×

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!

House Democrats Shelve Net Neutrality Proposal

kdawson posted more than 3 years ago | from the neutron-walks-into-a-bar dept.

The Internet 221

crimeandpunishment writes "A compromise on net neutrality appears to be as likely as Google and China becoming BFFs. House Democrats have pulled the plug on efforts to work out a compromise among phone, cable, and Internet companies. House Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, who shelved the proposal late on Wednesday in the face of Republican opposition, said, 'If Congress can't act, the FCC must,' and called this development 'a loss for consumers.' Internet companies and public interest groups say the new regulations are needed to keep phone and cable companies from playing favorites with traffic, while those companies insist they need flexibility so high-bandwidth applications don't slow down their systems." The net neutrality debate seems to have fallen victim to the extreme polarization evident in the larger political culture.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

221 comments

No net neutrality for YOU! (-1, Redundant)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 3 years ago | (#33757518)

As this was the subject of my journal yesterday, I'll just link the journal. [slashdot.org]

You? Why TF should they care about YOU? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33757746)

Democrats, Republicans... what's the difference? Neither one cares about the citizenry. This farce of democracy is made so evident by, well, everything they do. Even the idea of calling them "representatives" is a farce, since they don't represent us. Well, I suppose they DO represent themselves and their monied interests.

If you genuinely want to break out of this kind of rule, you need to break it from the bottom. Free software didn't compete with commercial software by asking the corporations if they would mind please changing the way they charge for things. No, free software started by people just doing it, and ignoring the monied interests.

You can do the same thing with governance [metagovernment.org]. All you have to do is contribute to one of the many projects listed there, or to the umbrella group.

Or you can just sit back and whine about how the Democrats and/or Republicans screwed you over again. Here's a tip: it is never going to stop unless you stop relying on them to make decisions for you.

Re:You? Why TF should they care about YOU? (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33758074)

I'm so tired of the "they're equally bad" argument. They aren't. Republican's have systematically destroyed the middle class in the last 30 years, not the Democrats. The Republican's are lying hypocrites that utilize threats of violence and appeal to the most racist/homophobic members of our society.

They are both bad, but they are not equally bad.

Re:You? Why TF should they care about YOU? (-1, Flamebait)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 3 years ago | (#33758102)

"I'm so tired of the "they're equally bad" argument. They aren't. Democrats have systematically destroyed the middle class in the last 30 years, not the Republicans. The Democrats are lying hypocrites that utilize threats of violence and appeal to the most racist/homophobic members of our society.

They are both bad, but they are not equally bad."

Weird. Just as true, plus I know how to use apostrophes. Put down the pom-poms and GAFC.

Re:You? Why TF should they care about YOU? (5, Informative)

AmigaMMC (1103025) | more than 3 years ago | (#33758296)

You got that one wrong, you meant to write Republicans (homophobic, racist, anti-middle class...). Who voted against the repeal of DADT? Republicans, Who voted against a more comprehensive anti hate crime law? Republicans. Who sleeps with the religious right bowing to its will? Republicans. Who voted against tax breaks for small businesses 2 weeks ago? Republicans. Who voted against tax breaks for corporations who keep jobs in the U.S. less than a week ago? Republicans. Who created a $13 TRILLION hole in the government finances? BUSH thank you very much, he's a republicans.
and the list goes on... As for the last 30 years, actually I beat you, let's do 60 years, under Democrats the income of the middle class has steadily increased by 3%/year and that of the upper class by 2%/year, under Republicans the increase has been around 1% for both.

if you want to believe propaganda go right ahead, You would look a lot smarter if you did some research first though. I'm an independent and I can think with my own brain. There are lots of stupid Democrats but they don't resemble the Republicans by far.

Re:You? Why TF should they care about YOU? (3, Interesting)

BigHungryJoe (737554) | more than 3 years ago | (#33758476)

You know, that's all true. The only people who do believe that the parties are equally bad (geminidomino) don't actually pay attention to politics.

Re:You? Why TF should they care about YOU? (2, Funny)

MaWeiTao (908546) | more than 3 years ago | (#33758808)

The people who don't think the parties are equally bad are delusional.

Re:You? Why TF should they care about YOU? (3, Insightful)

Moryath (553296) | more than 3 years ago | (#33759054)

You got that one wrong, you meant to write Republicans (homophobic, racist, anti-middle class...).

As opposed to Democrats, who keep people in what is basically slavery, lie about trying to "improve education" while doing their best to make sure it is never improved for their voting base, tax the fuck out of people to pay for deadbeats (my city is now 13bn in the hole thanks to demofucks on the city council and the mayor's office not doing shit to get the Katrina Debris out: those lazy assholes are STILL demanding government payouts and housing/welfare checks with no plan to ever go home) and endorse the evisceration of the First Amendment, Second Amendment, and anything else in that pesky "Constitution" thingy that gets in their way?

Who voted against the repeal of DADT? Republicans

Also most of the joint chiefs of staff... who are not republicans.

Who voted against a more comprehensive anti hate crime law?

I believe the word you really mean is "thoughtcrime law", which many of us of a libertarian bent view as a Bad Thing.

Who sleeps with the religious right bowing to its will? Republicans.

Funny. Ever seen black preachers in action, poverty-pimping the slaves back to the Democrat for another round of uninformed, uneducated, "voting"?

Who voted against tax breaks for small businesses 2 weeks ago? Republicans.

What else was in the bill? Oh yeah, another round of TARP-crap that would have been WORTHLESS to small businesses. But you're too busy being a partisan fucktard to notice.

Who voted against tax breaks for corporations who keep jobs in the U.S. less than a week ago? Republicans.

See above...

Who created a $13 TRILLION hole in the government finances? BUSH thank you very much, he's a republicans.

Who voted for every bit of that spending legislation? Oh yeah, the DEMOCRATS... including Obama, every time since 2004...

As for the last 30 years, actually I beat you, let's do 60 years, under Democrats the income of the middle class has steadily increased by 3%/year and that of the upper class by 2%/year, under Republicans the increase has been around 1% for both.

Do you mean under a Democrat president or Democrat congress? Because the two are fundamentally different due to the lack of a line-item veto. The strongest growth was actually 1994-2000, when it was Clinton in the President's chair (holding the Republicans in check when he wasn't too busy getting blowjobs from interns) but the Republicans at least being sort-of fiscally responsible in the spending bills which Clinton only got a veto/pass vote on.

If we had a line item veto, I'd say fuck it, just make sure that no party gets hold of House, Senate, and Presidency all at once. As it stands, I'm more comfortable with a Republican congress and a Democrat president to hold them in check, thanks.

The problem is NOT one side or the other. The problem is Americans are too fucking stupid and uneducated these days to recognize that in order for our system to work, we have to have some goddamn checks and balances. The system, as stated, is not to rely on the goodness of men, but rather, ambition must be made to counteract ambition [constitution.org].

If there's a Democrat in the oval office, I vote Republican for congress. If there's a Republican in the oval office, I vote Democrat for office. Every time we've had one party controlling it all - Carter, Clinton's first two years, Bush's first six (and fuck it, his last two as well, since he was a wimpy-ass lame-duck RINO retard who didn't veto even ONE THING that Pelosi and Reid sent his way in 2006-2008), America suffered for it.

That's the reality. Now grow up and get your partisan head out of your partisan ass.

Re:You? Why TF should they care about YOU? (4, Funny)

crlove (857212) | more than 3 years ago | (#33759388)

I disagree with you, but I'm pretty sure you're not Hitler.

I second that-- parent post (1)

bussdriver (620565) | more than 3 years ago | (#33759898)

While the democrats are clearly better on a range of issues at certain times in the nations history and are quite easily the better of the two parties overall (they are the oldest for a reason) it becomes difficult to make generalized statements about them over time. Even my statement, the parties changed so much long ago that its almost like they swapped names.

Right now, on most any issue of importance which conflicts with the corporate powers, the democrats are just putting up an act. -both working for the same master but with a different act. Because the democrats have to sell themselves as opposing some of these forces, they will throw out a bone or two while still licking the boots of their corporate masters. Slight difference, I often think its worse to appease each side with weak measures and flip who is "in power" every few years to keep the public distracted and just placated enough to be inactive.

There are a few good ones in each, but more on the democrat side-- not that it matters who has more decent reps because its STILL a minority. BTW, the GOP is not tolerant of decent and hasn't been for some time, they have just gone off the deep end as far as their purging in the last 15 years. So a decent one has less chance in the GOP these days.

Then you have the moves made by corrupt democrats and nearly all republicans to increase corp/bank influences over them. From the Nixon years to the K street 90s to compromises in McCain/Feingold campaign reform - all increased corp power over them; mostly dems. The latter one undermined union influence over the dems and that vacuum was filled by corps (who's job is not to represent voters, unlike the unions; regardless of "your" beliefs of that concept.)

Net neutrality SHOULD have had an easy time in the HOUSE; clearly the majority fears the loss of MONEY at this time-- the only shot it had was in 2009 and now thanks to the crooks in the S. Court it won't have that chance again.

Then we have the pragmatists... Those who give in to corruption so they do not get crushed with the excuse that they can only pick so many fights and must give in on all the others. Many "honest" people faced with the reality of the situation would cave in and I suspect that over time would slowly become corrupted as well as shorten their list of principles they won't compromise. (Unless, they never make such compromises, like Ron Paul.) You should understand this unless people refer to you as unreasonable. I also find the older people are the more ways they have to rationalize their actions, including convincing themselves (aka lying to themselves.)

Re:You? Why TF should they care about YOU? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33758414)

DEMOCRATS have destroyed the middle class? BWAHWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH.

You should do stand up.

Re:You? Why TF should they care about YOU? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33760092)

DEMOCRATS have destroyed the middle class? BWAHWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH.

You should do stand up.

You should grow a brain:

US Census report: Poverty levels spike to record highs [salon.com]

... there are more than 44 million Americans living in poverty, up 4.8 million from last year ...

Number of poor in US jumps to record 43.7 million [google.com]

The number of people living in poverty in the United States leapt by nearly four million last year to 43.7 million, the highest number since the US Census began collecting data on America's poor 51 years ago, officials said Thursday.

But, please, don't let facts fuck up your delusions.

In fact, I'm sure you can use your self-identified intellectual superiority, do a lot of mental masturbation to make yourself feel better, and blame skyrocketing rates of poverty on Republicans, despite the fact that Democrats have controlled the House and Senate since 2006 and the Presidency since 2008.

Or you can actually grow up and think.

I'm betting on the mental masturbation.

polarization (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33758044)

The net neutrality debate seems to have fallen victim to the extreme polarization evident in the larger political culture.

Yes, polarization between those who receive huge contributions from the media lobbies, and those who don't.

Re:No net neutrality for YOU! (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 3 years ago | (#33760262)

From the AP (via Yahoo) [yahoo.com] (emphasis mine): "House Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., abandoned the effort late Wednesday in the face of Republican opposition to his proposed "network neutrality" rules. Those rules were intended to prevent broadband providers from becoming online gatekeepers by playing favorites with traffic."

I'm going to piss some people off by saying this, but the Democrats are pussies. Goddamned balless wimps. For Christ's sake, they have a majority in both houses, yet they're so pussified that the minority Republicans can block them. WTF???

But the phone and cable companies insist they need flexibility to manage network traffic so that high-bandwidth applications don't hog capacity and slow down their systems. They say this is particularly true for wireless networks, which have more bandwidth constraints than wired systems. The communications companies also argue that after spending billions to upgrade their networks for broadband, they need to be able earn a healthy return by offering premium services. Burdensome net neutrality rules, they say, would discourage future investments.

First they say they don't have the bandwidth, then they say they need a "healthy" (read: windfall) profit from their investments in bandwidth. Which is it? Speak of talking out of both sides of your mouth! Is there anybody less honest than a corporate mouthpiece? I have more respect for a crackhead than these evil assholes. At least you know the crackhead is lying when he says he wants twenty bucks "for a prescription".

And the thing is, from the AP story, it's more about Net Neutrality for wireless customers than wired customers. This makes no sense whatever. I have a plethora of wireless choices; competetion makes Net Neutrality Regs completely unnecessary for wireless providers. On the other hand, I and most other people have only one "choice" for wired broadband -- in my case, Comcast. Others have other monopoly providers, but almost all of them are monopolies.

ALL MONOPOLIES NEED HEAVY REGULATION! Where there is a lot of competetion, the free market keeps things in check in most cases. But when there is little or no competetion, the government needs to step in.

Waxman's proposal, in part, fell victim to today's political climate, with Republicans hoping to rack up gains in the upcoming midterm elections apparently unwilling to help Democrats make progress on such a contentious issue. With an anti-government, anti-regulation sentiment sweeping the nation -- and boosting Tea Party candidates -- Republicans also were reluctant to support a proposal that opponents equate to regulating the Internet.

Contentious? Huh? The only contention is between giants like Google and Time Warner. Net neutrality is a boon for anyone wanting to USE the internet.

The anti-government sentiment comes from the fact that government (neither major party) has done Jack Schitt for the average working stiff while bending over backwards for sociopaths like Charles and David Koch [illinoistimes.com], who are according to the Jim Hightower article linked, behind the tea party astroturfing movement.

"Opponents who equate" net neutrality "to regulating the Internet" are disingenuous at best. This doesn't "regulate the internet", it regulates the monopolies who deliver the unregulated internet to your computer.

If it comes between the goverment regulating the providers and the providers regulating the internet, I'll take government regulation any day.
--------
Mods, please read the guidelines.

My first "bump" where this law could help (5, Informative)

cybrthng (22291) | more than 3 years ago | (#33757550)

As some of you know Xbox Live is getting a cool update called ESPN3. The concept of the app & system is pretty amazing, technology has come a long way to make it so. What you probably didn't know is that to get the deal, Microsoft had to get the ISP's to agree to license the content for Internet Users in order to broadcast ESPN3 over the internet. Not all ISP's bought the license, so not everyone will have ESPN3 - even if you're a Xbox live subscriber.

This is an area where net neutrality should shine. It should protect Microsoft and allow them to license content to distribute and it should protect consumers to not be held hostage to a carrier paying for content as a middleman. I hope this EPSN3 thing can light the fire under the community so they understand how net neutrality can impact them. I know this isn't the "typical case of concern" in regards to p2p or throttling or priority of services, but this just goes to show that Internet Traffic is already beeing bought and sold not just as a commodity itself but something that people have now had to license in order to push specific traffic over that commodity on as a carrier - not just a distributor.

With that said, the app is freaking amazing and i don't even like much sports. The fact you can watch scores, hedge on who will win and i'm sititng in my living room watching HD games on demand or live is pretty awesome. I admire comcast for building out the network to support stuff and maybe, that is what the license agreed to but damn, these backroom deals are dissapointing for the consumer and only pollute the fairness & equality of having broadband now into having to chose a carrior that has the right license deals, not just the best performance.

Re:My first "bump" where this law could help (5, Insightful)

rotide (1015173) | more than 3 years ago | (#33757624)

As far as I understand it, this ESPN3 issue isn't a choice of MS nor ISPs. This is a choice of Disney/ESPN themselves charging for access to their services. Basically, providers have to pay ESPN for access. If they don't pay ESPN, no ESPN3. This has nothing to do with ISP's deciding what to and not to allow you to see.

Re:My first "bump" where this law could help (5, Informative)

j0nb0y (107699) | more than 3 years ago | (#33757762)

There's a separate fee for ESPN3 (previously known as ESPN360). Almost every provider provides ESPN on basic access, so that's not the issue. The issue is that ESPN is charging a PER SUBSCRIBER FEE for a WEBSITE to ISPs. This means that if your provider has ESPN3, you are paying for it, whether you want it or not. ESPN wants to turn the Internet into cable TV. That is the issue.

Re:My first "bump" where this law could help (5, Informative)

j0nb0y (107699) | more than 3 years ago | (#33757774)

I'll also note that this per subscriber fee is significantly higher for small ISPs. By about a thousand percent... as a result, small ISPs do not carry the service. If you *want* ESPN3, you have to switch to a big carrier, because you cannot buy an individual subscription to the site.

Re:My first "bump" where this law could help (1, Informative)

rotide (1015173) | more than 3 years ago | (#33757802)

Still don't think that's a net neutrality issue. That's just ESPN locking their site/services to those _providers_ willing to pay them. If this was an issue like MLB.tv where end users have to pay, it would be basically the same deal. The way I see it, this is just a different way for Disney/ESPN to bill. It's a crappy setup, but it's not a net neutrality issue.

Re:My first "bump" where this law could help (2, Insightful)

cybrthng (22291) | more than 3 years ago | (#33757944)

I think it falls into the gray area of net neutrality because it takes away the choices consumers should have and makes them superficial to actually being on the internet. So broadband isn't broadband if your carrier is responsible for chosing what services you can use on it. I mostly made my statement to get people to think about these "outside of the box" issues.

Re:My first "bump" where this law could help (1)

nicolas.kassis (875270) | more than 3 years ago | (#33758884)

But they aren't choosing, Disney/ESPN is. Why should the ISP make you pay for something you might not even want. ESPN3 is very cool but my mom won't ever watch it. I'd pay money to get the service, but ESPN won't let me. Disney are being douchebags, the ISP are just not letting them fuck you over. I'm in support of the ISP in this case. If ESPN had their way, the phone company would have to pay to let you call ESPNs tech support. I'll say it again, if ESPN allowed me to pay to get the service I would.

Re:My first "bump" where this law could help (1)

rotide (1015173) | more than 3 years ago | (#33759318)

Exactly how I see it. This is entirely on ESPN. They are simply billing the end user in such a way that removes the end user from the decision making process. Either the ISP antes up on behalf of the end user (and your monthly bill will probably reflect that), and you get the service, or they don't and you're S.O.L.

This is clearly not a net neutrality issue. The ISP isn't limiting or throttling you. The ISP isn't really deciding if you can or can't have the ESPN3 service. ESPN3 is deciding who can and can not access their services through a paywall that the ISP will be on the hook for if they decide to carry it.

Now, I can see this _enticing_ a net neutrality issue in the future however.

$ISP antes up and pays for ESPN3 access but explicitly blocks it to all users. Now $ISP charges its customers, who want the service, an extra $10 a month to have ESPN3 service _unblocked_. Now the ISP is choosing what to send to you by putting up ACL's, etc. That is a net neutrality issue.

P.S., damn there is a mod who doesn't like me.

Re:My first "bump" where this law could help (2, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33760264)

>>>That's just ESPN locking their site/services to those _providers_ willing to pay them

It's an issue due to the lack of internet choice. If my provider (Comcast for example) decides to pay ESPN360 plus DisneyConnection plus FXextra plus all those other "paywall" sites, then that means my internet cost will gradually climb higher, just as Comcast TV gradually climbed from $25 to $65 when CATV channels increased their rates from ~25 to ~75 cents per home.

Unfortunately I have no other choice. I either pay the monopoly, or I get no internet.

NOW if the republicans would get off their ass, and revoke Comcast's exclusive license, I'd be able to choose somebody else like Cox, or Cablevision, or Time-Warner, or whoever. But the republicans don't seem to understand that the market is a monopoly. They can't get their head around the idea, and keep falsely calling it a "free market" when it isn't.

Note I don't think the Democrats have the right idea either.
They too want to allow Comcast to keep its monopoly. :-|

Re:My first "bump" where this law could help (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33758138)

Wow, and I just thought they were assholes for having video (with sound) of whatever-the-fuck automatically play when you visit their website. This is a whole new level of asshole.

Re:My first "bump" where this law could help (2, Insightful)

cybrthng (22291) | more than 3 years ago | (#33757764)

The deal as it is with Xbox live ESPN3 is entirely with your ISP licensing the content, no choice for consumer. If it was a consumer option I would have opted out of paying for it in liue of the price hikes.

Re:My first "bump" where this law could help (1)

nicolas.kassis (875270) | more than 3 years ago | (#33758900)

Yup, I'm with you on that. I like ESPN3 but I'm totally ok with my ISP telling them to fuck off.

Re:My first "bump" where this law could help (4, Insightful)

Moryath (553296) | more than 3 years ago | (#33757634)

Watch it when you mention "backroom deals." Those things are what got us the 1976 copyright extension act, 1998 Mickey Mouse/Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act, DMCA, DMCA2, ACTA (thankfully not ratified yet but just watch them slip it through in the dead of night).

We can just bet that the real reason this is being "delayed" is that the Senate right now is busy passing the "Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act" (aka the "Fuck Consumers In The Ass Act") under a "fast-track" by the corrupt party in power (as opposed to the corrupt party OUT of power).

They want to have the authority to shut down any website they see fit by accusing it of "piracy." Not only that, they want the ability to order US ISP's to "black out" access to overseas websites they accuse of "piracy."

How long till this starts to be a tool for political repression? Seems the Democrats have taken a page from their funding backers over in China. [google.com] Maybe in a few years rather than needing Tor to get news out to people inside China, we'll be needing it just to survive the Great Firewall of America...

Re:My first "bump" where this law could help (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33757644)

With that said, the app is freaking amazing and i don't even like much sports. The fact you can watch scores, hedge on who will win and i'm sititng in my living room watching HD games on demand or live is pretty awesome.

I too have an XBox and also have XBox Live. Were these new features released last night or something? Because as of right now it's only in testing [arstechnica.com] ... so if you're experiencing this right now while "sititng" in your living room, I would like to know how this is possible.

Otherwise you sound like little more than a dumbshit fanboi trying to sell this to everyone.

The fact you can watch scores, hedge on who will win

So it's like ESPN3.com with avatars? "Hedge on who will win" that's funny.

Re:My first "bump" where this law could help (2, Informative)

Moryath (553296) | more than 3 years ago | (#33757682)

Because as of right now it's only in testing ... so if you're experiencing this right now while "sititng" in your living room, I would like to know how this is possible.

Because MS is already sending invitations to selected people [softsailor.com] to beta-test the new Xbox Live and Kinect setups?

Run away! Run away! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33757584)

The party of brave, brave Sir Robin!

Can't even stay in town to address looming massive tax increases for everyone.

Re:Run away! Run away! (1)

mrsquid0 (1335303) | more than 3 years ago | (#33757690)

Actually, the tax changes for most people will be rather small.

Re:Run away! Run away! (2, Insightful)

Andraax (87926) | more than 3 years ago | (#33758032)

For you maybe. People in my pay range ($70-95K) are looking at Federal tax increases of over $2,000. Might be chump change to you, but not to me.

Re:Run away! Run away! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33758160)

Greedy asshole. I would give $2000 more to be 'burdened' with that tax bracket. Like about 75% of Americans, I make less than that.

Re:Run away! Run away! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33759092)

Greedy asshole. I would give $2000 more to be 'burdened' with that tax bracket. Like about 75% of Americans, I make less than that.

Why don't you WORK for it instead of expecting it to be GIVEN to you?

No one but YOU is stopping you from improving yourself.

And calling someone who who wants to keep the fruits of their labors a "greedy asshole" just demonstrates what a petty, jealous, infantile, GIMMEEE GIMMMEEE GIMMMEEE jackass you are.

Re:Run away! Run away! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33760116)

Then maybe you should work a little harder to make it into that tax bracket. Whiny bitch.

Re:Run away! Run away! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33758108)

Actually, the tax changes for most people will be rather small.

Yeah, right. $700 billion in tax increases is "rather small".

Bet you fail to see the problem with that, don't you? And I bet you're wondering where the utter bitch-slapping the Democrats are going to take at the polls in a month is coming from.

Get this: Russ Feingold - iconic and very liberal long-term Democrat Senator from Wisconsin - is down 15 points to his Republican opponent.

Two long-term Democrat Senators from California are in fights for their political lives - ultra-liberal California. They're so damn desperate that they're trying a "look, she hired an illegal immigrant" smear campaign. Yep, the party that won't allow the US as a sovereign nation to enforce its borders is pulling a race-and-illegal-immigrant-based smear campaign: "She's a Latina working as a maid - how can you NOT think she could be an illegal?!?!" Nope, no fanti-immigrant FUD/racism there. Oh, no, not from Democrats.

Bandwidth hogs should pay more.... (0, Flamebait)

scharkalvin (72228) | more than 3 years ago | (#33757586)

"Phone and cable companies insist they need flexibility so high-bandwidth applications don't slow down their systems."
Fine. Let them charge the content producers by bandwidth. The wider bandwidth your content needs, the more you will pay. Low bandwidth content (most web pages actually) would get a free ride, things like Hulu and Youtube would probaby have to open their wallets to help support the inferstructure. Just so long as nobody gets priority over anybody else. First come first serve, but if you take more than average you pay for it.

Re:Bandwidth hogs should pay more.... (3, Informative)

Suki I (1546431) | more than 3 years ago | (#33757626)

"Phone and cable companies insist they need flexibility so high-bandwidth applications don't slow down their systems." Fine. Let them charge the content producers by bandwidth. The wider bandwidth your content needs, the more you will pay. Low bandwidth content (most web pages actually) would get a free ride, things like Hulu and Youtube would probaby have to open their wallets to help support the inferstructure. Just so long as nobody gets priority over anybody else. First come first serve, but if you take more than average you pay for it.

As an ATT&T wireless user who has exceeded her monthly 5Gb limit once or twice, I can tell you for a fact, we "hogs" do pay more for additional usage. Too bad we don't get "rollover" bits.

Re:Bandwidth hogs should pay more.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33757670)

As an ATT&T wireless user...

American Telephone, Telegraph & Teleportation? Sweet! Let me be the first to welcome you to the 21st century, Future Man!

Re:Bandwidth hogs should pay more.... (1)

scharkalvin (72228) | more than 3 years ago | (#33757724)

Ah but the point is that you didn't PUT the content on the net did you, you just consumed it. People like you shouldn't have to pay, and THAT'S what the FCC needs to regulate.

Re:Bandwidth hogs should pay more.... (4, Insightful)

Suki I (1546431) | more than 3 years ago | (#33757806)

Ah but the point is that you didn't PUT the content on the net did you, you just consumed it. People like you shouldn't have to pay, and THAT'S what the FCC needs to regulate.

The point is, I used the bandwidth.

Re:Bandwidth hogs should pay more.... (3, Insightful)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 3 years ago | (#33757844)

Wait... so you're saying that people who produce and provide need to penalized? That sounds awfully familiar...

Re:Bandwidth hogs should pay more.... (4, Informative)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 3 years ago | (#33758020)

Actually I don't see any problem with charging consumers more per se. If I use twice the bandwidth that my neighbor does, then there's some logic that I pay twice as much. What's objectionable isn't that they charge more for using more bandwidth, but that they charge more for applications that they assume will use more bandwidth. Example:

I have an Internet connection. I use it for e-mail and web browsing (low bandwidth activities) on a moderate scale, but a few times a month I torrent something (Blizzard uses torrents for it's game updates, Linux distros, etc). While I occasionally use this "high bandwidth application" my overall usage is rather low (say 5-7 GB a month).

My neighbor has the same Internet connection I do. He uses only "low bandwidth applications", but he uses them *constantly*. Say he's a teenager and it's summer vacation. He's *always* doing something on the 'Net. He downloads multiple small files (often at the same time), but does so over low bandwidth (theoretically) protocols like http and ftp. In the end he uses way more bandwidth in a given month than me. 25-30 GB.

Under the types of rules that Internet companies want to see, I would be potentially charged more than my neighbor. Because I use a "high bandwidth service" (despite that I don't use it much and it doesn't actually add up to that much bandwidth), and he doesn't (despite that he actually uses far more bandwidth because of his sheer volume of activity).

A big part of the problem here is that Americans have gotten used to "unlimited Internet". No ISP wants to be the first to say "you pay by the GB", because they know that they'll get their lunches eaten by all the "unlimited" services. So rather than limit the actual bandwidth people are allowed to use (or charging a metered rate), they attempt to offer "unlimited" service while at the same time demonizing certain protocols and applications and trying to charge more for those. This allows them to claim that you can use the network as much as you want, while at the same time curtailing the use of protocols that are most likely to stress the network.

Net Neutrality isn't about you getting free Internetz. It's about companies being forced to sell unrestricted access to the network (on the protocol and application level). They can sell packages based on bandwidth or based on total usage (or both), but not based on protocols or who you're trying to connect to. They can charge you more for more Mbs. They can charge you more because you use more total GB a month. They can't charge you more because you want to use Bittorrent or access a competitor's website.

Re:Bandwidth hogs should pay more.... (2, Insightful)

elewton (1743958) | more than 3 years ago | (#33757700)

Hulu and Youtube pay for their own bandwidth and the ISP sells bandwidth to its customers.

There's no justification to charge a company that is providing the value you sell. If customers want a higher percentage of your network traffic, charge them for it.

Re:Bandwidth hogs should pay more.... (2, Interesting)

scharkalvin (72228) | more than 3 years ago | (#33757758)

That's not what they want to do. They want money from Hulu and Youtube to give THEIR packets 'special treatment'. I don't think it's fair to charge the end user who receives the content as the user didn't make any money from the deliver. Hulu MAKES money from the content (via the commericals or their proposed pay for view system).

Re:Bandwidth hogs should pay more.... (3, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 3 years ago | (#33757728)

Fine. Let them charge the content producers by bandwidth.

You must own an ISP, because that idea is bullocks. I pay my ISP to pipe content from my provider to my computer. If the content provider is paying, why should I?

If your system doesn't have the bandwidth to serve your customers, you need to invest in infrastructure. If you can't get a return on your investment you need to get the hell out of the business.

The phrase "taking you coming and going" springs to mind. This kind of nonsense really pissses me off. IMO the "troll" mod should have been "flamebait", but at least it's a downmod.

Re:Bandwidth hogs should pay more.... (1)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 3 years ago | (#33758122)

Because *you* are using bandwidth. If *you* use more bandwidth than the guy next to you, it's reasonable to think that *you* pay more. Not because you used the wrong protocol, no. Not because you went to Youtube, when your ISP has a deal with Hulu, no. But because you used more resources than your neighbor, sure. Net Neutrality has nothing to do with whether you're charged for speed, total bandwidth used, or both. It's about preventing you from being charged extra to use certain protocols or access certain destinations.

Re:Bandwidth hogs should pay more.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33758226)

The problem with paying by the byte is you'll be charges for incoming packets, regardless of whether they have anything to do with what you're doing. You may not even have any active network connections. People/bots can DoS/flood you're IP address for many reasons. All those packets go on your bill. ISPs already have tiered options, and they not just tied to bandwidth.

Re:Bandwidth hogs should pay more.... (2, Insightful)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 3 years ago | (#33758650)

Because *you* are using bandwidth. If *you* use more bandwidth than the guy next to you, it's reasonable to think that *you* pay more. Not because you used the wrong protocol, no. Not because you went to Youtube, when your ISP has a deal with Hulu, no. But because you used more resources than your neighbor, sure. Net Neutrality has nothing to do with whether you're charged for speed, total bandwidth used, or both. It's about preventing you from being charged extra to use certain protocols or access certain destinations

And you know what? Very few people have a problem with that. A bill to accomplish ONLY that would be what, maybe 10-20 pages at most? Why does it take X*thousand pages?

The problem, dear poster, is that the government insists on passing another HUGE freaking piece of government-expanding legislation that does a whole metric crap-ton of things that have NOTHING whatsoever to do with the nuts-and-bolts of "net neutrality" as discussed here. Most of which gives the government even more control over the intertubes and YOU, thus removing freedom, while causing costs to skyrocket for ISPs and consumers. The "net neutrality" part of the legislation is but a tiny fraction, and would probably be hard to even find if it is even still present at all by the time it's passed.

Strat

Re:Bandwidth hogs should pay more.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33757842)

"Phone and cable companies insist they need flexibility so high-bandwidth applications don't slow down their systems."
Fine. Let them charge the content producers by bandwidth. ...

What the hell do you think they WANT to do?

But the content providers want to be the ones who get that money.

And since Google is one of those content providers and is also the universe's love child, sheeple have jumped on the "net neutrality" bandwagon.

Here's a clue: Google's on the same "we must regulate the interwebz" side as the MAFIAA.

Re:Bandwidth hogs should pay more.... (1)

mldi (1598123) | more than 3 years ago | (#33760168)

You already do pay more for faster connections. Slower connections have an inherited cap. If they can't handle the bandwidth load then they shouldn't sell it at those speeds, either that or they should upgrade their infrastructure.

I'll Say It Again ... (4, Insightful)

smpoole7 (1467717) | more than 3 years ago | (#33757602)

It would really, really help if we'd explain to my conservative friends just what "Net Neutrality" is. They are convinced that it's some form of Fairness Doctrine for the Web that will limit content.

(The fact that such a "fairness doctrine" might limit Mother Jones and Salon just as much as it does FrontPageMag and World Net Daily, depending on the party in power, doesn't seem to occur to them, either.)

I try to explain to them that it simply means that, if I visit YouTube, I don't want my ISP to limit their bandwidth because Microsoft (or someone else) has paid a premium for priority for *their* bandwidth.

We geeks have several flaws, and one of them is our love of catchphrases and acronyms. We just *assume* that everyone knows what "free software" and "net neutrality" mean. But when you start dealing with the Body Politick At Large(tm), that's not necessarily so. A few minutes to carefully explain just what we're actually talking about will go a long way ...

Re:I'll Say It Again ... (0, Flamebait)

Moryath (553296) | more than 3 years ago | (#33757716)

Combine this with the COICA act the Demofucks are pushing on "fast track" through the Senate right now, though, and you maybe see why the Rethuglicans (and anyone without major brain damage or MafiAA membership) are afraid?

THAT bill, which is coming up for a wee-hours vote while everyone is being distracted by other issues (thanks for "fast-tracking", Corrupt Shitwad Leahy!), is nothing but a censorship package, complete with the ability to shut down websites without actual findings of fact or evidence of a crime and the ability to order US ISP's to "black out" websites overseas that whoever's in charge from the government finds "objectionable."

Great Firewall of America, here we come... bought and paid for by the Chinese money laundered to the Democrats in the past couple decades, and ready soon to "black out" the same sites the Chinese already black out.

Re:I'll Say It Again ... (4, Interesting)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 3 years ago | (#33759100)

the Demofucks are pushing on "fast track" through the Senate right now, though, and you maybe see why the Rethuglicans

You know, over time I've noticed an inverse relationship between the intelligence of a poster and their likelihood to turn names into cutesy little attacks.

Just say the names. 'Democrats'. 'Republicans'. See? That wasn't hard. If your argument is presented decently we'll get the jist of who you do and don't like without the 3rd grade humor.

Re:I'll Say It Again ... (2, Interesting)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 3 years ago | (#33757804)

I cannot support this bill, just like I can never support anything government does ever for any reason [slashdot.org].

I want gov't out of economy completely, only dealing with 2 things really: Justice system, minimum military needed to protect liberties.

That's it.

Everything else is a function of the market. Gov't creates monopolies that end up doing whatever they wish and pay gov't to help them stay monopolies. The correct fix for this 'Net Neutrality' issue is an ISP (or a few) that would offer services without any such prioritization imposed by the ISP no matter who paid it, which of-course may come at an extra cost.

This is no different actually from your cable company charging you for your connection and programming (and possibly rent of equipment) while still pushing ads onto your screen.

Re:I'll Say It Again ... (1)

mpatton (35783) | more than 3 years ago | (#33758112)

That would be a great society for billionaires and I'm sure everyone else will enjoy being corporate cattle.

Re:I'll Say It Again ... (2, Insightful)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 3 years ago | (#33758216)

You have mixed it up a bit, it's a great society for billionaires and everybody who enjoys being corporate cattle right now.

Unless you've been in hibernation for the past 100 years, the gov't has increasingly been on the path of taking away your freedoms and liberties, while providing them to the corporations and now they are openly bailing out the monopolies they have created. Unless you've been asleep for the past 100 years, you should have noticed the corporate welfare that turned the people into that cattle.

People used to be called pioneers, now they are just consumers.

Re:I'll Say It Again ... (5, Interesting)

dpilot (134227) | more than 3 years ago | (#33757818)

While conservatives may dislike "Net Neutrality" for the reasons you state, I believe they have another reason - an undying faith in "the free market and the ability of players in the free market to come to an optimal solution for all." In other words, "Free market players need to have the maximum flexibility to arrive at market solutions which both maximize profits and deliver optimal solutions." Note that I keep using quotation marks in the prior sentence, and in this case it's not a misuse of "quotation marks," rather it's expressing a position that sounds really neat, but doesn't work that well in practice.

First off, the "free market" really isn't so free, it's loaded with large players. There have been studies indicating that when 4 or 5 major players have captured something like 80% of the market, it no longer acts like a "free market." According to those studies, even without overt collusion, a market dominated by a few large players starts to act as if there is price-fixing and market restriction happing, just by normal corporate behavior.

Second, the "free market" never developed anything like the internet, and they had over a decade of failure at it. CompuServe, Prodigy, AOL, The Source, etc are all ashes of the market failure. The only reason AOL has anything like survived is because of the proprietary players it best embraced the internet. The normal corporate behavior these days is to "own the pie" rather than work with others to create a much bigger pie. Oddly enough, they continue to do that even when the cooperative pie is so much bigger that their share is bigger than their full ownership of a private pie.

Finally, I don't think conservatives understand that sometimes we do better if our actions are limited. They have complete distrust of the limiting agency - ie, the government, and do understand that sometimes their own decisions can be bad, but fail to see that sometimes, the "free market" will fail to correct them, and they fail to appreciate the damage done, while waiting for the marketplace to correct things.

Re:I'll Say It Again ... (3, Informative)

radarsat1 (786772) | more than 3 years ago | (#33758856)

I would argue that even from the most hard-right libertarian point of view, the only job of the government is to ensure that markets stay free. This includes preventing the purchase of monopolies, so that small businesses have a chance to provide equal or better service than the big players. Net neutrality should be in the interests of anyone who believes in the free market.

The idea that the right has gotten into its head that government regulation should stay out of the market is wrong, not because regulation is some kind of socialist mindset, but because in the hard-right view of things, the only role of the government is to play "cop", to catch cheaters and make sure the market always runs smoothly and is an even playing field for all.

Re:I'll Say It Again ... (5, Insightful)

pmontra (738736) | more than 3 years ago | (#33757832)

Show your friends this picture http://dvice.com/assets_c/2009/10/net-neutrality-thumb-550xauto-27419.jpg [dvice.com] This is what Net Neutrality protects them from.

Re:I'll Say It Again ... (1)

smegmatic (1145201) | more than 3 years ago | (#33760666)

That's a bit of an exaggeration. Net neutrality doesn't protect them from that because net neutrality doesn't currently exist. If net neutrality really was the only thing that prevented that situation from arising, we'd already have those tiered plans now.

Re:I'll Say It Again ... (2, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#33757850)

They prefer to let the free market decide. You know, like it did with the big banks.

Re:I'll Say It Again ... (2, Informative)

TheFlamingoKing (603674) | more than 3 years ago | (#33758712)

Any person that believes banking is a "free market" has no understanding of the concept of fractional reserve banking.

Fractional reserve banking increases the money supply through lending, literally creating money from thin air. In order to maintain the money supply and keep inflation from spiraling out of control, the Central Bank must both manipulate the currency through the prime rate, and regulate the banks through reserve requirements. So, core to the concept of banking under fractional reserve is the necessity of the government to regulate banks in order to keep the money supply safe.

This doesn't even include the volumes of laws on what types of products banks can sell, or who they can sell them to. It doesn't include the thousands of pages of regulations on their employees and their facilities. It doesn't count all the tax regulations they must abide by.

It doesn't take more than a few minutes of research to find out that the "free market" line is not an argument, but some sort of uneducated attack that tries to dismiss the problem as easily as possible - just blame some mythical "free market" that doesn't exist, and move on rather than consider the reality of things.

Re:I'll Say It Again ... (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 3 years ago | (#33757878)

It's an uphill battle - it'll be really hard to out-shout Faux News and company, and they've got the ear of conservatives /already/.

Re:I'll Say It Again ... (5, Funny)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 3 years ago | (#33757894)

...I don't want my ISP to limit their bandwidth because Microsoft (or someone else) has paid a premium for priority for *their* bandwidth.

You think that's a better explanation to a conservative?

Dude. This is how you put it:

Net Neutrality allows for FREEDOM and it allows for your non-profit CHRISTIAN website to have as much bandwidth as those atheist-secular ones. It allows for your GOD FEARING content to have the same bandwidth as those abortion promoting god-less family planning websites! It will also allow you to track what the GOVERNMENT is doing because voting against NET NEUTRALITY is falling right into the government's hands.

Hit the streets now! It's in the CONSTITUTION and the Founding Fathers said that we have the right to equal access! It's true! It's in the exact same part where it says we're a CHRISTIAN Nation!

God Bless America!

That'll get Net Newtrality[sic]!!

Re:I'll Say It Again ... (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#33759710)

You forgot:

You don't want those PORN providers to get more bandwidth only because they get big money from those IMMORAL PORN WATCHERS and therefore can afford more bandwidth, while your poor little CHRISTIAN site hardly gets enough bandwidth to be shown at all. THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

Oh, and there should be something about TERRORISTS as well.

Re:I'll Say It Again ... (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 3 years ago | (#33758412)

We geeks have several flaws, and one of them is our love of catchphrases and acronyms. We just *assume* that everyone knows what "free software" and "net neutrality" mean. But when you start dealing with the Body Politick At Large(tm), that's not necessarily so. A few minutes to carefully explain just what we're actually talking about will go a long way ...

Alas, these days not everyone at slashdot is a nerd. Witness the many comments we often get in threads about jailbrealing like "use it for what it was designed for" and "but it wasn't MEANT to be hacked". So just because someone here makes a comment, don't assume he or she has a three digit IQ or even knows that there is an alternatove to Microsoft.

Good news (2, Interesting)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 3 years ago | (#33757620)

Sorry, any legislation crammed through in the last few days of a session is bound to be crap. Which apparently this one was, as it excluded wireless providers from the rules applied to wired providers. I guess one group pays better than the other.

We are already seeing the pull back in wireless, we are losing uncapped plans. I do not doubt that if we had the ham fisted regulation we normally get out of the Fed we would soon see that popping back up on wired plans. If abusers cannot be managed away then everyone will simply get clamped down to limits.

Re:Good news (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 3 years ago | (#33757996)

...crap. Which apparently this one was, as it excluded wireless providers from the rules applied to wired providers.

The difference is that wired providers are generally monopolies. ALL monopolies need to be heavily regulated. OTOH, competetion in wireless pretty much negates the need for much regulation there.

If my wired monopoly ISP throttles Google and gives Bing free reign, my choices are put up with it or do without wired internet. If my cell phone provider screws me over like that he's stupid; I'll go elsewhere.

Re:Good news (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 3 years ago | (#33758046)

It'd be Really Nice if one standard cellular protocol and frequency band(s) were agreed upon (I'd rather not legislate technical specifications), so that I could in fact take my old Sprint phone and use it on Verizon's network if I so chose, or vice versa.

Then there really wouldn't be a monopoly in wireless.

They're doing it wrong (5, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#33757622)

"pulled the plug on efforts to work out a compromise among phone, cable, and Internet companies"

That right there is a perfect example of what's wrong with Washington. This debate, like so many others, doesn't consider the interests of the public, but simply the interests of the industry players directly affected by the new law.

There is absolutely no legitimate reason why the US government should be negotiating with AT&T (or Time Warner, or Comcast, etc). None. If the US government wants AT&T to do something, they can pass a law and/or issue a regulation that says AT&T has to do it. No negotiation required - if AT&T doesn't do it, the US government can then bring them to court. That's what makes the government different from a corporate partner of AT&T, and AT&T is subject to the government of the US as long as it's operating in the US.

However, there's an illegitimate reason why the US government negotiates with AT&T: AT&T is in the running at least for largest campaign contributor [opensecrets.org] in the country.

Re:They're doing it wrong (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 3 years ago | (#33757868)

There is absolutely no legitimate reason why the US government should be negotiating with AT&T (or Time Warner, or Comcast, etc). None.

Sure there is. The US is a democratic republic.

Re:They're doing it wrong (3, Insightful)

LateArthurDent (1403947) | more than 3 years ago | (#33758012)

There is absolutely no legitimate reason why the US government should be negotiating with AT&T (or Time Warner, or Comcast, etc). None.

Sure there is. The US is a democratic republic.

Yes, but corporations don't have suffrage.

Re:They're doing it wrong (1)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 3 years ago | (#33758200)

There is absolutely no legitimate reason why the US government should be negotiating with AT&T (or Time Warner, or Comcast, etc). None.

Sure there is. The US is a democratic republic.

Yes, but corporations don't have suffrage.

Yes, but corporations donate money to campaigns and most voters are easily swayed by slick ads.

Re:They're doing it wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33757956)

"We don't care. We don't have to. We're the Phone Company."

If I want it AND dad wants it ... it's bipartisan. (5, Funny)

jabberwock (10206) | more than 3 years ago | (#33757668)

... As a wacko leftist libertarian crypto-anarcho peacenik Commie, the oldest son of a right-wing fringe element religo millennialist rapturizing nut job, I have to tell you: Net Neutrality is the one thing dad and I can safely talk about, and agree on. That, and maybe there are some foods we both like.

So let me get this straight (2, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#33757674)

We have asshole Republicans who only care about trying to keep their grip on power, and then we have spineless Democrats who can't even achieve their agenda while maintaining a majority and the White House.

Awesome.

Re:So let me get this straight (1)

jlf278 (1022347) | more than 3 years ago | (#33758968)

I don't see why you got modded offtopic. This is the reason we don't have net neutrality, among many, many other laws needed for the public good. Just so we're clear though, the Democrats agenda is the same as the republicans - a grip on power, but yes it looks like they are going to fail at that shortly. At this point I'm completely disillusioned with our whole political process.

Re:So let me get this straight (2, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#33759310)

It's like I was saying yesterday...both parties have proven many times over that they can't be trusted.

I'm glad (0)

sshuber (1274006) | more than 3 years ago | (#33757696)

I agree with the concept that you can't shape traffic to give priority to certain things over certain things, that helps everyone. What I don't agree with in the bill is the subsidizing of broadband and turning it into a "right" that all citizens should have. I enjoy working hard to pay for premium services like quality broadband. As soon as you start giving it away, the losses incurred by the providers of said service will jack up the prices to the people that pay, ala what will happen with health care if the current legislation isn't repealed. I also don't want my tax dollars going to that crap. They need to re-work that part of the bill then introduce it again.

Net Neutrality is not always about Net Neutrality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33757706)

It's sometimes scary to read about Net Neutrality on the likes of Slashdot and Digg, and see so many "informed" people clamoring to have Congress dish out Net Neutrality.

The way to ensure Net Neutrality, by the government, is to have the government step in and wedge themselves into the place where the companies would like to wedge themselves. The government is using Net Neutrality as a means to not only throttle, but to block outright. How can we think a Net Neutrality Act is going to be anything but corrupt, bureaucratic garbage when just the other day (maybe even yesterday?), there was an article describing how the government (in this case, the White House) was going directly to ISPs to block sites it did not like--without any law saying that they have too comply?

Sure, I do not mind when the government asks. But, I mind when the government orders.

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Re:Net Neutrality is not always about Net Neutrali (0, Flamebait)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 3 years ago | (#33758058)

Because liberals still are under the delusion that government has the ability to do good, despite decades of evidence to the contrary.

Re:Net Neutrality is not always about Net Neutrali (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33759996)

Absolutely. See decline in rape and pillage, slavery, extortion and murder. Damned government. Why, just the other day I WASN'T invaded. Stupid government army.

Seriously, how stupid are you?

Mismatched debate (2, Interesting)

Sonny Yatsen (603655) | more than 3 years ago | (#33757712)

A large part of the problem about Net Neutrality is that there is a complete mismatch of knowledge between those for and those against. People who are generally for Net Neutrality generally are more knowledgeable (although not always true) about why Net Neutrality is an important issue. Those who are against it (at least the lay people and not the businesses involved) generally don't know what Net Neutrality stands for and so they believe it's some sort of shadowy government censorship of free speech or governmental takeover or interference with business or socialism or whatever. Both sides are talking past each other and there is no common grounds of agreement. As long as that's true, Net Neutrality is dead.

Re:Mismatched debate (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 3 years ago | (#33757904)

Each sides is trying to "frame the debate," but unlike other issues where people frame the debate, such as abortion, guns, immigration, etc, there isn't enough common knowledge to allow people in the middle to have an independent basis for deciding who's frame is more like a bucket of bullshit. This is in contrast to something like guns, where at least there is the second amendment, which while subject to interpretation, is only one sentence long, unlike most of the laws that form the "rational" basis for net neutrality.

So, yeah, each extreme is talking past each other, but they know it and are doing it on purpose. Unfortunately, the people in the middle can't really tell. Or maybe they can and just don't care.

Re:Mismatched debate (1)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 3 years ago | (#33758106)

The people who support Net Neutrality usually have no fucking clue what it's about.

They often think it's going to give them some option other than their DSL or cable oligopoly.

They don't know what a "tier-1" carrier means. They don't know about settlement-free peering.

They have no idea what sort of consequences would happen to a tier-1 that decided to go rogue and start violating their transit-free agreements by doing content based blocking.

If they did, they wouldn't support this congressional power grab.

No surprise at all (2, Insightful)

Jawnn (445279) | more than 3 years ago | (#33758070)

Big business runs our government, and beginning with the upcoming election, it will largely define our government with the huge piles of cash they're pouring into the campaigns of those who will promise to do their bidding. Influence peddling is nothing new, of course, but we are about to witness a sea change the concentration of political power the scale of which is chilling. Not surprisingly, the telecom industry, by some measures, the most powerful lobby (e.g. "buyer of influence") in Washington, is going to get everything they want. We are screwed.

My friends you need to understand something. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33758072)

When it comes to providing a service that no one else has. A company has the right to bring in the most revenue it can. If ESPN3 wants to license it's content and pipe it through XBox then it should have the right in a free market to do that. After all that XBox did cost money. If some other sports network wants to do the same through some other box, then it should have the right to do that.

When you get the feds involved in policy making you run the risk of eliminating the right to freely market and sell some value added service or product. Competition will work better than any regulation that has the word "Neutral" in it to control the behavior of a company. After all, unless it is on a hill, a car in neutral is not going anywhere.

Keep this in mind. People offer up free software because they want to. That software competes with software that is not free. An open and free society can only remain that way when government is not allowed to regulate liberties away.

Re:My friends you need to understand something. (1)

Calydor (739835) | more than 3 years ago | (#33758530)

The way I'm understanding this it's the LACK of regulation that's taking away your liberty to freely pick a small ISP -and- get ESPN3 at the same time.

Slightly unrelated but... (1)

Danieljury3 (1809634) | more than 3 years ago | (#33758724)

Did anyone else see BFF in the summary and immediately think of the "Bernard and Felix Foundation" corporation from armored core 4 instead of whatever the alternative meaning may be?

Title misleading? (2, Interesting)

kgwilliam (998911) | more than 3 years ago | (#33758772)

What's up with the title of this post? "Politics: House Democrats Shelve Net Neutrality" sure make it sound like the poster is trying to imply that Democrats were at fault for this bill failing. But the summary and TFA indicate that it was Republicans who blocked efforts to move this bill forward.

Re:Title misleading? (1)

StopKoolaidPoliticsT (1010439) | more than 3 years ago | (#33760394)

The House is split 253 (Dems) to 178 (Reps), giving the Democrats a 75 vote advantage. EVERY vote the House does is controlled by a simply majority (there is no filibuster like in the Senate), meaning all you need is 218 votes to pass anything. The Democrats could afford to lose 35 of their members' votes and still pass it... yet, you're sitting there blaming the Republicans. Partisan much?

The GOP has absolutely no power in the House... none. The reason why NN was tabled BY THE DEMOCRATS, is because the term has a different meaning to everyone that uses it (some people mean that it implies no shaping or throttling can be done at all, some think it means that you can throttle and shape, others think it means that it'll give the government censorship powers, etc and some think that it'll be good for consumers, some think it'll be bad for consumers, some think it'll be good for the industry and some think it'll be bad). Further, the bill was so full of loopholes and compromises, it wasn't about just NN, it had dozens or even hundreds of unintended consequences in it that had yet to be fixed. There was even a group of 72 Dems [slashdot.org] that wrote to the FCC just about a year ago about some deep concerns about NN. But, don't let that get in the way of your "must be the GOP" bias either... I bet it's all Bush's fault.

Re:Title misleading? (1)

kgwilliam (998911) | more than 3 years ago | (#33760676)

yet, you're sitting there blaming the Republicans. Partisan much?

I am not blaming Republicans. I simply stated that both the summary and the article indicated that it was the Republican leader who didn't want to work on the bill, but the title implied that the Democrats dropped it. I was merely asking why. Jump to conclusions much?

Personally, I am very middle of the road and I don't have a "must be the GOP" bias. GOP does some things right and some things wrong, as do the Dems. But thank you for the additional information about the issue as it does help explain why the bill didn't move forward.

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...