation like NN.
Because make no mistake, Net Neutrality _is_ a government regulation on a private industry. The libertarians can argue that it's only a psuedo-private industry and that everything would be fine if the government just deregulated completely (because that worked so well when AT&T was in charge) but it's _still_ a government regulation. If we keep voting for folks who don't believe in government this is what we're going to get.
Domocrats support NN, Republicans oppose (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, lets see, almost all votes for NN are from Democrats, including centrist democrats. Only one single republican supports this legislation.
So when you say to vote out the Clinton democrats you are telling us to vote out the people who actually signed their name to this legislation, while fail to even acknowledge that the republican party is 99% against net neutrality.
This ridiculous claim that both sides are at fault when one is at fault while the other works to protect us is the exact reason that our country is in the mess we are in.
I hope Bernie Sanders gets last place in the primary, tied with some other sore loser who can't tell the difference between his allies and his adversaries.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
It is almost as if both parties are being directed on what position to take
Almost as if the people who vote actually matter.
Re: (Score:1)
Guess you're going to deny the democrats play the rotating villain [urbandictionary.com] also (works in both directions). Too bad you actually take their kabuki seriously. You're being fished in by tag team wrestling.
And you should be very happy with all the money Bernie kept in the democrat corral. They don't call him a sheepdog for nothing. To wish him ill is most ungracious of you.
Re: (Score:2)
Both sides are playing the game. Not just with NN but with almost all of the important issues. Instead of tackling them they play politics and power games. NN is unresolved. DACA is unresolved. It seems like there's a chance of a government shutdown almost every year because they put in a stop-gap measure instead of finding a longer term solution. Republicans are doing everything they can to make the vote turn in their favour. And so on.
The current system is broken and tossing out one half of the players bu
You mean they follow the constitution? (Score:3)
That's actually a constitutional requirement, that spending laws cannot last 2 years or more. It's precisely because the chance of a government shutdown is part of the balance of powers. Specifically, it's a powerful weapon for the US House. Which is reset every two years. So if the government starts doing X, and the US population doesn't like it, the
I don't trust the Clinton Democrats (Score:2)
3 Republicans voted for NN, but they did so safe in the knowledge that it wouldn't pass. I'm guessing the Clinton Dems will do the same. When the vote has a real chance to pass their either abstain to give the GOP the votes to kill it or they'
Re: (Score:2)
I hope Bernie Sanders gets last place in the primary
How are you dragging Sanders into this? He is neither against Network Neutrality, nor is he a sore loser. I mean... I never played a game with him, but he was gracious enough in his defeat for the democratic primary and encouraged his supporters to support Hillary (who is also not against Network Neutrality).
Re: (Score:2)
That private industry, one way or another uses public property. Telcos and cable companies have use of right of ways for copper and fiber, wireless companies use publicly-allocated spectrum. If an ISP actually owned the land through which their lines ran, you might have a point, but as it is they use public lands for much of their infrastructure, and thus regulation is not only necessary, but desirable. The argument that somehow regulation of the Internet is an intrusion on their property rights is disingen
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
NN is for networks not services. What you're asking makes no fucking sense at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook, Twitter and Youtube are not network providers.... they're private companies who's services rely on the network. Jesus, it's that simple... how can people be so dense as to not understand it?
Re: (Score:2)
Do those services throttle their packets to some places and not others?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Aside from for security or DOS prevention, do sites really add firewall rules and drop packets?
Seems odd.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering the importance of networks to commerce in the 21st century, you can't really separate NN from trade.
yet... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You're just figuring out that Gov works for corporations and not you the lowly individual?
Re: (Score:1)
Who does the government work for? Certainly not me.
Sorry, it's up to the voters to unite against the GOP/DNC. You got a better way?
Re: (Score:1)
the US voters will never unite.
Nobody's fault but their own.
Re: (Score:2)
the US voters will never unite.
Nobody's fault but their own.
Wait - I thought it was Russia's fault for sowing discord and promoting chaos.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter what people want, it matters how they vote. And since most voters have no clue what the issues are or what their candidates are actually voting for, it really doesn't matter. There's a total disconnect.
Still don't get it (Score:1, Insightful)
So, am I off or is this just a case of millennial wanting free stuff?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You're off. Way, way off. Without Net Neutrality, one side's ISP can hold the other side hostage and refuse to deliver the data they've already paid their own ISP for. It's like if the mailman decides he doesn't like one house on the block and won't deliver their mail, even if the sender already paid postage.
Re:Still don't get it (Score:5, Informative)
That's not at all what it's about. It's the concept that your ISP should be considered as a telecommunication utility rather than a content provider. As such, they should not be allowed to selectively throttle your connection based on what media you consumed, but rather treat all bits as equal. We're paying for the connection already, and the entities we're connecting to are paying for theirs -- nobody is trying to get anything for free.
They can still have data caps, but things like 0-rating to make their own content more desirable would also be illegal. Since most consumers only have 1 or 2 broadband choices, letting them take advantage of their natural monopolies does not lead to a competitive market.
The repeal has far-reaching implications, as with it providers are free to throttle their competitors or even block any content they want to discourage -- we have to take them at the word for it that they won't. And we've actually seen them throttle competitors before, which is the entire reason NN was enacted in the first place.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:YOU still don't get it (Score:4, Informative)
Based on this response it doesn't sound like you do know what net neutrality is.
The lack of Net Neutrality rules does nothing to protect your scenario that medical data or teacher/student interaction. You seem to think that NN somehow allows Netflix to get away with more profits. Without NN there is just as much of a probability that the medical data and/or teacher/student interaction could be throttled. If your ISP decided they could make more money from throttling that data they possibly would.
The main reason that ISPs throttle Netflix (and similar commercial content) isn't to make the other "critical" data move through the system faster. The reason that they throttle companies like Netflix is so they can either charge them to get better access on their networks (not really how the Internet was setup to work) or more likely because they have a competing service so they want to stifle the competition.
As an example, let's say that Comcast is your ISP. They are happily carrying the data of Netflix without throttling it. Then one day they decide that they would like to start a streaming service of their own. They start the service (let's call it Comflix) and offer it alongside Netflix without throttling either stream. Unfortunately very few subscribers are signing up for Comflix. Comcast decides that instead of competing head-to-head with Netflix they will throttle the Netflix stream to 50% and leave Comflix at 100% bandwidth. To further profit from this Comcast also goes to Netflix and tells them if they pay Comcast a small fee (several million dollars) they will open up the bandwidth and only throttle them to 75% of the bandwidth.
You still may not think this is too much of a problem but... change Netflix in that example to a medical service that is providing you that medical data from your doctor. If Comcast decided to start up a competing medical data service would you still be happy with them throttling the data from your doctors medical data service provider.
Making "data transport fair for cloud providers and video streamers and search engines" via NN is also making data transport fair for the individual.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously you have a bee in your bonnet about sites regulating their own content so I guess there is no real point in continuing to try and show you that NN has nothing to do with sites regulating content. Since you can't even be bothered to post using an login and hide behind AC it really isn't worth my time.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry I know I said I wasn't going to keep trying to convince you but forgot to add these links:
https://consumerist.com/2014/0... [consumerist.com]
https://www.theverge.com/2014/... [theverge.com]
that shows that ISPs were in fact limiting bandwidth pre-2015 NN rules.
Re:Still don't get it (Score:5, Informative)
What you described has nothing to do with net neutrality. NN is what keeps Microsoft from paying Comcast so that Bing loads faster than Google. It's horrible for start ups, as it puts a giant cost in the way of using their service. Plus, who wants Comcast deciding which sites they get to use at regular speeds, and which get arbitrarily slowed down.
Re: (Score:2)
NN was NOT enacted the last year of the Obama administration. The last year of the Obama administration Verizon sued the FTC (in the Supreme Court, the lawsuit had been happening for a while.) The SC ruled that the FTC's NN rules were not allowed, because the FCC had jurisdiction and needed to pass them. So they did instead.
Re: (Score:2)
>the cost of your internet usage be proportional to how much you use
No, that's a different conversation. NN is packet priority, eg Comcast throttling Netflix to a crawl. In plain sight.
ISP billing residents on bandwidth consumption is up to ISPs. They can do that now. They can do it after NN.
Personally I'd be for it. I'm not a big fan of streamfags and the industry cajoling them along. Downloading the same content repeatedly. Inferior streaming quality. Passing the costs along (not that it costs fuckall, ISPs are just babies about spending a dime to deliver it).
But for some
More correction needed (Score:5, Informative)
It looks like the recent kick in the teeth Republicans got at the polls wasn't enough to educate them about what happens when Americans get annoyed with their government. Perhaps in a couple of years another electoral kick, this time straight to the balls, will get through to them.
Leave it to the states (Score:2, Interesting)
Perhaps Net Neutrality is something best left to the states. This way the effect of net neutrality legislation in certain states could be compared to states that do not have it yet, this allows us to see what works best. This is as the founders intended, that states should be laboratories of democracy where where laws and so on can be tested and improved without affecting the country as a whole.
Also, I think what we need should be called Common Carrier rules, rather than Net Neutrality rules, because Commo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know if it technically can be left to the states. Also, frankly, there's no need to test it. NN is better for 99% of people, and bad for owners of Comcast/Verizion/etc.
NN has nothing
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I can't tell if this is satire or something people actually believe. And that's the worse thing about this.
Re: (Score:2)
People definitely believe this.
They don't believe a natural monopoly can exist, and they believe that the market is perfect, and if companies abuse their monopoly position some other company will magically run wires everywhere.
They believe that 2 companies running wires everywhere and competing down to zero margin is going to lead to lower costs than one company running them everywhere and having a large margin, because magic of competition.
I hope that 5g means there can be some actual competition, at least
Re: (Score:2)
So called "net nutrality" is a scam, a way for marxist democrat party people to impose HUGE goverment regulation on the free market and make everything about the internet WORSE. If you care about internet freedom, you should join the millions of others like us and voice your oppose to so called "net nutrality".
Nothing screams rational balanced argument like the phrase "marxist democrat party".
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)