×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Democrats, Minority Groups Question Net Neutrality Push

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the not-so-usual-suspects dept.

Democrats 200

uuddlrlrab writes "A group of 72 Democratic lawmakers is the latest to question the US Federal Communications Commission's move to create new net neutrality regulations. Democrats, including US President Barack Obama, have generally supported new rules that would prohibit broadband providers from selectively blocking or slowing Web content, but the group of 72 members of the House of Representatives sent a letter Thursday to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, saying they're concerned that new regulations would slow down investment in broadband networks. A coalition of minority groups made their objections known as well, saying, 'We are concerned that some of the proposed regulations on the Internet could, as applied, inhibit the goal of universal access and leave disenfranchised communities further behind.' This follows news from earlier in the week that similar letters were sent by a group of 44 tech companies and a group of 18 Republican senators." It's worth noting that the FCC is receiving letters in support of the net neutrality regulations as well. One such is from a group of internet pioneers, which includes Vint Cerf and Stephen Crocker.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

200 comments

Government parties against neutrality (4, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#29777433)

Who would have ever thought.

Re:Government parties against neutrality (4, Insightful)

cjfs (1253208) | more than 4 years ago | (#29777571)

Definitely does fit in the current political climate, complete with just making stuff up left and right.

Opponents of net neutrality rules say there have been few examples of broadband providers blocking or slowing traffic.

So what's the problem with restricting if if there have only been "few examples" of it?

In light of the growth and innovation in new applications that the current [regulatory] regime has enabled, as compared to the limited evidence demonstrating any tangible harm, we would urge you to avoid tentative conclusions which favor government regulation

So what do they consider tangible harm and what's the evidence of it being "limited"? The article and letter could use about 15 [citation needed] tags. I can't seem to find anything to back up the "could slow investments in broadband and slow minorities' access to telemedicine, distance learning and other services" either.

Re:Government parties against neutrality (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29777643)

The article and letter could use about 15 [citation needed] tags. I can't seem to find anything to back up the "could slow investments in broadband and slow minorities' access to telemedicine, distance learning and other services" either.

It's all speculation propagated by the AT&T Artificial Turf(TM) fanclub. The argument is that network neutrality will make the Internet "more expensive" to poor people because there won't be any discounts for the people who "want" all of their Internet traffic other than the ISP's walled garden to be degraded into the abyss.

The argument ignores the fact that the absence of network neutrality in the presence of a monopoly/duopoly landscape will only result in higher prices for the people who want the "no DPI" option (if it's available at all) rather than any sort of lower prices for anybody else.

Re:Government parties against neutrality (4, Insightful)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 4 years ago | (#29777967)

These are utilities and common carriers. They're supposed to work for US. Instead, the propaganda pushes have become obtuse. They threaten to slow down expenditure-- slowing down broadband speed and reach. In fact, what happens is that the vacuum breeds ISP investment in areas the current crop of jerks don't want to reach. The BPL initiative starts. Sat from Hughes gets cheaper. Even gas companies figure out how to get into the broadband business.

The group of Democrats that have been suckered in by the propaganda become their stooges, once again. They won't learn. But why should they as long as their own campaign finances are good.... filled and lined by the telcos?

Re:Government parties against neutrality (0, Troll)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 4 years ago | (#29778693)

These are utilities and common carriers. They're supposed to work for US

No, these are for-profit companies. They work for their shareholders ("themselves").

The group of Democrats that have been suckered in by the propaganda become their stooges, once again. They won't learn. But why should they as long as their own campaign finances are good.... filled and lined by the telcos?

Then perhaps, vote for their competitors. Or campaign by yourself. I question that there is any need for the federal government to intevene. Let's let a few states do net neutrality, let a few other states not support net neutrality, and see what happens.

---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.

With people like you, Europe would have been nazi. Asia would have been massacred until it was 100% communist, or worshipped the mikado and the US would likely be fighting a war for survival. If the Soviets combined forces with said mikado, they would likely win. I wonder if statements like this mean that you are pro-Nazi, pro-Soviet and pro everyone who ever went to far. Surely you are in favor of kidnapping children of anyone with a competing religion ("devshirme"), for example ? Otherwise you wouldn't be pro-peace.

War is not good, but violence is the basis of society. Whether we're talking protecting the weak from the (physically) strong, division of resources, or borders. Violence always was, is, and always will be the basis for civilization. And if you don't agree with me, think that peace is more important, I will personally come and hit you hard in the face until you agree with me, or die. If you do hit back, or call the police, you're obviously dishonest.

Re:Government parties against neutrality (1)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 4 years ago | (#29778771)

Yeah, they're for-profit, built on the scam of "municipal utilities" where the infrastructure was stolen outright on the lie of developing communications infrastructures. In fact, the communities own the easements, right of ways, in favor of property owners.

As regards peace, no one argues the basis for WW2. The Soviets were dogs because we were. Violence can be overcome, just like hunger. You have to work at it. So I do.

Your otherwise black and white world is devoid of wisdom, only reacting in a binary way. Too bad. There are other dimensions to humanity.

Re:Government parties against neutrality (1)

Ironsides (739422) | more than 4 years ago | (#29777927)

So what's the problem with restricting if if there have only been "few examples" of it?

If there's only been a "few examples" why pass a law restricting it? Shouldn't the government try to get by with as few laws as possible instead of as many as possible?

Re:Government parties against neutrality (1)

thrillseeker (518224) | more than 4 years ago | (#29778405)

Shouldn't the government try to get by with as few laws as possible instead of as many as possible?

Fewer laws mean less "requirement" to position oneself as a gatekeeper, requiring constant attention from the adoring masses, and of course constant campaign "donations".

Re:Government parties against neutrality (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 4 years ago | (#29779151)

If there's only been a "few examples" why pass a law restricting it? Shouldn't the government try to get by with as few laws as possible instead of as many as possible?

As far as I know, there has only been one example. The problem is that the example is Comcast, which is the nation's largest residential ISP, serving more than 15.3 million customers, or almost 14% of the households in the United States.

It's about the Fairness Doctrine and control (4, Insightful)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 4 years ago | (#29778105)

"A coalition of minority groups made their objections known as well, saying, 'We are concerned that some of the proposed regulations on the Internet could, as applied, inhibit the goal of universal access and leave disenfranchised communities further behind.'"

Bullshit - "disenfranchised communities" (read "minority")being served now. The reason they are not going into those areas is lack of profit. So how is leaving the ISP's alone going to help that? Or how will net neutrality hurt it?

Of course, there could be another reason. Net Neutrality move ISP's closer to common carrier status. The effect of this will be to LESSEN the amount of pressure these politicians can bring on behalf of their "constituency". If the ISP's are treated as content providers, then the Fairness Doctrine will have more impact when it gets reapplied - they can try to force ATT, Comcast, L3, etc. to manipulate their traffic in a way that promotes "fairness". So the carriers could be forced to, say, throttle traffic from Rush Limbaugh's website so that its traffic level matches, say, Public Radio International (PRI). Or the NRA's website until it matches the Brady campaign.

But if Net Neutrality is the policy, that becomes harder - they'd be saying, in effect, that ISP's could control political speech, but NOT commercial speech. That wouldn't even make it past the District court, much less through appeals and SCOTUS. Net Neutrality would hobble a Fairness Doctrine for the internet, and THAT's why this group doesn't want it.

Re:It's about the Fairness Doctrine and control (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 4 years ago | (#29779123)

Personally, I'd say LEAVE the disenfranchised communities behind.

Not to say they don't deserve to have internet, but I'd propose we make sure everyone has good water, good power, and good fire protection, yes?

Case in point: My grandmother used to live in eltopia. Internet access? Hell no! We had to use well water, and we didn't even have a fire district.

I don't think internet access would be the first thing on their minds.

Yay for open access, but let's not forget life's essentials first.

For Certain Crazy Values of The Fairness Doctrine (1, Insightful)

weston (16146) | more than 4 years ago | (#29779131)

If the ISP's are treated as content providers, then the Fairness Doctrine will have more impact when it gets reapplied - they can try to force ATT, Comcast, L3, etc. to manipulate their traffic in a way that promotes "fairness". So the carriers could be forced to, say, throttle traffic from Rush Limbaugh's website so that its traffic level matches, say, Public Radio International (PRI). Or the NRA's website until it matches the Brady campaign.

This assumes a construction of a new "Fairness Doctrine" that bears little resemblance to the old one, which essentially required broadcast media to give time to opposing views as they reached certain editorial thresholds as partisan outlets.

The web isn't really a broadcast medium, and it's already very easy to publish an opposing point of view on it. There's not much of a way TFD could be brought to bear.

throttle traffic from Rush Limbaugh's website so that its traffic level matches, say, Public Radio International

"As of 2006 Arbitron ratings indicated that The Rush Limbaugh Show had a minimum weekly audience of 13.5 million listeners." [wikipedia.org]

"According to the 2002 Arbitron ratings, 15.2 million people listened to PRI programming each week." [wikipedia.org]

I guess that'd really suck for Rush.

Which brings up a point: We all know that by and large The Media(TM) isn't just liberal, it has a radical liberal agenda, right?

If that's the case, shouldn't The Fairness Doctrine actually benefit conservatives far more than it benefits liberals?

Re:Government parties against neutrality (1)

isa-kuruption (317695) | more than 4 years ago | (#29778129)

Let's use a comparative example:

There have only been a "few examples" of people buying fertilizer to make bombs, so the gov't is going to pass regulation to make sure fertilizer can no longer be purchased.

Is that enough of a reason for ya?

Re:Government parties against neutrality (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 4 years ago | (#29778173)

Go buy 4 tons of ammonium nitrate without being a megafarmcorp & see which prison you end up in.

Apples and oranges (1)

microbox (704317) | more than 4 years ago | (#29778247)

There have only been a "few examples" of people buying fertilizer to make bombs, so the gov't is going to pass anti-terrorism regulations?

Fixed that for you. That is: besides comparing apple and oranges.

Once upon a time, regulations were all the rage. That was back when there were no regulations over the handling of meat, and all sorts of nasty junk was being sold. Adam Smith's invisible hand didn't fix the public health problems with the sale of meat, so regulations were brought in to set minimum standards for the public good.

So... if you are completely against regulations, then you would stand by people buying any old meat from any old butcher, in any old conditions. Like they still do in some parts of the world.

After-all, there is no conceivable way that anything good can come from government regulations. While we're at it, lets get rid of regulations on advertising and sale of tobacco to minors, and regulations on what's in the fuel pump when you buy gas.

Yes and no (2, Informative)

Mark_in_Brazil (537925) | more than 4 years ago | (#29777797)

Government parties against neutrality

Who would have ever thought.

Yes and no. The Obama Administration's official policy is strongly in favor [whitehouse.gov] of net neutrality [whitehouse.gov].

Re:Yes and no (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29778349)

Yeah, and Obama's also strongly in favor of ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell - something he can just do, without needing Congress's support.

And he still hasn't done it.

Throw in his complete failure to get healthcare reform going, the administration's position on net neutrality seems - well, less than meaningless.

Re:Yes and no (0, Troll)

uuddlrlrab (1617237) | more than 4 years ago | (#29779245)

Right, he'll just handily get that all fixed before jetting off to the Mideast, make peace between Israel and their neighbors, create a new Palestinian state, convince the militants in both Iraq and Afghanistan to lay down their arms, thus ending both wars and magically transforming both nations into corruption-free democratic-republics just like us, convince Iran to stop their nuclear program, and make OPEC fall in love with the U.S. and give us free oil just long enough until we get our energy policy sorted, which should be by, ohhh, say noonish Monday? After that, he'll return for a relaxing weekend of writing up a new healthcare plan that makes everybody happy and cures all disease instantly! Of course, being a magic negro, he won't need sleep, and he'll spend Sunday night into Monday morning crafting aforementioned energy policy, which he'll handily convince congress to implement before lunchtime. With all that tackled, he'll be free to casually move on to simpler issues like the worldwide recession, world hunger, and violence and repression in Africa, all of which couldn't possibly take him, what, two, three days tops? Amirite?

Re:Government parties against neutrality (1)

Mikkeles (698461) | more than 4 years ago | (#29778431)

'...saying they're concerned that new regulations would slow down investment in broadband networks.'

Call me cynical, but I suspect their concern is proportional to their bribes^wdonations.

Re:Government parties against neutrality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29779003)

Who would have ever thought.

I guess I dont like Republicans or Democrats now ...

Har (2, Funny)

Alarindris (1253418) | more than 4 years ago | (#29777441)

saying they're concerned that new regulations would slow down investment in broadband networks

Any slower and the underground cables are going to start digging themselves up.

Re:Har (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 4 years ago | (#29779163)

Yes, they'll actually have to go from stopped to going into reverse and digging up infrastructure if they are going to be forced to share.

Orwell (4, Insightful)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 4 years ago | (#29777443)

So all internet traffic is equal, but some traffic *should* be more equal than others?

Re:Orwell (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29777713)

...just the traffic that they can't monetize is less equal... after all it's not like they're already making huge profits for the most part, or at least adequately run ISP's are.

I wonder how much those groups were paid to write those letters or how much carefully crafted propaganda they were inundated with... either way it works out the same...

Similarities? (1)

paintballer1087 (910920) | more than 4 years ago | (#29777447)

"Enter the bureaucrats, the true rulers of the Republic, and on the payroll of the Trade Federation I might add. This is where Chancellor Valorum's strength will disappear."
Palpatine

Oh please (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29777453)

C'mon now, "disenfranchised communities"? How many minorities in the USA are unable to access the Internet because they have been actively disenfranchised from doing so? It's really about as universal as it gets, the only reason anyone can't get it these days is because they can't afford it economically.

They should retitle these "minority groups" to "special interest racist groups" because that's what they are.

Re:Oh please (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 4 years ago | (#29777893)

How many minorities in the USA are unable to access the Internet because they have been actively disenfranchised from doing so?

Sex offenders?

Re:Oh please (1, Interesting)

Nathrael (1251426) | more than 4 years ago | (#29778041)

In the US, "sex offender" sadly also includes people who did a crime as simple as urinating in a less-than-suitable place. Not that I'd defend such behavior, but while I have absolutely no problem with rapists and child molesters being denied access to the Internet (or any other place, they are the scum of the Earth), but you shouldn't receive such harsh sentences for being an idiot and getting drunk.

Re:Oh please (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29778357)

In the US, "sex offender" sadly also includes people who did a crime as simple as urinating in a less-than-suitable place.

Ok, I promise not to piss on the seat next time.

slow down investment in broadband (5, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#29777457)

I read that as 'if we cant control content distribution and restrict our competition, and screw our own customers out of more money, we don't want any part of it'.

I hate to support the federal government, but that is what the FCC is there for, to watch out for us citizens, not the corporations.

Re:slow down investment in broadband (2, Interesting)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#29777871)

I read that as 'if we cant control content distribution and restrict our competition, and screw our own customers out of more money, we don't want any part of it'.

That's one way to read it. The other way to read it is the legitimate concern that potential investors have when people start throwing around ideas like forcing the ILECs/cableco's to open up their networks to companies that didn't help fund the roll out of those networks. Why should I invest my money to build out a broadband network when I can just wait a few years until Congress forces them to let me use it?

Re:slow down investment in broadband (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#29778057)

Why should I invest my money to build out a broadband network when I can just wait a few years until Congress forces them to let me use it?

That's a good point. Let's get congress on forcing cable companies to resell part of the right-of-way. Otherwise it's not worth it to me to grant them the right to install their equipment. Fuck cable TV.

Re:slow down investment in broadband (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29778073)

Because, I dunno, the taxpayers AND subscribers already paid massive amounts a decade ago and have been paying more and more since then all the while the rest of the world (ok, Europe, Japan, and Korea) enjoys faster internet connections at lower rates?

Re:slow down investment in broadband (2, Informative)

microbox (704317) | more than 4 years ago | (#29778271)

open up their networks to companies that didn't help fund the roll out of those networks

The taxpayer paid for the networks.

Re:slow down investment in broadband (1)

j1mmy (43634) | more than 4 years ago | (#29778731)

prove it

Where's the receipt? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29778859)

All that public land? Where's the receipt.

The wires were laid down with government workers.

Where's the receipt.

Personal property of US citizens have been overcome by the right of way of these companies who use OUR land to make THEIR profit.

Where's my cut?

Thieves.

You are like Napoleon "I see no ships!". That's because you're not looking. Because you daren't.

Re:Where's the receipt? (1)

uuddlrlrab (1617237) | more than 4 years ago | (#29779059)

I have a question /.
How does the above post that drives a point home get moderated down to 0, when the post above that, having naught but a juvenile 2 word response, "prove it," gets modded up?

Re:slow down investment in broadband (3, Informative)

falconwolf (725481) | more than 4 years ago | (#29778367)

Why should I invest my money to build out a broadband network when I can just wait a few years until Congress forces them to let me use it?

How can you roll out broadband when the incumbents enjoy a monopoly. How many people have a choice as to whom they get cable or landline phone service from? Governments granted these companies monopolies so even if a compeating cable, phone company, or combined company wanted to they could not install their own cable or fiber.

Quite simply there is no free market in these services and until there is the incumbents should be regulated.

Falcon

Re:slow down investment in broadband (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29777995)

I read that as 'if we cant control content distribution and restrict our competition, and screw our own customers out of more money, we don't want any part of it'.

I hate to support the federal government, but that is what the FCC is there for, to watch out for us citizens, not the corporations.

Rather than get the federal government involved, though, I'd rather see an end to government-backed monopolies. We need real competition in internet access.

--
"All we ask is to be let alone." --President Jefferson Davis

Re:slow down investment in broadband (1)

mrmeval (662166) | more than 4 years ago | (#29779055)

Is the 'minority coalition' acorn? How much money did the corprats pay to get that sort of 'grass roots effort'?

How will this slow down investment in BB networks? (3, Insightful)

Bob-o-Matic! (620698) | more than 4 years ago | (#29777459)

I have been a subscriber to Armstrong OneWire for cable internet for the last 5 years and the bandwidth has not changed at all. You would think that the price would drop, but it has remained constant, too.

Where I live in Ohio there is no incentive to invest in BB networks. There is no real competition.

Re:How will this slow down investment in BB networ (3, Informative)

nxtw (866177) | more than 4 years ago | (#29777669)

AT&T DSL (available in much of Ohio) has gone from 768/128 for $40/month and a one year agreement in 2002, to 6016/768 for $35/month with no one year agreement in 2007. AT&T never bothered to upgrade to ADSL2, so they can't offer speeds that are much higher than what they offer now. Only those who live in an area in which their IPTV service is available can get faster speeds (over VDSL.)

In the past 5 years or so, Time Warner/Road Runner (also available in much of Ohio) has increased the speed from 3 mbit to 7 mbit without any price increase, and have added "PowerBoost" - marketing term for a DOCSIS feature that provides a temporary burst of higher speeds. They also have a "Turbo" service which brings the speed up to 15 mbit.

Re:How will this slow down investment in BB networ (2, Interesting)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 4 years ago | (#29778417)

"PowerBoost" (a basic token bucket scheme) is basically their way of saying "Here, look, you can use the Internets for browsing the Web and it will seem fast, but you're out of luck if you want to download anything big." Considering that downloadable video games and movies and such are substitutes for regular cable television service, it's not surprising that Time Warner would want to hobble those (while showing people it's fast for other stuff.)

Re:How will this slow down investment in BB networ (2, Informative)

nxtw (866177) | more than 4 years ago | (#29778517)

IIRC, the boost is from 7 mbit to 15 mbit for those on the regular service, and 15 mbit to 22 mbit for those on the turbo service. With H.264, this is sufficient to stream higher quality video than provided by Time Warner's MPEG-2 services.

Re:How will this slow down investment in BB networ (2, Informative)

nxtw (866177) | more than 4 years ago | (#29778557)

Correction - sufficient to stream higher quality video without the boost feature.

How investment slows down... (3, Insightful)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 4 years ago | (#29777673)

"We don't want to invest in speeding up the network, so if the government blocks us from investing in slowing down the network, no investment will get done!"

Re:How will this slow down investment in BB networ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29777745)

You would think that the price would drop, but it has remained constant, too.

The real price has dropped. The nominal price has not. What, do you think inflation doesn't exist?

Re:How will this slow down investment in BB networ (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 4 years ago | (#29778039)

That's pretty much guaranteed not to change just because companies will throttle bandwidth on small businesses. People in the middle of nowhere aren't profitable. They'll do anything to ignore them.

Re:How will this slow down investment in BB networ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29779005)

I have been a subscriber to Armstrong OneWire for cable internet for the last 5 years and the bandwidth has not changed at all. You would think that the price would drop, but it has remained constant, too.

Armstrong is the lesser of two evils. No setup or cancellation fees. No charge to have a tech come out and fix things up for you. But Armstrong OneWire definitely drags its feet when it comes to price and speed.

They do just enough to make Embarq look like thieves and thugs with their pricing in my area. I thought the switch from Sprint to Embarq would yield better pricing, but that really hasn't been the case. The low end seems competitive, but Embarq wants that contract with the typical fees the telcos are famous for. The high-end is just laughable.

They even went so far as to charge $10 extra for Internet if you didn't have cable. (I know Sprint/Embarq used to do the same.) When I went to cancel my cable back in August, they told me there was no $10 surcharge any more and that it stopped a little over a year ago. I wondered why.

The next day I got junk mail from CenturyLink claiming to provide naked DSL for $30/month. Oh, that's why. Too bad it's at 1.5mb speed only. All the hype over how fast they are and that's the only option I get for signing up? Lame.

Write your congresscritters! (3, Informative)

toppavak (943659) | more than 4 years ago | (#29777467)

The signers*:
Michael Arcuri (NY-27), Joe Baca (CA-43), John Barrow (GA-12), Sanford Bishop (GA-2), Tim Bishop (NY-1), Dan Boren (OK-2), Leonard Boswell (IA-3), Allen Boyd (FL-2), Robert Brady (PA-1), Bobby Bright (AL-2), G.K. Butterfield (NC-1), Dennis Cardoza (CA-18), Russ Carnahan (MO-3), Christopher Carney (PA-10), Travis Childers (MS-1), Donna Christensen (VI), William Lacy Clay (MO-1), Emanuel Cleaver (MO-5), Jim Costa (CA-20), Joseph Crowley (NY-7), Henry Cuellar (TX-28), Elijah Cummings (MD-7), Kathleen Dahlkemper (PA-3), Danny Davis (IL-7), Lincoln Davis (TN-4), Steve Driehaus (OH-1), Chaka Fattah (PA-2), Bill Foster (IL-14), Marcia Fudge (OH-11), Charlie Gonzalez (TX-20), Al Green (TX-9), Gene Green (TX-29), Parker Griffith (AL-5), Debbie Halvorson (IL-11), Alcee Hastings (FL-23), Baron Hill (IN-9), Tim Holden (PA-17), Sheila Jackson ,Lee (TX-18), Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30), Hank Johnson (GA-4), Suzanne Kosmas (FL-24), Frank Kratovil (MD-1), Rick Larsen (WA-2), Daniel Maffei (NY-25), Michael McMahon (NY-13), Gregory Meeks (NY-6), Charlie Melancon (LA-3), Michael Michaud (ME-2), Walt Minnick (ID-1), Dennis Moore (KS-3), Glenn Nye (VA-2), Ed Pastor (AZ-4), Solomon Ortiz (TX-27), Ed Perlmutter (CO-7), Nick Rahall (WV-3), Jared Polis (CO-2), Silvestre Reyes (TX-16), Mike Ross (AR-4), Loretta Sanchez (CA-47), Kurt Schrader (OR-5), Allyson Schwartz (PA-13), David Scott (GA-13), Heath Shuler (NC-11), Albio Sires (NJ-13), Zachary Space (OH-18), John Spratt (SC-5), John Tanner (TN-8), Bennie Thompson (MS-2), Paul Tonko (NY-21), Ed Towns (NY-10), Peter Welch (VT), Charlie Wilson (OH-6)

*List retrieved from:
http://www.precursorblog.com/content/72-house-democrats-letter-urges-fcc-avoid-tentative-conclusions-which-favor-government-regulation [precursorblog.com]

And now a word from our sponsors (5, Informative)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 4 years ago | (#29778077)

Acuri (NY-27) $5000 from AT&T
Baca (CA-43) $5000 from AT&T
Barrow (GA-12) $5000 from National Cable & Telecommunications Assn
S Bishop (GA-2) $2750 from AT&T
T Bishop (NY-1) $2500 from Communications Workers of America, $2000 from AT&T, $1000 from Verizon
Boren (OK-2) $5000 from AT&T
Boswell (IA-3) $5000 from AT&T
Boyd (FL-2) $2500 from Verizon, $2500 from Comcast
Brady (PA-1) $5000 from National Cable & Telecommunications Assn
Bright (AL-2) $4000 from AT&T
Butterfield (NC-1) $5000 from AT&T
Cardoza (CA-18) $4500 from AT&T
Carnahan (MO-3) $6100 from Communications Workers of America
Carny (PA-10) $5000 from L3 Communications
Childers (MS-1) $5000 from AT&T
Christensen (VI) No obvious contribution reported yet
Clay (MO-1) $2500 from AT&T, $3000 from Verizon
Cleaver (MO-5) $2500 from Communications Workers of America
Costa (CA-20) $2000 from AT&T
Crowley (NY-7) $5000 from Comcast, $2500 from Verizon, $2000 from L3 Communications
Cuellar (TX-28) $1000 from Verizon
Cummings (MD-7) $1000 from AT&T
Dahlkemper (PA-3) $3000 from AT&T
Davis (IL-7) $5000 from AT&T
Davis (TN-4) $3000 from AT&T
Driehaus (OH-1) $1000 from AT&T
Fattah (PA-2) $1000 from AT&T, $1000 from Comcast
Foster (IL-14) $2000 from Comcast
Fudge (OH-11) $2000 from AT&T, $2500 from Communications Workers of America
Gonzalez (TX-20) $2000 from AT&T, $2000 from Comcast
Green (TX-9) $5000 from Communications Workers of America
Green (TX-29) $5000 from Communications Workers of America, $2500 from AT&T, $2500 from Comcast
Griffith (AL-5) $6500 from L3 Communications, $4500 from AT&T
Halvorson (IL-11) $7000 from AT&T, $3500 from Comcast
Hastings (FL-23) $5000 from AT&T
Hill (IN-9) $5000 from AT&T, $2500 from National Cable and Telecommunications Association
Holden (PA-17) $5000 from Communications Workers of America, $3000 from AT&T
Jackson (TX-18) $5000 from AT&T
Johnson (TX-30) $2000 from AT&T
Johnson (GA-4) $2500 from Communications Workers of America, $2000 from Verizon, $1000 from Comcast
Kosmas (FL-24) $4000 from Comcast
Kratovil (MD-1) $3500 L3 Communications, $3000 from AT&T, $3000 from Comcast
Larsen (WA-2) $1000 from Qwest, $1000 from Verizon
Maffei (NY-25) $4800 from Data Key Communications, $3000 from Verizon, $2750 from Time Warner
McMahon (NY-13) $4000 from AT&T, $2000 from Time Warner, $2000 from Verizon
Meeks (NY-6) $5000 from AT&T, $1000 from Verizon
Melancon (LA-3) $10000 from Comcast, $4000 from AT&T, $2500 from Communications Workers of America, $2000 from Time Warner
Michaud (ME-2) $4000 from AT&T, $1000 from Time Warner, $1000 from Qualcomm
Minnick (ID-1) $3500 from Comcast, $2000 from AT&T, $2000 from Verizon
Moore (KS-3) $2000 from AT&T, $1000 from Comcast, $1000 from Verizon
Nye (VA-2) $4800 from Cox Communications, $2000 from Verizon, $1500 from Communications Workers of America
Ortiz (TX-27) $3500 from AT&T, $1250 from Communications Workers of America, $1000 from Comcast
Pastor (AZ-4) $4000 from AT&T, $2000 from Verizon
Perlmutter (CO-7) $4500 from Qwest, $1000 from AT&T, $1000 from National Cable & Telecommunications Association, $1000 from Verizon
Polis (CO-2) No obvious contributions
Rahall (WV-3) $2500 from AT&T
Reyes (TX-16) $2000 from AT&T, $2000 from Verizon, $1000 from L3 Communications
Ross (AR-4) $5000 from AT&T, $4000 from Verizon
Sanchez (CA-47) $5000 from AT&T, $5000 from L3 Communications
Schrader (OR-5) $3000 from AT&T, $2000 from Qwest
Schwartz (PA-13) $2500 from National Cable and Telecommunications Association
Scott (GA-13) $3000 from AT&T, $2500 from Communications Workers of America, $2000 from Verizon
Shuler (NC-11) $4000 from AT&T, $1000 from Communications Workers of America
Sires (NJ-13) $5000 from AT&T, $3000 from Verizon, $2500 from Comcast
Space (OH-18) $10000 from Communications Workers of America, $5000 from AT&T, $3500 from Time Warner, $3500 from Verizon
Spratt (SC-5) $5000 from AT&T, $1500 from Communications Workers of America
Tanner (TN-8) $5000 from AT&T, $3500 from Verizon
Thompson (MS-2) $3500 from AT&T, $2500 from Verizon
Tonko (NY-21) $5000 from AT&T, $2000 from Verizon, $1000 from Communications Workers of America
Towns (NY-10) $5000 from AT&T, $4000 from Time Warner, $2500 from Verizon, $1000 from National Cable & Telecommunications Association, $!000 from US Telecom Association
Welch (VT) $5000 from National Cable & Telecommunications Association, $2000 from AT&T, $1000 from Time Warner
Wilson (OH-6) $3000 from AT&T, $1000 from Verizon, $1000 from Comcast

Re:And now a word from our sponsors (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29778445)

meaningless, of course: that's adding up any money from any employees from these companies, and these companies have a lot of employees.

Unless you're implying that if I as a private citizen donate money to a candidate, it really means that my employer is bribing them.

Please prove they aren't bribes. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29778867)

Have YOU paid one of these governors?

That would be proof: show us the receipt and show us where it turns up in the declaration of monies that the GP summarised.

Re:And now a word from our sponsors (1)

ustolemyname (1301665) | more than 4 years ago | (#29779121)

Total:
$450450

Yet another example of how basic command line tools (in this case, sed + bc) can improve your daily life.

Headline != article (2, Interesting)

jd142 (129673) | more than 4 years ago | (#29777487)

"Democrats, Minority Groups Question Net Neutrality Push"

Except that's not true. The second sentence says that Democrats, including the President, generally support Net Neutrality. Also, the phrase "minority groups" is misleading because it is generally referred to groups of traditionally underrepresented peoples.

It's the equivalent of writing:

Slashdot supports Microsoft Windows 7 over Linux.

One of the people who works for Slashdot uses Windows 7 at home. Here is his story.

Uh.... -1 Nitpicking and Wrong? (4, Insightful)

Alaren (682568) | more than 4 years ago | (#29777587)

So what you're saying is, the headline ought to read, "72 Senate Democrats and a Coalition of Minority Groups Question Net Neutrality Push?"

I mean, any time you refer to "the Democrats" or "minority groups" you are referring to a fictitious whole, sure. But democrats (plural) did question the push, and the minority groups in the article are in fact groups that claim to represent traditionally underrepresented peoples... groups with names like "Hispanic Technology and Telecommunications Partnership," "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)," and "Asian American Justice Center."

So... yeah. I'm grumpy on Saturday mornings, too, but geeze.

Re:Uh.... -1 Nitpicking and Wrong? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29777639)

So what you're saying is, the headline ought to read, "72 Senate Democrats and a Coalition of Minority Groups Question Net Neutrality Push?"

I mean, any time you refer to "the Democrats" or "minority groups" you are referring to a fictitious whole, sure. But democrats (plural) did question the push, and the minority groups in the article are in fact groups that claim to represent traditionally underrepresented peoples... groups with names like "Hispanic Technology and Telecommunications Partnership," "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)," and "Asian American Justice Center."

So... yeah. I'm grumpy on Saturday mornings, too, but geeze.

Well, if you are going to pick nits, you should at least realize these are 72 HOUSE Democrats. Not even in Howard Dean's wettest dreams are there 72 Democrats in the Senta.

Yes, yes, HOUSE Democrats (1)

Alaren (682568) | more than 4 years ago | (#29777841)

Hahah. That's what I get for writing comments before 8:00am on a Saturday morning. Yes, House Democrats, thanks for the correction.

Re:Uh.... -1 Nitpicking and Wrong? (1)

mqduck (232646) | more than 4 years ago | (#29777833)

Yeah, I was particularly depressed to discover that the "minority groups" mentioned weren't somethings like The Black Businessman's Association (a name I just made up) but included groups like the fucking NAACP. I'm a supporter of the group, and this is really shameful of them.

Re:Uh.... -1 Nitpicking and Wrong? (1)

jd142 (129673) | more than 4 years ago | (#29778051)

"I mean, any time you refer to "the Democrats" or "minority groups" you are referring to a fictitious whole, sure. But democrats (plural) did question the push"

So if two Christians advocated murder and cannibalism, an accurate headline would be "Christians advocate murder and cannibalism?" If it were 2 Republicans, could I write "Republicans advocate murder and cannibalism?"

Just as 2 out of millions doesn't justify that headline, 72 out of 256, 28%, doesn't justify the headline. If it were 160 out of 256, that would be different. Or if the leadership, the people who speak for the party, supported it, then it would be justified. But if the party doesn't support it and only 28% of the reps do, it simply isn't accurate.

An accurate headline might be "Blue Dog Democrats Question Net Neutrality" if the 72 were comprised of members in the so-called Blue Dog coalition.

House, not Senate (1)

weston (16146) | more than 4 years ago | (#29778975)

72 Senate DemocratsSo... yeah. I'm grumpy on Saturday mornings, too, but geeze.

I don't think it's too much to ask for that the Slashdot title not imply a fictitious whole, particularly when TFA has a perfectly accurate and communicative title: "Some Democrats, Minority Groups Question Net Neutrality." Why'd we lose the "some"?

Re:Headline != article (1)

falconwolf (725481) | more than 4 years ago | (#29777937)

"Democrats, Minority Groups Question Net Neutrality Push"

Except that's not true. The second sentence says that Democrats, including the President, generally support Net Neutrality.

Except it is true. The third paragraph says this "Although the Congressional Black Caucus isn't traditionally against government regulation, some members are concerned that many African-Americans and other ethnic minorities lack access to broadband networks." They are concerned that if net neutrality becomes enforcable broadband provider will not build out broadband. I say this is hogwash. In a free market, which we do not have, businesses would be compeating with each other for customers. Instead of people not having broadband access they'd have choices as to whom they get it from.

Falcon

Re:Headline != article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29777947)

In the US, "minority" has been used to refer to a small group in congress for a lot longer than it has referred to racial/ethnic groups.

Whew, close one (1)

cjfs (1253208) | more than 4 years ago | (#29777503)

Democrats, including U.S. President Barack Obama, have generally supported new rules that would prohibit broadband providers from selectively blocking or slowing Web content

It's okay, they still think the Internet is just the web.

Re:Whew, close one (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 4 years ago | (#29777767)

Why is that OK? I know that Fidonet is long forgotten for most, but a friend of mine who is still active there pointed out that the Whitehouse press release echo recently died because the Obama administration decided to "upgrade" to a new, blog system for press releases. I can see a net neutrality bill being passed that only covers the web, and suddenly I will lose access to IRC and Usenet because my ISP decided to maximize web bandwidth at the cost of other "services."

Investment? (1)

Dega704 (1454673) | more than 4 years ago | (#29777649)

"saying they're concerned that new regulations would slow down investment in broadband networks." Aka, the providers will hold our broadband future hostage if they don't get their way. Craptastic. With this many people pitching a fit perhaps they should come up with some other incentives to keep the telcos happy, although I have no idea what would be as tantalizing as being able to auction off their bandwidth to the highest bidders.

Re:Investment? (1)

falconwolf (725481) | more than 4 years ago | (#29778031)

I have no idea what would be as tantalizing as being able to auction off their bandwidth to the highest bidders.

That wouldn't work, it's those who have the bandwidth now that can afford to be the highest bidders. The Mom and Pop ISP willing to provide broadband certainly couldn't afford to pay. The answer to expanding broadband penetration is to take away the incumbents's monopolies.

Falcon

Don't worry, the government will make it better (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29777699)

SSSUUURRREEE they will.

Believe that crap and I'll sell you a bridge. And some swampland.

Giving the government more power so they can regulate the internet just means the government will attract that much more money from special interests and lobbyists trying to influence that power.

So the golden rule will apply: those that have the gold make the rules.

Better to not give the government the power in the first place. It's not like "We the people" will ever get it back.

Of course, Democrat voters always vote to give more power and money to the government, then for some strange reason act totally surprised when the government either fucks up or misuses or downright abuses that power. If Democrat FDR hadn't set up massive federal police forces like the FBI and Democrat Harry Truman the CIA and the foundations of the NSA, those forces couldn't be used against the US populace under the Patriot Act. Doh! Maybe the "Dummycrat" epithet is well-earned.

Yeah, that may be flame-bait. But it sure as shit is true: Democrat voters vote for more taxes and power to the government, then they're the ones who act surprised that power and money get misused.

How about growing up and not expecting the government to hold your wee-wee and otherwise take care of you?

Re:Don't worry, the government will make it better (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29777917)

Sorry but either the Gov or the Corp's are gonna get the power. I know the gov rarely looks out for the people but the corps NEVER look out for the people so right now it is a better bet to let the gov regulate than hope that the corps will do the right thing.

The perception of neutrality is "change" (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#29777747)

"Change we don't understand!" The reality that the legislators need to understand is that new neutrality is what we have when people/parties aren't actively doing harm to the way the public internet was designed to work. Net neutrality is what we have NOW. The net neutrality legislation would merely be written to keep things as they are in terms of large players disabling other large player or preventing small players from existing or growing.

Re:The perception of neutrality is "change" (1)

jfengel (409917) | more than 4 years ago | (#29778931)

> the way the public internet was designed to work.

The internet was designed to be flexible. Nothing in the protocols precludes non-neutrality, and there are already instances where ISPs favor some over others. Before the ultra-high-speed Tier 1s became ubiquitous, you ended up with non-neutral access based on who your ISP decided to connect to.

They just wanted to expand it further, prompting calls for a legislative solution. Legislative solutions to the Internet tend to fail. If you want something solved, you set up the protocols to enforce it. And the Internet Protocol was designed precisely to allow different subnets to have different policies to the greatest degree possible.

Maybe the world would be better off with a net neutrality law, but that's far from obvious, and it's not the way the Internet was designed.

My letter to my congressmen. (2, Interesting)

Logger (9214) | more than 4 years ago | (#29777805)

Time to get off our collective butts. Emails, Letters, and phone calls! Keep it short, sweet, clean, well reasoned, and SIMPLE. Remember their attention span isn't all that long. Here's my letter I just fired off to my senators and congressman.

Senator/Congress(man/woman) --------,

Please support net-neutrality.

When Cisco and cable/phone companies say "innovation" it is not my idea of innovation. Cisco means rather than competing with cheap, commodity hardware they can sell expensive traffic shaping hardware. The cable/phone companies mean rather than expanding their networks, they can reap more profit from the existing network. That may be an innovative way of generating profit, but it's not bringing innovative technology and services to the consumer.

Net-neutrality will protect truly innovative startup businesses like NetFlicks and Vonage from unfair and anti-competitive tatics by the cable/phone companies. Please support net-neutrality.

Sincerely,
----------

Re:My letter to my congressmen. (1)

aurizon (122550) | more than 4 years ago | (#29777847)

Good, non inflammatory letter. I think rational and non inflammatory letters have the best chance of being read and heard. Letters from loons are not considered at all.
We need to educate both parties about the reasons the USA has steadily fallen behind the rest of the world due to the actions of the Bell monopoly and it's descendants in the internet age.
The reasons are the real world bribery of the politicians by lobby groups, PACS etc, all driven by industry, who fear competition, ologopoly is so much better they say.
The FCC sees this and is on the side of the public, but it is vulnerable to the politicians and will yield to them and condemn us to a new dark ages, LOL

Apt analogy using telcos (5, Insightful)

taumeson (240940) | more than 4 years ago | (#29777813)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the case for Net Neutrality could easily be made by asking everyone opposed to it the following question:

"Do you support the ability for telephone companies to charge you different rates based on who you're calling instead of long distance charges?"

I would think it's a pretty obvious "no". We don't want the telephone company charging us different rates for calling Papa John's pizza instead of Domino's, right? We certainly don't want to get charged a different rate for calling one radio station over another (you know Clear Channel would want to work out some kind of deal).

Why does it seem logical to allow for broadband companies to pull this kind of stunt?

Re:Apt analogy using telcos (1)

baKanale (830108) | more than 4 years ago | (#29778209)

I don't understand that. Maybe if it were a car analogy.

How about, "Do you support the ability of toll bridges to charge you different tolls based on whether you're driving a Chevy or a Mercedes-Benz?"

Re:Apt analogy using telcos (4, Interesting)

will_die (586523) | more than 4 years ago | (#29778311)

However it would be wanted if you asked those same people:

"Should calls to the emergency call center be of the same priority as calls from telemarketers?"

Under the current proposals all ports and message types have to be treated at the same priority, so DoS attack would have the same priority as E-mail.

Re:Apt analogy using telcos (1)

falconwolf (725481) | more than 4 years ago | (#29778491)

Under the current proposals all ports and message types have to be treated at the same priority, so DoS attack would have the same priority as E-mail.

So change that. Just don't let access providers charge different rates depending on the originations and destinations. If I wanted VoIP phone service, not that I do, and I got it from one company why should my ISP be able to charge the ViOP service when it offers a compeating service? The compeating service still pays for it's access and I pay for my access.

Or say you're a Republican but your ISP supports Democrats, would you want your ISP to say what you can and can not access? That Republican website you want to visit is blacklisted, what would you think of that?

And don't forget, most broadband service areas do not have competition for broadband. Broadband is provided by 1 cable company or 1 phone company.

Falcon

Re:Apt analogy using telcos (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | more than 4 years ago | (#29779105)

there is a galaxy of difference between a contractual and requested prioritizing of traffic and an ISP shaping a network to block competing vendors services or interfering with traffic on the network.
examples
1 on my control panel i elect to have my VPN and VOIP be given a set amount of bandwidth --- this is requested
2 my isp decides to shape traffic so that third party VOIP and VPN services fail 85% of the time --- this is not requested and should be illegal
3 my isp decides to flood the network with reset packets and false routing to jam Torrent and other P2P traffic or drops my IP address during ftp sessions ----- should be illegal

giving a customer what they want is one thing
trying to sell bundle services by degrading third parties is another
interfering with traffic just to cut costs and increase bonuses you need to have a 9 chevron address to get to

Network Nuetrality is at its core Function as an Internet Service Provider and keep out of what is on the network UNLESS IT IS PART OF THE CONTRACT (or flat out straight up illegal to be on the network and then provide LEOs with what they need)

Re:Apt analogy using telcos (1)

skine (1524819) | more than 4 years ago | (#29778351)

It's not necessarily charging different rates, but rather enforced delay or blocking the site completely.

So to use your example, say a telco were to sign a deal with Papa John's that any of their customers who called Domino's would be put on hold for five minutes before being connected. Obviously this would severely cripple Domino's business.

The telco could take it one step further, and simply block any of their customers from calling Domino's. If there are only two telcos in town, this means that Domino's just lost about half of its delivery business.

Let's just bring back old-school AOL, then. (1)

dotfile (536191) | more than 4 years ago | (#29777821)

'We are concerned that some of the proposed regulations on the Internet could, as applied, inhibit the goal of universal access and leave disenfranchised communities further behind.'

In other words, 'We want to make sure everyone is just as screwed as our constituents. If they can't afford top-tier service, then no one else should be able to get it either.' Or am I completely misunderstanding the logic here?

God forbid we don't legislate absolute equality in every aspect of life for all our citizens; after all, look how well it worked out for China and the USSR. I know some people are uncomfortable with the concept of poor people not being able to afford everything that's available to not quite as poor people, or people who live in the boonies not having their corner Starbucks and fiber connectivity. But what they're bitching about is that if carriers aren't free to pick and choose what they deliver and how fast, you might have areas that lag behind the population centers.

Well, yeah, no shit. I suppose we could all go back to dialup service and AOL, then we'd all be on equal footing again. Screwed completely, but equal, which I guess is OK with 72 of our elected morons and a few groups whoring for attention. Of course then they'd be squealing about not all the phone lines in BFE supporting 56K, and the whole thing would start over again.

Must we always seek the lowest common denominator? Or could we maybe get comfortable with the simple fact that advanced services and technologies are pretty much always going to be available to employed people in population centers first, then spread as economy of scale comes into play? Did none of these people ever read or go to school? Jeez.

Problems with broandband (1)

falconwolf (725481) | more than 4 years ago | (#29777861)

It amazes me none of these people mention the root cause of the lack of broadband, there is no competition!

Falcon

+YUO FA^IL IT? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29777879)

goals I personally

Who has a copy of this letter, me the whole thing? (1)

wonkavader (605434) | more than 4 years ago | (#29777885)

I'm only seeing a few quotes repeated in a few forms.

Given that there's a typo in the first line of the extract which is getting bandied about I'm especially uncomfortable calling/emailing/faxing my congresscritter to rip him a new one.

I want to see the whole thing, THEN I will rip him a new one.

Which would be a service to him, because apparently, his current one is plugged by the external sexual organs of our local ILEC and cable companies.

This is ultimately the reason why ILECs are so slow, bloated and inefficient. The more people they have doing manual (both technical and paperwork) tasks, the less automation they have and the slower and less profitable they are, but conversely, the more votes they seem to control and the more they can enforce legislative support for archaic business models (monopolies wherever possible) and behaviors on the politicians in each state. "If this passes, we'll have to lay people off. We'll lay your district people off, and we'll blame you." They repeat this threat over and over, like a monotone operator message recording.

Our congresspeople keep screwing us (and primarily their own district people) because they're frightened. This is why you should always think very carefully before ever siding with an ILEC on ANYTHING.

What investment?! (1)

Dudeman_Jones (1589225) | more than 4 years ago | (#29777915)

Seriously, what investment would this be slowing? The Telcos already don't give a crap about the networks, that's how this whole disaster got started in the first place! They didn't want to upgrade, in order to artificially stimulate demand and thus profits. Cause and effect; This group fails at it.

Donations (1)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 4 years ago | (#29777939)

Check the recent campaign donations for all of those politicians. I suspect we'll see some notable opponents of net neutrality on the lists...

Sorry, but only idiots and those who make money from a lack of net neutrality would oppose it.

Wait... Maybe some of those politicians are just idiots...

In fact net neutrality forces companies to invest (1)

moxsam (917470) | more than 4 years ago | (#29777961)

It's the exact opposite to what they claim. Net neutrality does not slow down investment in broadband networks, in fact massive QoS is the best tool to stall any investment in the infrastructure. If a network can work good enough at nearly 90-100% utilization thanks to QoS even if it means that for example non-HTTP traffic is slowed down to the brink of uselessness, then why invest in faster links? And if every Telco is allowed to do it, then every Telco will do it, leaving the customers no choices. Net neutrality is good for the competition, good for the market and good for the customers. It's a regulation to keep the market vivid and to weed out those companies that are unfit to compete.

Special Interests (1)

just_another_sean (919159) | more than 4 years ago | (#29778111)

Yes because catering to special interests is obviously in the best interest of the poor and disenfranchised.
Corporate America has only the people at heart when lobbying for legislation that benefits them. To do anything
but meet their demands is heartless and cruel.

Net Neutrality must be forced on companies (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 4 years ago | (#29778293)

The whole problem with the internet is that there no where near enough competition already amongst ISPs. How is effectively killing competition amongst online businesses going to improve anything?

Re:Net Neutrality must be forced on companies (2, Interesting)

petrus4 (213815) | more than 4 years ago | (#29778371)

As far as I'm concerned, business shouldn't rightfully have anything to do with the Internet at all.

I remember the net before business came here. I also remember that when business came, government came after it. Then came spam.

The corporate world destroys everything it touches, one way or another. The profit motive leads ultimately to nothing but corruption and death.

It cannot be allowed to dictate the Internet. It's bad enough that the fucking suits exist; there must be some places where their rule is not recognised.

Re:Net Neutrality must be forced on companies (1)

j1mmy (43634) | more than 4 years ago | (#29778855)

slashdot is owned and opreated by SourceForge Inc., a business. if you really think the net would be better off without any businesses, stop posting here or any other websites that aren't run by non-profits or government departments.

no screw no investment (1)

dwreid (966865) | more than 4 years ago | (#29778315)

So if I understand the position of these legislators I could properly restate their postion as: 'The big companies pay us money and then tell us what to think. Therefore, we think that the big companies should be allowed to screw their customers anytime they want. If they are not allowed to screw their customers then they might stop investing in their core business. Since we are corrupt shills, we have agreed to support our corporate sponsors in defeating any regulation that might protect consumers from being screwed thus maximizing their profits and our contributions.' There, that seems more clear.

I can see what they are worried about... (1)

divisionbyzero (300681) | more than 4 years ago | (#29778521)

Here are their concerns: 1) net neutrality will make internet access more expensive and will cause the Telcos to slow roll-out to new locations; 2) net neutrality will prevent, say, Comcast from offering, say, Yahoo the chance to serve its content an additional 4 mbps faster to Comcast customers for a fee. Both concerns are overblown. While to a certain extent they are true in the long run slow incremental increases in the global quality of connectivity is highly preferred to localized improvements. Basically, the Telco's lobbyists' fingerprints are all over this astroturf. They feed these representatives a line with just enough truth to motivate them and lots of money and then watch them spinoff into a public frenzy spreading FUD everywhere. As usual we see that politicians are idiots and lobbyists are scum bags.

i still don't understand the push for this (1)

j1mmy (43634) | more than 4 years ago | (#29778843)

government regulations have a long history of unintended consequences. it's good to see that these lawmakers recognize that.

furthermore, the internet has done exceptionally well so far without such rules. i think we're better off without them, in spite of the few incidences of filtering and blocking some providers have tried.

(hollywood) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29779179)

When the previous [slashdot.org] Net Neutrality story appeared I was amused to read many comments along the lines; "if the Republicans are against it, it must be good," in reference to the 18 Republican senators cited in the story. There are many forces involved in monetizing the Internet. Among the wealthiest and best connected are the content producers, a.k.a Hollywood. With whom does Hollywood invest most of it's campaign contributions? Let us look [opensecrets.org] and see if we can't discover what has motivated so many Democrats to 'question' the FCC.

Those of you that have allowed yourselves to be trained by your schools and your celebrities to suffer involuntary knee spasms on contact with all things Republican have been blinded to the larger picture.

How much money did these 72 get from CableTelco? (1)

rberger (2481) | more than 4 years ago | (#29779243)

It would be interesting to see how much AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner has contributed to these folks.

I would say that Internet first/last mile deployment and innovation stopped when it was re-oligopolized 10 years ago.

I still don't have ANY choice of ANY high speed Internet service in Saratoga, CA part of Silicon Valley. The best Internet connection I can get for my startup in Mountain View Callifornia, the heart of Silicon Valley is limited to 500Kbps upstream.

I would say that they are already doing a bad job with no net neutrality legislation and it will only get worse until we break them up. This time correctly.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...