Beta

×

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!

Republicans Create Rider To Stop Net Neutrality

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the congress-shall-make-no-law-respecting-the-tubes dept.

Republicans 528

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF writes "Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) submitted a rider yesterday to a bill on military and veterans' construction projects. The rider would, 'prohibit the FCC from using any appropriated funds to adopt, implement or otherwise litigate any network neutrality based rules, protocols or standards.' It is co-signed by six other Republican senators. We all knew this was coming after the last election removed most of the vocal supporters of net neutrality and supplanted them with pro-corporate Republicans."

cancel ×

528 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Oh yeah? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34593410)

Well I say Knight Rider was an awesome show Michael!!

You thought the GOP/TP represented regular people. (4, Funny)

sethstorm (512897) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593460)

Think again.

They just want more freedom to screw you over, lie to you about jobs, and bring back the days of Compuserve.

Re:You thought the GOP/TP represented regular peop (5, Insightful)

Surt (22457) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593622)

Who on earth thought GOP/TP represented regular people?

Re:You thought the GOP/TP represented regular peop (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34593668)

The baggers. Nobody else is that stupid.

Re:You thought the GOP/TP represented regular peop (0)

Goody (23843) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593694)

Fox "News". Or at least it's in the narrative they like to perpetuate.

Re:You thought the GOP/TP represented regular peop (5, Insightful)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593856)

Aye. Jeez, they openly joked and boasted about the wealthy being "their base".

One guy a few days ago on a conservative talk show host said he was about to lose his unemployment benefits and with that, his house, car, probably family. Conversion story, right?

Nope-- he felt he did the right thing on principle to slit his own throat, even tho the wealthy will be walking away with $100,000 in tax savings alone.

It is going to take hard poverty to break these folks from the fox news and radio talk show host brainwashing. They literally identify with billionaires while they are losing everything and being tossed out to starve. When do they wake up and start voting in their own self interest?

Or will they just bypass that step entirely and go straight to violence in a couple years.

Re:You thought the GOP/TP represented regular peop (-1, Flamebait)

whitehaint (1883260) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593978)

You make it seem like the Democrats have something better, I mean yeah I guess it does suck to agree with people who have money and know how to keep it when you can side with a group of people who cry foul when things don't go there way, and of course that same group likes to tax the snot out of you to pay for "social equality" or some other hippy crap. You are the one slitting your own throat and being brainwashed.

Re:You thought the GOP/TP represented regular peop (0, Troll)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593636)

And the Democrats also want to screw you over, so I'm not seeing a really great shift in my level of screwed here.

Re:You thought the GOP/TP represented regular peop (5, Funny)

spidercoz (947220) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593690)

Nonsense. With Democrats you're just screwed. With Republicans, you're super-deluxe holy fuck screwed.

Re:You thought the GOP/TP represented regular peop (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34593774)

Rebublicans are the kind of guys that would fuck a person in the ass and not even have the goddamn common courtesy to give him a reach-around.

Re:You thought the GOP/TP represented regular peop (2)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593962)

I would say it's the opposite since, although they both like to spend, the Democrats spend far, far more.

Back to topic: The FCC's idea of "net neutrality" is not our idea of net neutrality. The FCC would impose all kinds of restrictions such as forbidding bittorrent, forbidding downloads of sex vids, pulling websites w/o due process of law (i.e. as just happened last month), require a license to post a personal website, tax ebay sales, and on and on. At least that's what I've heard - I'm still researching the FCC's exact plan.

I'm also wondering how the FCC can claim authority over the net?
- These are private cables owned by private companies. The FCC was
empowered by Congress to regulate the PUBLIC airwaves and that's it.
It's why HBO and other channels can show nudity/sex - because the FCC has no authority to stop them.

Re:You thought the GOP/TP represented regular peop (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34593734)

Compuserve? They're trying to bring back Dickensian England!

Re:You thought the GOP/TP represented regular peop (1)

Puzzles (874941) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593788)

Compuserve? Try Ham Radio.

Re:You thought the GOP/TP represented regular peop (1)

spidercoz (947220) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593902)

Ham radio? Try semaphore.

Freedom doomed? (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34593466)

Without net neutrality, the idea of open source governance [metagovernment.org] may never even get a chance to work. Your very freedom is in serious jeopardy, since we are on the brink: do we go ahead and adopt totalitarianism-through-Facebook(etc) or try to move to freedom-through-distributed-governance?

Re:Freedom doomed? (3, Insightful)

KublaiKhan (522918) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593560)

I think part of the reason why there are so many opponents to Neutrality at the moment is because of a mischaracterization--which may be the result of simple ignorance--of the FCC's actions as condoning government control of content-as-in-opinions, rather than content-as-in-format.

I've seen many people promulgating this notion (which, frankly, hasn't been helped by the FCC's past actions regarding, e.g., nipples and the superbowl) as being a 'government takeover' of the internet.

I like the idea of metagovernment, but sadly I don't think enough people are willing to put in the time and effort to make it work. Most people are lazy and content to let other people do the work of running the country, so long as it doesn't make their lives inconvenient.

Re:Freedom doomed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34593678)

I think part of the reason why there are so many opponents to Neutrality at the moment is because of a mischaracterization--which may be the result of simple ignorance--of the FCC's actions as condoning government control of content-as-in-opinions, rather than content-as-in-format.

Once net neutrality is dead, there is no telling how far it can be taken. If Comcast can dictate that their video gets more precedence than another company's, then why can't they also have "accidental" outages of "inconvenient" sites at specific (crucial) times? It sounds far-fetched at the moment, but so does something like the president ordering a break-in to an opposing political party's headquarters to help win an election he is already winning. There's no accounting for the Nixons of the world.

I like the idea of metagovernment, but sadly I don't think enough people are willing to put in the time and effort to make it work. Most people are lazy and content to let other people do the work of running the country, so long as it doesn't make their lives inconvenient.

That is the beauty of open source governance: you don't have to participate if you don't want to. The important distinction is that you _can_ participate whenever you think you need to.

Re:Freedom doomed? (2)

KublaiKhan (522918) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593746)

Yes, I am fully aware of the dangers of non-regulated traffic shaping. Hell, I experience a variant on it every day--the place I work at has a very aggressive web filter; they recently put in a new rule that filters out anything mentioning some specific incidents that could be construed as critical of the parent organization.

It's just the slightest bit big-brotherish.

I would like a lot more competition in the ISP world, but sadly I don't think that's very likely either--so for the time being, I'm beginning to look at VPNs so that I can figure out how to route around content blockage, should my home provider (AT&T's the only game in town there) get overly frisky with the deep-packet-inspection.

And yes, I do realize that people can participate or not as they wish--but good luck getting the metagovernment platform adopted -without- broad-based support.

Re:Freedom doomed? (1)

Peach Rings (1782482) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593818)

Still, I'd expect the politicians to know the definition of the thing they're forbidding.

Also did it ever occur to these people that if the web is behind net neutrality it might not be a government takeover of the internet?

Re:Freedom doomed? (2)

KublaiKhan (522918) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593996)

Since when have politicians started going so far as to read the bills they submit?

And you're asking for -thought- and -understanding-? Are you from a paralell universe or something?

Re:Freedom doomed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34594040)

You mistakenly believe that politicians read anything. They just let corporations and organizations write legislation, then bid against each other and the politician votes for the highest spender. They are bought and paid for and not a one of them has shown any integrity in years.

Re:Freedom doomed? (1)

Shuh (13578) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594062)

Without net neutrality, the idea of open source governance [metagovernment.org] may never even get a chance to work. Your very freedom is in serious jeopardy, since we are on the brink: do we go ahead and adopt totalitarianism-through-Facebook(etc) or try to move to freedom-through-distributed-governance?

*cough* *cough* *cah--bullsh1T1* *cahm-plete bullsh1T* *cough*

Not pro-corporate (5, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593470)

To call those against Net Neutrality as "pro-corperate" is a terrible mistake, because a lot of large companies back net neutrality - including Google and Amazon.

The reality is that companies want regulation passed that benefits that company - that is the point of lobbying after all. So that is why the only position you can possibly support if you are "anti-corperate" is no regulation at all.

Seeing as that is the position the Republicans are taking, those who claim Republicans are acting on behalf of corporations need to think about who THEY are actually supporting through these accusations, and what we lose when the truly open internet becomes beholden to the whims of the FCC.

Re:Not pro-corporate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34593512)

But it's so trivially easy to slap the derogatory "pro-corporate overload" label onto those darn republicans.

Re:Not pro-corporate (5, Insightful)

spidercoz (947220) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593526)

I'd take the whims of the FCC over those of AT&T and Comcast any day.

Re:Not pro-corporate (-1, Troll)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593786)

You are very naive if you really mean that. AT&T and Comcast are private companies at the mercy of the market and have no power to force you to do anything. You don't depend on their whims in any way. FCC is a government organization with power to regulate the hell out of things that affect you, with a history of censorship and ever expanding mandate over forms of media that were not intended to be regulated by it when it was initially conceived. To quote from the Senate Republicans letter to FCC: "Whether and how the Internet should be regulated is something that America's elected representatives in Congress, not the Commission, should determine."

Re:Not pro-corporate (4, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593814)

AT&T and Comcast are companies with both natural and government-created monopolies. You are quite naive if you think that they are at the mercy of the free market.

Re:Not pro-corporate (0)

bagboy (630125) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593882)

AT&T and Comcast are private companies (FTFY). You are quite naive if you think that you have to have their services or are required to pay them your hard-earned money. If people do not buy their services, they would not exist. Can you live without your cable/internet/cell/phone? Life may be more difficult, but yes - you can.

Re:Not pro-corporate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34593948)

BAH HA HA HA HA, this dude's dumb.

That's like saying politicians have to do what we say because they have to be re-elected. Feed anyone who owns or works in a real business that line about being able to live without their phone, see how that flies.

Re:Not pro-corporate (2)

dpilot (134227) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593954)

> Can you live without your cable/internet/cell/phone?

Yes, of course you can. It hasn't interfered with your ability to shove food in your pie-hole. But it very likely WILL interfere with your ability to efficiently pursue any sort of technology career. Yeah, you can live without that stuff - but trying to do so means a new kind of glass ceiling.

Re:Not pro-corporate (1)

Dorkmaster Flek (1013045) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593956)

Actually, no, you can't. Cable and cell phone, okay. But try living without Internet access for a few weeks and see how much it affects you. Internet access is almost as essential a service as water and electricity, and certainly as essential as local phone service.

Re:Not pro-corporate (1)

bagboy (630125) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594052)

I'll say this - If an emp ever hit big-time, you folks are all dead in a month. Get off the grid for a while and you'll find out that life did exist before the internet/cell. Friggin young whipper-snappers!

Internet too important, Monopolies != Free Market (1)

dwheeler (321049) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593970)

In theory, you can live without cable/internet/cell/phone, just as you can live without roads. But unless you already have a lot of farmable land (think Amish), you cannot realistically survive. If you wish to have most jobs, or start a business, you need to be able to communicate. Internet is no longer a luxury for many.

In most cases realistically useful Internet access is only provided by monopolies or duopolies. Regulation should be limited, but in the case of monopolies, they are often necessary. In this case, it's necessary.

Re:Not pro-corporate (1)

mangamuscle (706696) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593980)

Yeah, you can also live without cloths, but I have yet to see anyone think something that stupid.

Re:Not pro-corporate (1)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594082)

Do you understand how monopolies interfere with the free market? Do you know what a natural monopoly is? Even assuming the free market CAN sort all this out for us, why should we have to wait and suffer until it does? We can protect ourselves from exploitation. We can force companies to play fairly through regulations, rather than waiting for them to fail once they piss off enough people. And what are the options, anyway? There are only a handful of telecommunications companies in the US, and they all offer the same shitty deals. The market has yet to provide a better option, what makes you think it ever will?

Re:Not pro-corporate (2)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593946)

Not really true. In some areas there is more competition, in others less but most people in the US have several options when it comes to Internet access. I live in a moderately large city and I have 4 ways to get broadband access. I would prefer if there was more competition, sure, but the tradeoff of giving FCC a foothold in regulating the Internet doesn't seem worthwhile to me, especially since the whole throttling business is mostly a hypothetical problem.

Re:Not pro-corporate (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593936)

both AT&T and Comcast have no competition in the area's they serve. You have a choice between the two if your lucky, most don't even get that much.

Re:Not pro-corporate (1)

drsquare (530038) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594048)

Yeah because if history's taught us anything, it's that the free market really works. Especially with no regulation. Adam Smith told us this centuries ago.

Re:Not pro-corporate (-1, Troll)

Applekid (993327) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593586)

If that was truly the case, the rider would have eliminated the FCC and not just tie its hands for one particular issue.

Seriously, though, it should be about pro-corporate and anti-corporate. It should be about pro-people and anti-people. As a group. Net neutrality gives more freedom to the few (the connectivity companies) and takes away from the rest (content providers, consumers).

What a dirty trick. Obama can't even veto it without voting against "military and veterans". I can see the black-and-white political ads with terrifying music in the background now.

Re:Not pro-corporate (5, Informative)

BradleyUffner (103496) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593782)

Net neutrality gives more freedom to the few (the connectivity companies) and takes away from the rest (content providers, consumers).

It's pretty much the exact opposite of that. Net Neutrality gives power to the people who create and consume content, and prevents the people who provide the connections from tampering with it.

Re:Not pro-corporate (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593858)

Seriously, though, it should be about pro-corporate and anti-corporate. It should be about pro-people and anti-people. As a group. Net neutrality gives more freedom to the few (the connectivity companies) and takes away from the rest (content providers, consumers).

Either you accidentally got it backwards, you're wildly misinformed, or you're batshit insane.

Re:Not pro-corporate (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34593598)

Google and Amazon don't control the pipe, though. Republicans are helping Comcast and TimeWarner. You may not like the idea of the FCC being able to enforce net neutrality but at least putting the FCC in charge gives the people someone to complain to. Try telling Comcast you don't like their draconian control, or at least their attempts, over the internet. They'll tell you to fuck off and to thank their dear friends, Republicans!

But I'm sure you liked warrantless wiretapping. The TSA pat downs are God's gift to man. Only corporations and Republican government can keep us safe.

Re:Not pro-corporate (1)

qeveren (318805) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593606)

Why don't we just call it what it is? Corruption.

Re:Not pro-corporate (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34593718)

You misspelled congress. Ohhh, I see, nevermind.

Re:Not pro-corporate (5, Interesting)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593616)

Yes and no.

First off, AT&T and other telecoms are larger campaign contributors than Google, Apple et al, so this is pretty much a done deal, will of the people be damned.

Secondly, all corporate players generally recognize that a net neutral Internet could become potentially democratic (small d intentional here), which is not in their best interest. They'd much rather the Internet be a somewhat more interactive broadcast medium like television than they would have it be a truly horizontal distributed network, because the more broadcast-like it is the easier it is to control what is said or heard on it, and the harder it is to compete with established players.

Thirdly, most Republicans and Democrats could accurately be described as pro-corporate.

Re:Not pro-corporate (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593634)

We don't have a truly open Internet.

At any moment TWC could start throttling my connections to netflix, just to get me to buy their cable service.

The reality is we need to regulate internet providers into not also being content providers or cable operators. These conflicts of interest must be removed.

Re:Not pro-corporate (1)

spidercoz (947220) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593730)

Damn yous The Weather Channel!!! Keep offa my Netflix!

Re:Not pro-corporate (1)

MrShaggy (683273) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593740)

Your point over Netflix is right.

However you can always just download the torrent's of your favorite shows.

Yu can even set it up automatically.

Re:Not pro-corporate (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593772)

I could, but I am trying to meet these media assholes halfway. I used to do the whole torrent + rss thing, when I was in college. It was great, but now I am trying to do it a little more legally.

Re:Not pro-corporate (1)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594070)

At any moment TWC could start throttling my connections to netflix, just to get me to buy their cable service.
 
At any moment TWC could shut down your service altogether, increase the price one hundredfold or only allow you to have Internet on Tuesdays and only while you wear a french maid outfit. Damn, you are right, we really don't have an open Internet!

Pro big donor (5, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593658)

The Republicans want absolutely no regulation of anything. Net neutrality is regulation. Without net neutrality regulations, the 'truly open Internet' becomes beholden to certain corporate interests. I would rather the Internet be beholden to the FCC, which is at theoretically accountable to US citizens, than to a few large media companies.

Regulations are like guns. They are tools. They can be used to protect or to harm. They are neither evil nor good, in and of themselves. We should never seek to get rid of all regulations, only the bad ones. Without 'regulations' the little guy is at the mercy of the rich and powerful. I support the right of the little guys of the world to band together and enact laws to protect themselves from exploitation.

You basically bring up the FCC as a sort of scary specter, "Ooga booga booga! FCC gonna getcha!" without saying what, exactly, you fear the FCC might do.

Net neutrality regulations are necessary to keep the Internet open. It will either be regulated by the FCC, or it will be controlled by a handful of huge media conglomerates. It will not stay the unregulated, anything goes wild west it is today. Either the landlords will move in and Enclose the open Internet, or we, the citizens, decide that we do not want to let them wall off the Internet, and we pass laws to stop them.

Re:Pro big donor (5, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593790)

Bullshit, ask them about corn subsidies.

Republicans love regulation, regulation that moves money into the welfare queen red states.

Re:Pro big donor (1)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593836)

Bullshit, ask them about corn subsidies.

Republicans love regulation, regulation that moves money into the welfare queen red states.

Oh, I know that. I just didn't feel like muddying the waters of the debate. I was going to go there, thus the title of my post, but thought better of it.

Re:Pro big donor (5, Insightful)

mike449 (238450) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593816)

The Republicans want absolutely no regulation of anything. Net neutrality is regulation.
While they are at it, they should un-regulate the right of Cox to dig my property (private and public). If they want free market, let me name the conditions on which they can lay their cables.
So they actually want regulation, but only when it suits corporate interests and not public interests? This exposes them as shills and hypocrites.

Re:Pro big donor (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593982)

Mod parent way the hell up.

Re:Pro big donor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34594044)

The Republicans *do* want to regulate stuff, just different stuff than the Democrats. Republican want to regulate what happens in my bedroom, for example.

Re:Not pro-corporate (2)

Edmund Blackadder (559735) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593662)

The correct term should have been pro-telecom. And the republicans are acting on behalf of corporations, just not all corporation, only telecoms. Telecoms have the most to gain from destroying net neutrality and they can bring the most pressure on the senate, as they already have more ingrained lobbyists than the various internet companies.

Re:Not pro-corporate (5, Insightful)

oGMo (379) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593670)

The reality is that companies want regulation passed that benefits that company - that is the point of lobbying after all. So that is why the only position you can possibly support if you are "anti-corperate" is no regulation at all.

False dichotomy; companies want regulation passed that benefits them, but this is not the only possible regulation. Therefore the only "anti-corporate" choice is not "no regulation." This is especially true since "no regulation" highly benefits another subset of companies (namely certain large ISPs like Comcast) who hold local monopolies, and already want anti-individual/customer/citizen measures which will raise prices and reduce quality.

Indeed, regulation that benefits individuals is "anti-corporate," or at least corporation-neutral and anti-monopoly-abuse, which is the real purpose here. Knee-jerk reactions to anything labeled "corporate" (or "regulation") aren't the answer. Preventing the abuse of individual customers is.

Re:Not pro-corporate (1)

mike449 (238450) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593674)

In this particular case, interests of some corporations coincide with interests of the public, and the parent is trying to muddy the waters using this fact.
I don't actually care if Republicans are acting on behalf of Comcast. All I care is that they are acting against public interests.

At least they selflessly protect the right of Americans to organize into a well-regulated militia bearing arms. That will take care of everything, right? RIGHT?!!!

Re:Not pro-corporate (4, Insightful)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593726)

To call those against Net Neutrality as "pro-corporate" is a terrible mistake, because a lot of large companies back net neutrality - including Google and Amazon.

It's more accurately "pro-big-corporate". Sure, Google and Amazon kvetch about net neutrality, but the reality of the matter is that they are big enough that they aren't really affected. Comcast would never make YouTube unusable because their customers would burn the place down. And even in the worst case, YouTube et al are forced to mirror high bandwidth content using services like Akamai, which they can readily afford to do.

The folks who are penalized by lack of net neutrality are the small businesses---the next Facebook or Amazon or Google or YouTube. By limiting access to the free and open internet and essentially mandating the much more expensive distributed delivery of content, the entrenched big businesses become nearly unstoppable. Thus, although those big companies may complain about net neutrality, they're unlikely to do all that much to try to enforce it. After all, the anti-net-neutrality crowd is working in their best interests, too, at least when it comes to long-term profitability.

Don't get me wrong, in principle, Akamai is a good thing, particularly for multimedia content, as it reduces load on the backbones, reduces latency, and reduces jitter in data delivery. However, if non-Akamaized services are not merely less then ideal, but rather unusable, that tips the balance in a way that is completely unacceptable, and Comcast and cronies should be rightfully spanked with fines or, if the government is unwilling to do so, lawsuits.

minority (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593766)

google and amazon are just two major corps among the few corps supporting net neutrality.

Re:Not pro-corporate (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593832)

So that is why the only position you can possibly support if you are "anti-corperate" is no regulation at all.

You realize that no regulation means no net neutrality, right?

But at this point the only solution that's anything more than the shoddiest of quick fixes is to take the Internet out of both government and corporate hands, to go to a community-run Internet. That means forking the infrastructure, switching to decentralized protocols and services, adopting universal encryption and ubiquitous support for anonymization, and replacing the IANA/ICANN with a democratic leadership:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1634334&cid=32019410 [slashdot.org]

I thought net neutrality would be a longer-lasting fix, since I thought corporate control was the immediate threat and government control was a more long-term threat, but now government control is almost as close at hand.

Re:Not pro-corporate (1)

WillgasM (1646719) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594002)

I'm not anti-corporate....I'm anti-lobbyist. I'm somewhat torn on this. I'd like to see a free market solution where we could actually choose to give our money to the provider that doesn't censor our content, but most areas are pretty well monopolized by one carrier. I kinda liked the idea i saw a long time back about providing a neutral, high speed fiber "last leg" between homes and a sort of broadband central office. Then multiple service providers would have a centralized location to which they can deliver their services. Granted, it would take some spending to get it started; but rarely am I opposed to ideas that promote competition.

Misread (1)

ickleberry (864871) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593498)

Tought it was "Republicans create cider to stop net neutrality"

I'm thirsty now, made me want to get a bottle of Rekorderlig [rekorderligcider.com]

Re:Misread (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593546)

Tought it was "Republicans create cider to stop net neutrality"

If it's brown and yella', you got juice there, fella. If it's tangy and brown you're in cider town!

And of course in Canada the whole thing's flip-flopped.

Re:Misread (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593646)

If it has no alcohol in it, it is juice, if it has alcohol it is cider.

Re:Misread (1)

Sonny Yatsen (603655) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593682)

The difference between apple cider and juice is the amount of processing done to it. Juice is usually filtered so it's often clear, while cider is often made with apple residue within, creating that opaque brown color.

Re:Misread (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593794)

Only in the USA.

Else where it is based on alcohol content.

Sadly in the USA we have a wierd anti booze thing.

Damned be these Republicans (1)

ivucica (1001089) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593508)

Nobody outside the US gets a vote on this stuff, yet we all get affected by the Republican nationalist, conservative stances. Liberalism isn't the answer to all humanity's woes, but neither is what the Republicans and other similar right-wing parties in the world are constantly doing.

Come on, Republicans, turn the Internet into mess for everyone else, too.

Re:Damned be these Republicans (3, Insightful)

speedlaw (878924) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593710)

Please. It's not even like they are a majority. They just have party cohesion which the Democrats lack. Indeed, with all three parts of the government, they STILL kowtowed to the Republicans, but really, as the Dems are also feeding at the same trough, there is little difference. The Dems don't apoligize to BP for inconveniencing them, like the Repubs, but it's still close.

Need public effort for Amendment to Constitution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34593542)

Can bypass congress and there is a way to try to get this as a public effort to be an amendment to the constitution.
Meaning, to amend constitution to say that net neutrality is free speech. Making it impossible for any election swing to regulate the internet for the ISPs or anyone else.

Let's start a movement...

Re:Need public effort for Amendment to Constitutio (0)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593958)

God it amuses me how internet people think they're so fucking important.

Net neutrality is a bunch of chicken little bullshit. I remember when we were trying to keep the government's hands off the Internet, now you idiots want to hand it to them on a silver platter because of paranoid delusions about Corporate Fat Cats being out to get you.

Oh yah? (1)

mozumder (178398) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593562)

Well how about we create a bill banning all private internet service providers and transferring that service to a socialist government organization, per clause in the US Constitution establishing a government-run mail (communications) service?

The best government is a socialist government that fights the libertarian ideals of established corporations.

The whole point of competition is to eliminate competitors to gain monopoly status.

Re:Oh yah? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593638)

That takes time. Removing neutrality from the table is the first step.

that would be correct. (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593776)

just like how law bans any private judiciary, any private legislative body, any private army and any private police.

the stuff that are the means to basics of life, communication should never be private.

Re:Oh yah? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34593810)

Yeah, corporations are evil organizations, so we should create a really super big organization with power to keep them all under control. Good idea. We all know that it is the pursuit of money that makes all the corporations evil, so we'll make sure that this super big organization has no interest in money by ...um ...giving it power to print and regulate money and to borrow against the future of our children. Surely governments have no interest in money. They could just print more, right? And we all know they'll never have to pay off their debts, so the government is practically immune from corruption. There is no need to have, say 50 independent states, because the one federal state will never become corrupt, so there is no reason anyone will ever need to get away from it.

Re:Oh yah? (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594076)

Well how about we create a bill banning all private internet service providers and transferring that service to a socialist government organization, per clause in the US Constitution establishing a government-run mail (communications) service?

You're half right. The government should own the last mile wire infrastructure, and should lease access to ISPs that want to provide service. Those ISPs can then lease backbone services from long haul wire providers, provide routing infrastructure, etc. By doing that, instead of it costing millions of dollars to add a new ISP in a city, it only costs thousands of dollars in infrastructure costs. That huge difference in cost of entry means that there will be more competition in internet service, and fewer communities will have to live with a monopoly or duopoly, thus eliminating the problems that make government regulation of things like net neutrality necessary.

If there were competition in the ISP space, the market would decide, and companies pulling dirty tricks with bandwidth would eventually lose out to companies that don't. The only reason the market can't solve the problem now is that the cost of adding a new ISP to most areas exceeds what you could possibly earn in any reasonable period of time, and that will continue to be the case as long as every single ISP has to run all of its own lines to every house that it wants to serve (with the exception of DSL CLECs, but DSL is probably not viable in the long term).

Corporations do not do infrastructure well, just as government does not do services well. Government does infrastructure well, and corporations compete to offer services well, but only when they don't have to provide infrastructure. BTW, I'm strongly in favor of the same approach being used for cellular towers, and for precisely the same reason.

Vocalize (2)

moeluv (1785142) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593566)

So contact your representatives and voice your opinion. If you don't have their contact info it's easy enough to look up online or if you happen to have an android phone download the "Congres" app. It will give you the contact info of your local congressional representatives. Part of the reason that lobbyists have so much power is that ordinary people don't inundate their reps with opinions and facts the way that special interests do. So contact them and express your opinion. They won't completely ignore it if enough of their constituency speaks up. So you can either bitch online or call the people who can have an impact. I've already contacted my reps concerning net neutrality, here's hoping anyone with an intelligent opinion here does the same. It's your government folks participate or don't bitch when you don't get what you want.

Re:Vocalize (2)

qeveren (318805) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593654)

Part of the reason that lobbyists have so much power is that ordinary people don't inundate their reps with opinions and facts the way that special interests do.

Replace 'opinions and facts' with 'money' and you're getting closer to reality.

Re:Vocalize (1)

moeluv (1785142) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593696)

unfortunately true but much of that money is used to get re-elected. If enough of their voting base is telling to vote for something or be booted next election they are likely to listen. It doesn't have to be a majority either just enough of a vocal minority to get their attention.

Re:Vocalize (3, Interesting)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593844)

Bullshit, I used to call all the time. Not letters call. You get some staffer who does not care and an email that says they agree with you and support $the_opposite_of_what_you_said 100%.

These assholes are bought and paid for. They should at least wear patches like race car drivers so we can clearly see who they work for.

Who are they? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34593568)

Who are the scoundrels responsible for this?
Let's get their names and contact information and let them know that we DO NOT support their perversion of democracy.

Disgusting!

Kay Bailey Hutchinson (5, Informative)

Sonny Yatsen (603655) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593576)

This is Kay Bailey Hutchinson proving her conservative bona fides after the shellacking she got from the 2010 Texas Republican Gubernatorial primary. Too bad she's decided to take sides against consumers to prove that she's a good party member.

Re:Kay Bailey Hutchinson (1)

ArtFart (578813) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593708)

There's a really simple explanation: AT&T is now headquartered in Texas.

Wasn't She Unseated? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593580)

I seem to recall hearing quite a bit about how much the Texas conservatives hated her and were working to unseat her in the 2010 election cycle. Of course, losing your reelection (even to someone from your own party) doesn't mean you can't do anything in your last two months of your term, but if she lost she doesn't really represent much at this point.

Re:Wasn't She Unseated? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34593778)

KBH ran for the Republican nomination for Governor and lost badly in the primary (to Rick Perry, the incumbent). She's still in the Senate, but says she won't seek re-election when her term ends (2012?). We'll see. She said she would resign her Senate seat to run for Governor, and then went back on that.

Yes yes, all the Republicans fault (1)

hsmith (818216) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593716)

It isn't like Democrats had control of Congress and the White House for the last two years to do anything. Just like Don't ask Don't tell - they could have done something, but it is better to do nothing and create a campaign issue.

Re:Yes yes, all the Republicans fault (1)

spidercoz (947220) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593852)

They were too busy cowering in fear of the almighty FILIBUSTER to actually do anything. So terrifying a weapon, the Republicans didn't even have to use it, just say it. Buncha useless bastards.

Re:Yes yes, all the Republicans fault (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34593854)

Shut up. Are you going to blame someone murdering you in your sleep on Obama's policies too? Or would he be liable?

Still cant believe you guys have riders... (5, Insightful)

citylivin (1250770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593752)

KENT BROCKMAN: With our utter annihilation imminent, our federal government has snapped into action. We go live now via satellite to the floor of the United States congress.
SPEAKER: Then it is unanimous, we are going to approve the bill to evacuate the town of Springfield in the great state of--
CONGRESSMAN: Wait a second, I want to tack on a rider to that bill - $30 million of taxpayer money to support the perverted arts.
SPEAKER: All in favor of the amended Springfield-slash-pervert bill?
FLOOR: Boo!
SPEAKER: Bill defeated.

Can't believe you guys haven't fixed this yet. How can a completely unrelated thing be tacked on like that? is it really just a congressmans whim? Everytime i hear the word "rider" in american politics, i think of that simpsons skit.

Re:Still cant believe you guys have riders... (1)

spidercoz (947220) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593864)

Yes. It is actually that bad.

free (to be fucked) market (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34593822)

Here's the problem with today's free market advocacy. Yes, a free market is the most efficient mechanism for distributing goods, all else being equal, specifically demand.

Unfortunately, free market advocacy today amounts to being forced to accept different goods and services than what the public would want. You're only "free", if there is no standard for supply or quality. The free market is one where you're free to be sold contaminated water, and not permitted to set public standards for better. You're free to have the word processor defined by Microsoft, and not allowed to set up a reasonable free standard for what a word processor is. You're free to buy quasi-internet, because actually defining today's standards for it in law would be "socialist". Somehow it stops being a free market when you define even a minimum standard for what you'd like supplied.

In short, it is possible to have a free market and public standards; or one; or neither. It's best to have both. Unfortunately, today's supposed advocacy for the former is actually an attack on the latter.

Riders are an appalling and ant-democratic (1)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593824)

Riders are an appalling and ant-democratic in practice. All this talk about ear marks that people are up in arms over should really be focused on riders. They serve only one purpose and that is to confuse an issue with unrelated issues. They take advantage of the all or nothing system so that a minority of legislators can force through an issue that would not pass on its own merit.

The biggest problem in government we have to day is this practice of riders and omnibus bills. Legislation should not be thousands of pages! Legislative acts should be as atomic as possible.

Re:Riders are an appalling and ant-democratic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34593920)

Legislative acts should be as atomic as possible

Senator: I believe attaching an allocation of $25 million to help complete a nuclear plant in my district, would be in keeping with the spirit of your proposal.

Rename these Republicans... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34593894)

We should call them Corpricans. The people who vote for them could then be called corpropheliacs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprophilia).

The internet is Hear to stay (1)

angryfirelord (1082111) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593904)

I never quite understood the whole net neutrality bandwagon. It seems that whenever this issue appears, there are always hoards of people screaming about the end of the internet and how bad corporations are and how if we don't get the government to regulate something right away, then the world is going to explode. But then again, this is Slashdot after all.

David Farber gives a good response on why we should be cautious of NN: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200606/msg00014.html [interesting-people.org]

Particularly one idea that lawmakers should focus on is the monopolies that are essentially granted to the cable companies for their service. It's hardly a free market system as most people seem to think.

Come on.... (1)

TheL0ser (1955440) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593906)

Haven't we passed anything regarding one bill one subject yet?

Oh, that's right, we can't. People will just add riders to the bill to eliminate riders.

What about freenet? (1)

ecorona (953223) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593992)

Without net neutrality, would corporations be able to stop the underground p2p separate internet called Freenet? Would they be able to do anything about encrypted p2p communications? If so, they're just ruining legitimate and innovative business ventures like Hulu.com, which would ironically drive many people to use p2p to watch those shows. Unless they can kill p2p too. Maybe we should operate under the assumption that freedom of speech on the internet is doomed and focus on decentralized tools like Freenet that are hard if not impossible to stymie.

I'm against any FCC action but also against this (1)

z4ce (67861) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593998)

I'm in an odd spot on this one. I'm against any net neutrality legislation or regulation by the FCC, but I don't want to see congress acting on net neutrality either (even to prevent future regulation). I'd rather the government just stop and wait and see if any big problems arise. Don't legislate to prevent a future problem. I have trouble believing players like Comcast have dramatically more power than players like Netflix and Google. People won't be happy if their Netflix streaming doesn't work right on Comcast/FiOS/whatever.

GOD DAMN IT (-1, Offtopic)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594038)

What the FUCK is wrong with congressional republicans?!?

WHAT THE FUCK!?!?

Say what you will about the two party system, corporate masters, spineless democrats, that's all well and good and right, and fuck democrats too. But I see ONE party that lead the way on two pointless wars, one party that's saying "no we can't possibly end those wars before the other side all dies, because that would be surrendering and we don't do that", one party saying "Global warming might be a problem one day, sure, but lets let other people deal with that and not ask anyone to sacrifice today," one party saying "deficits don't matter, cut taxes without spending!" one party saying "only rich people should be have health insurance" one party saying "only poor people should pay taxes" and now one party saying "Corporations SHOULD control what you watch on the internet."

That would be the republicans, the democrats are just utterly incapable of doing much of anything when they're not actively supporting those issues.

And finally what is wrong with Americans that they don't care about any of that?

Next election, I'm voting for myself.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>