Net Neutrality is About To Make a Comeback (theverge.com) 37
The Federal Communications Commission is set to vote to restore net neutrality on Thursday in the latest volley of a yearslong game of political ping-pong. From a report: The commission is expected to reclassify internet service providers (ISPs) -- e.g., broadband companies like AT&T and Comcast -- as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act. That classification would open ISPs up to greater oversight by the FCC. The vote is widely expected to go in favor of reinstating net neutrality since FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel, a Democrat, controls the agency's agenda. Rosenworcel moved forward with the measure after a fifth commissioner was sworn in, restoring a Democratic majority on the panel. Net neutrality proponents say that oversight can help ensure fair access to an open internet by upholding principles like no blocking or throttling of internet traffic. Opponents, including industry players, fear it could halt innovation and subject ISPs to onerous price regulations. Update FCC Votes To Restore Net Neutrality.
Wasn't The World Supposed To End Already? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Still needed because of corporations and the people who run them.
Give them an inch and they'll take your life.
Big tobacco. Harmfully addictive social media. Binding arbitration for things like negligence, death and rape. Throttling emergency services accounts during an emergency.
Re: (Score:1)
Precisely. There are two key points here. This is one of them. The other is given that it's not a bipartisan thing and being fomented by unelected/unaccountable bureaucrats, you should ask who is behind it and who stands to gain from its existence. Hint: it's never who the say it is.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Why are you so fixated on 2020? Democrats have been screeching about stolen elections since 2000. But, you think those really were stolen, right?
Re:Wasn't The World Supposed To End Already? (Score:5, Insightful)
When the orange goon and his cohorts stop whining about a "stolen" election in 2020, then everyone else will. Until then, they're the ones who keep bringing it up.
Democrats have been screeching about stolen elections since 2000. ?
No, they haven't. No Democrat has been "screeching" about "stolen" elections. None. No one is out there every day claiming that in any shape or form. In fact, the ONLY time the issue was raised of irregularities, Republicans immediately went to court to prevent any vote recount by stating there were no evidence of fraud. And yet, four years later, that is all Republicans talk about. All the "fraud" they claim existed yet have shown absolutely zero evidence for it. In fact, when asked point blank by judges if their multitude of lawsuits were about voter fraud, every single time the answer was no [time.com].
When you're done with your lying, let us know.
Re: (Score:1)
https://www.politifact.com/fac... [politifact.com]
Clearly, you should contact Politifact and call them liars to their faces.
Re: (Score:1)
No, they haven't. No Democrat has been "screeching" about "stolen" elections. None.
While "screeching" is certainly hyperbole, how about Hillary Rodham Clinton [yahoo.com]?
“There was a widespread understanding that this election [in 2016] was not on the level,” Clinton said during an interview for the latest episode of The Atlantic’s politics podcast, The Ticket. “We still don’t know what really happened.”
“There’s just a lot that I think will be revealed. History will discover,” the Democratic Party’s 2016 presidential nominee continued. “But you don’t win by 3 million votes and have all this other shenanigans and stuff going on and not come away with an idea like, ‘Whoa, something’s not right here.’ That was a deep sense of unease.”
Maybe you think that's not a direct enough claim? How about this one [realclearpolitics.com]:
"I think it's also critical to understand that, as I've been telling candidates who have come to see me, you can run the best campaign, you can even become the nominee, and you can have the election stolen from you,"
Or maybe Jimmy Carter [washingtonpost.com] is more your speed?
"There’s no doubt that the Russians did interfere in the election, and I think the interference, although not yet quantified, if fully investigated would show that Trump didn’t actually win the election in 2016. He lost the election, and he was put into office because the Russians interfered on his behalf."
Maybe the 11 Democrats who objected to the electoral vote certification [cnn.com] on January 6, 2017?
No, sir. No allegations of stolen elections from Democrats, none at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Different.
Every time a republican is elected president, there are witch hunts for how it could happen by democrats, and then in turn republicans pull out all the stops to keep democrats from voting, mostly through gerrymandering and voter intimidation.
Every a democrat is elected, the republicans won't stand for it, won't accept it, and will do everything possible to gerrymander and intimidate voters.
What makes 2020 unique is that the fringe part of the republicans were on board with torching the capital to
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Now talk about firearm registration.
Re:Wasn't The World Supposed To End Already? (Score:4, Insightful)
The strongest arguments against Net Neutrality at this point is how all of the doom and gloom prophecies about what would happen without it have failed to happen.
Well, except the prediction was that the market might become dominated by a small number of huge players whilst smaller services that used to keep coming and competing with them get pushed out. And here we are in the world of Netflix / AWS / Google / TikTok / Facebook and maybe Microsoft. We were just discussion how totally terrible Google's search has become, which is true, and yet there's no upcoming small competitor with a new idea. Every other one of those services is terrible compared to what we used to have in some way or another with the least obvious one being the one which is actually manipulating you in the US on behalf of an authoritarian government.
Now, I'm not saying that having Net Neutrality would have fixed that for sure. I am saying, though, that the End of the World (of small companies continually replacing big ones) sort of has happened.
Re: (Score:1)
Big co's spend a lot of lobbying and bribe money to rid competition. It's more cost effective than doing a better job.
Re: Wasn't The World Supposed To End Already? (Score:3)
Trust human nature though: if you give someone a free money knob, they will eventually turn it. Especially when the business is under economic stress.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What? They did happen. Netflix complained about how its traffic through L3 was being throttled by Verizon because Verizon was routing it to a heavily congested single line card. The proof of this was that if you wanted to use Netflix, you had to use a VPN which wasn't being blocked.
Then a whole bunch of providers, mostly mobile, started zero-rating
Right... "FEAR" (Score:3)
" fear it could halt innovation and subject ISPs to onerous price regulations. "
Yeah, I'll bet they're terrified it might "force" them to raise prices because their "fast-lanes" are suddenly against NN rules and they can't "lose" those extra fees.
Re:of course it's coming back (Score:4)
Re: of course it's coming back (Score:3)
Link if you're interested in learning more: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/... [eff.org]
Just in time for a new prez to ruin it. Great. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's election year. All manner of populist things are suddenly bubbling up. Yesterday it was non-competes. Tomorrow it will be insulin prices or something.
Re:Just in time for a new prez to ruin it. Great. (Score:4, Funny)
I'm picturing Willy Wonka saying sarcastically "Stop, don't".
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to see them go after the prices of the interferon drugs used to control MS. My sister used to need to take one of them once a month, and before she was taken off of it the price had gone up to $1600/dose. The feds had put anybody using it on MedicAid automatically, but that's a huge, unreasonable price for something like that.
And hearing aids. Notice how you can now get them by mail order at about 1/10 the price the big boys charge? Wonder wh
Re: (Score:2)
Congress stepped in and said that only audiologists can provide hearing aids. Now, Congress has stepped back and allowed you to get a hearing aid from anyone.
So, expensive hearing aids were a result of government intervention. Be careful what you wish for. Congress is not your friend. For further examples, see drug prices, hospitals, and internet.
Re: (Score:2)
And note how far the prices have dropped. Proof, if any were needed, that the big name hearing aid makers were gouging the public.
Re:Just in time for a new prez to ruin it. Great. (Score:4, Insightful)
Apparently someone thinks shit like this happens on a whim.
For example, the non-compete rule was first proposed in January 2023... 15 months ago. God only knows how long it took to get through review committees or whatever other red tape it takes to get to that stage. That's almost certainly been cooking for at least two years.
The process of this current ruling to restore Net Neutrality started at least with Executive Order 14036... which was 2021.
Controlling insulin prices? There was movement on that last year as part of the Inflation Reduction Act (itself introduced in 2022) when it was added to the list of pharmaceuticals Medicare is allowed to negotiate prices for.
But sure, it's because it's an election year. That's gotta be it. No way were these things and more being quietly worked on for years...
=Smidge=
Yes until... (Score:2)
net neutrality ping pong (Score:4)
At some point we need to stop flipping the rules every time the admin team changes.
Re: net neutrality ping pong (Score:2)
Don't worry, if the Republicans win, they ain't lose time and will flip them back right away, so quickly that it will be as if the rules were never flipped in the first place.
If I was a conspiracy nutjob, I'd think that the democrats, since they are also paid by comcast and al, don't want NN either, but simply want the vous of people who want NN, hence why they waited until the last possible second.
Re: (Score:1)
Wait until simply reading about abortion is made illegal. https://www.vanityfair.com/new... [vanityfair.com]
Facebook for $10/month sucks (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
This is sortof a case where the instability of the decision ends up making the decision just the same. Companies are likely on the fence about going all in on a non-NN pricing scheme when just like we are seeing here it could be re-implemented at any time. It's a bit of a risk until things settle out.
fear it could halt innovation?!? (Score:2)
...because if there is one thing ISPs are known for is innovation. Insulting.