Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Democrats Government

FCC To Vote To Restore Net Neutrality Rules (reuters.com) 60

Posted by BeauHD from the what-to-expect dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: The U.S. Federal Communications Commission will vote to reinstate landmark net neutrality rules and assume new regulatory oversight of broadband internet that was rescinded under former President Donald Trump, the agency's chair said. The FCC told advocates on Tuesday of the plan to vote on the final rule at its April 25 meeting. The commission voted 3-2 in October on the proposal to reinstate open internet rules adopted in 2015 and re-establish the commission's authority over broadband internet.

Net neutrality refers to the principle that internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites. FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel confirmed the planned commission vote in an interview with Reuters. "The pandemic made clear that broadband is an essential service, that every one of us -- no matter who we are or where we live -- needs it to have a fair shot at success in the digital age," she said. "An essential service requires oversight and in this case we are just putting back in place the rules that have already been court-approved that ensures that broadband access is fast, open and fair."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FCC To Vote To Restore Net Neutrality Rules More

FCC To Vote To Restore Net Neutrality Rules

Comments Filter:

  • Missing something (Score:3, Interesting)

    by quonset ( 4839537 ) on Tuesday April 02, 2024 @06:55PM (#64365114)

    "An essential service requires oversight and in this case we are just putting back in place the rules that have already been court-approved that ensures that broadband access is fast, open and fair."

    Everyone should note the word 'inexpensive' is nowhere to be found in that statement. Sure, it's nice have an open broadband connection, but what good is it when you have one, maybe two, choices which charge an arm and a kidney to use it each year. Work to get competition in broadband service and the U.S. can finally compete with Europe on speed and price.

    Hans Kristian Graebener = StoneToss

    • on anti-trust law enforcement. They've had to pick their battles very carefully because the courts are packed with pro-corporate judges, but they are very clearly trying to solve the problem you're raising.

    • Yes please. Re-instate Net Neutrality. Fuck Trump. Lock him up.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      To be fair, net neutrality does help push prices down because they can't force you to use their services.

      • To be fair, net neutrality does help push prices down because they can't force you to use their services.

        Maybe so far as having to pay for a subscription to some service, but if you only have one ISP to choose from, it's a moot point. You have to pay whatever egregious price they set.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Sure, they can stiff you with a choice of only one ISP, but at least they can't force you to use their own streaming service or cloud backup product.

          Out of interest, is the reason why you don't do unbundling in the US purely down to corruption?

      • After Obama style net neutrality rules were instated, options went down and prices went up as the FCC started regulating small providers in favor of large ones.

        This is not the net neutrality we talked about pre-2008 where traffic should not be regulated by governments or companies and free speech should apply and consumers will have choice. This is neutral in the sense that the Internet is controlled by and for the government and big corporations in whatever fashion they feel best for everyone.

        Also, this FC

  • Joe Biden's FCC (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Tuesday April 02, 2024 @07:13PM (#64365144)
    to vote to restore net neutrality rules.

    Let's give credit where it's due. This is a partisan issue. Dems support NN, Republicans oppose it.

    • Re:Joe Biden's FCC (Score:5, Insightful)

      by OrangeTide ( 124937 ) on Tuesday April 02, 2024 @07:27PM (#64365156) Homepage Journal

      What's weird in how the GOP has picked sides is that Republican voters generally favor NN.
      Usually you phrase it like this in surveys: Do you think your internet provider should be allowed to charge extra to handle data for Netflix, Disney+, and other streaming services?

      I don't know why people find it so controversial for the government to regulate regional monopolies. This isn't like regulation cake decorating. People often don't have a wide variety of practical options for broadband Internet.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by migos ( 10321981 )
        Well, telcos tell GOP that net neutrality will make their internet bills go up. That's all it takes for them. The only way they will understand this issue, is if you tell them that some telcos charge foxnews more.
        • NN took away discounts, in effect driving prices up. I had free audio streaming (bandwidth uncapped) on my mobile provider until NN went into effect. People keep saying that the networking companies will charge more for X or Y but capitalism ensures the opposite with competition. I was getting so many things for free as a form of competition that is was better without NN. If you have a single provider of Internet services in your area, that's generally because of sweetheart government deals (dirty or other

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by dgatwood ( 11270 )

            NN took away discounts, in effect driving prices up.

            Never, in all of human history, has this been the case. Discounts never drive prices up. They are targeted to get people to buy things that they otherwise would not have bought, and the cost of paying for those discounts is paid for by raising the prices on other things.

            For example, stores have sales in which they lower the price on a product to get people to come to the store, knowing that they won't *just* buy that product. They take a loss on one thing to make it up by getting you to do all your other

      • What's weird in how the GOP has picked sides is that Republican voters generally favor NN.
        Usually you phrase it like this in surveys: Do you think your internet provider should be allowed to charge extra to handle data for Netflix, Disney+, and other streaming services?

        Or "Should your broadband provider be allowed to deprioritize X (formerly Twitter) because they don't care for the political views of its current owner?"

        The narrative on NN really should've kept up with the changing times, now that one of the major social media platforms has taken on a rather right-wing slant.

      • What Republican voters want is irrelavant (Score:5, Insightful)

        by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Tuesday April 02, 2024 @09:22PM (#64365380)
        the Republican party is an authoritarian party. They don't represent, they rule. And that's what many if not most of their voters want. They want to be told what to do by their betters because, well, those people are better than them. So they know better.

        Ironically they also hate experts. "Better" does not mean spending your life studying, it's something you're born with. The Divine Right Of Kings. After all, the right wing were originally monarchists.
        • Do you have the least bit of objective evidence to support your assertions or are you just indulging yourself in yet another ad hominem attack?

          • Re:What Republican voters want is irrelavant (Score:4, Informative)

            by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Tuesday April 02, 2024 @11:09PM (#64365590)
            Well the fact that you're triggered 8 ways from Sunday is pretty good evidence I'd say. I hit the nail on the head there.

            There's also decades of researching into the right wing proving they have authoritarian tendencies. Recent research seems to indicate it's because of a heightened fear response. The part of the brain associated with fear lights up stronger in the right wing then the left wing.

            And as we all know reality has a well documented liberal bias.
            • What "triggers" me is that you make a number of assertions, refuse to back them up and then try to make it sound like it's me in the wrong. And that smarmy slogan about reality having a liberal bias just shows that you're not willing to back up your claims.

              • Typical right wing can't think for themselves (Score:4, Funny)

                by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Wednesday April 03, 2024 @10:35AM (#64366584)
                this is the problem I was talking about. You can't "do you're own research", even with all the breadcrumbs I just left you. All you can do is sit there waiting for me to spoon feed you like a mama bird.

                When people call you an authoritarian this is what they're talking about. And you just keep proving my point.
                • No, that's not how it works. You're the one making the claims so it's your responsibility, not mine, to provide evidence to back them up. Unless, of course, there isn't any.

        • the Republican party is an authoritarian party.

          So you must be a republican, because all you ever talk about is shit that you want banned or taken away from others. You're by far the most authoritarian asshole on slashdot.

    • Joe Biden's FCC waited 3 years to restore net neutrality, that the next republican president will destroy once again as quickly as possible.

      The democrats waited years to seize the fcc majority they are owed due to a Democrat being president, ensuring the fcc was left split 2-2 instead of 3-2 for them, thus keeping for years the previous republican fcc's stupid rulings.

      The next republican president will instantly get his majority and proceed to one again fuck NN.

      Democrats are either incompetent or hypocrites

      • Joe Biden's FCC waited 3 years to restore net neutrality, that the next republican [sic] president will destroy once again as quickly as possible.

        The democrats [sic] waited years to seize the fcc [sic] majority they are owed due to a Democrat being president, ensuring the fcc [sic] was left split 2-2 instead of 3-2 for them, thus keeping for years the previous republican fcc's [sic] stupid rulings.

        The next republican president will instantly get his majority and proceed to one [sic] again fuck NN.

        Democrats

  • Another reminder (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Can'tNot ( 5553824 ) on Tuesday April 02, 2024 @07:14PM (#64365146)
    Every time this comes up I feel like I need to remind people of the other important thing [npr.org] that we lost in 2017: any kind of protection for the privacy of non-children.

    Net neutrality is great, this is important, but so is privacy and that one was lost by an act of congress. And so only another act of congress can restore it.

    • I am convinced that anonymity and privacy are being confused. The private sector does not give a damn about either. Net neutrality does not fix this but the solution is not coming from corporate boards alone.

      • I am convinced that anonymity and privacy are being confused.

        What do you mean by this? Are you using privacy in the legal sense, or the lay sense?

        I was using the word in the lay sense. Legal privacy is way more involved than just exposing your private information.

  • Bye Bye Mr. Ajit Pai.. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jenningsthecat ( 1525947 ) on Tuesday April 02, 2024 @07:36PM (#64365168)

    Sung to the tune of American Pie. Yes, he left the FCC in 2021. But the worst part of his legacy has just been undone, so now he's truly gone.

  • I wonder who will get exemption's from said rules? Screwgoogle? Fakebook?
  • I did not see any Changes in my Internet connection with NN in place or not.

  • Net Neutrality vs Quality of Service (Score:3)

    by KiltedKnight ( 171132 ) on Wednesday April 03, 2024 @10:28AM (#64366558) Homepage Journal
    The biggest problem I see every time this argument rears its ugly head is that many people do not understand the difference between the two and will conflate them. Net Neutrality is about the source/provider and destination/consumer not being part of any equation, while QOS is all about the types of traffic such as streaming video vs reading email. With the two being conflated, people are erroneously led to believe that streaming video and email need to have the same priority, while NN should sooner be about Netflix vs Hulu receiving the same priority and gmail vs any other mail service receiving the same priority, while QOS will be more about video VOIP calls and streaming video receiving a larger chunk of the bandwidth at a higher transmission priority than viewing a relatively static web page or downloading and reading your emails. Are ISPs going to prioritize or enhance speeds within their own networks for stuff originating in their networks and being consumed by their customers? Absolutely. I don't know if you can really stop that, and if you try to enforce it by law all you are doing is effectively recreating Ma Bell. If an ISP is deliberately slowing traffic from a competitor, then yes... you have an anti-competitive practice and that needs to get nipped in the bud posthaste.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by CAIMLAS ( 41445 )

      Yep.

      Internet is going to start to suck due to this, and costs will go up for the consumer, largely across the board. Media distribution will become more expensive for eg. netflix, and you'll have record profits for carriers. No, your local broadband connectivity will not improve as a result.

      I'd have really expected better, less short sighted thinking from technical people. It's like they don't realize that every government agenda is labeled the exact opposite of what they do.

      Digital Millennium Copyright Act

  • It's the right thing to do, but I suspect the timing. Why did they wait to now. Oh, because AI is a big data consumer, and even a few monster-companies who want it--will join the millions of people they view as meaningless--and something might get done. : /

Slashdot Top Deals

Long computations which yield zero are probably all for naught.

Close