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!

House Passes Amendment To Block Funds For Net Neutrality

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the one-way-or-another dept.

The Internet 393

Charliemopps sends this quote from the National Journal: "The House passed an amendment Thursday that would bar the Federal Communications Commission from using any funding to implement the network-neutrality order it approved in December. The amendment, approved on a 244-181 vote, was offered by Energy and Commerce Communications and Technology Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden, R-Ore., to legislation that would fund government agencies for the rest of fiscal year 2011. Walden and other critics of the FCC's net-neutrality order argue it will stifle innovation and investment in broadband. "

cancel ×

393 comments

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

Thank your neighborhood republican (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35245786)

Thank them again if years down the road you have to pay another $50 a month just so you can stream youtube and netflix to your computer.

Re:Thank your neighborhood republican (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35245822)

Because that has already happened, in the absence of regulation to stop it?

Re:Thank your neighborhood republican (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35245980)

Are you implying that transit providers and ISPs haven't already attempted to charge content providers for "preferential" access? Where do you think the entire argument over Net Neutrality came from precisely?

Re:Thank your neighborhood republican (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35246438)

Yes. Please find an example of an ISP trying to charge content providers for "preferential" access. Note that this is not a peering contract, but an ISP telling a content provider "pay us more money or we'll block your media".

Re:Thank your neighborhood republican (4, Informative)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 3 years ago | (#35246574)

Re Please find an example of an ISP trying to charge content providers for "preferential" access.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/01/huge-isps-want-per-gb-payments-from-netflix-youtube.ars [arstechnica.com]
Pay up or risk an "internet brownout"...

Re:Thank your neighborhood republican (2, Informative)

HermMunster (972336) | more than 3 years ago | (#35245952)

I swear to you, we have a bunch of nutjobs in the House. How on earth could these people know enough to make such a complex decision in such a short period of time? It's not possible. Most of them don't know the slightest thing about the internet, how it works, and what drives it. It baffles me to see them making such a statement.

Re:Thank your neighborhood republican (2, Insightful)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35246052)

The Democrats did the same thing. How fast was that Bailout Bill passed? 20 days? I think the Stimulus Bill was rammed through even faster, within two weeks of the president taking the oath (in order to beat the Feb 11 Analog TV cutoff). That's 1500 billion spent in less than two months, for legislation none of them had time to read.

It's about time people learn: Both Rep and Dems suck ass.

Re:Thank your neighborhood republican (2)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 3 years ago | (#35246524)

Not sure why you were modded Troll, but truer words were never spoken. The two party system has failed us yet again.

Re:Thank your neighborhood republican (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#35246638)

Two party hasn't worked for us since Nixon, basically. Maybe even before that. I'm not enough of a history buff to be accurate, but basically regulatory capture and corporate capture fuck us over the most. I remember there being some act in the 70's or 80s that really made it about 100x worse, some law that was repealed, which had originally stated that corporations may not lobby towards getting laws passed.

Re:Thank your neighborhood republican (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35246580)

Or the republican union busting bill that was proposed Friday, and they are trying to get it rammed through today. (In Wisconsin)

Re:Thank your neighborhood republican (2)

kidgenius (704962) | more than 3 years ago | (#35246068)

Of course they have an idea.... See, the internet is like a series of tubes

Re:Thank your neighborhood republican (0)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 3 years ago | (#35246218)

They don't have to read the law, they don't even have to write it. All they have to do is know that the corporate citizens endorse the legislation they wrote for you, so it must be good.

Re:Thank your neighborhood republican (2, Insightful)

poity (465672) | more than 3 years ago | (#35246114)

Implying that by not allowing ISPs to charge Google or Netflix for disproportionate use of bandwidth, those ISPs would give up their pursuit and absorb the costs themselves rather than pass it on to subscribers. The "you'll be paying more money if we don't get Network Neutrality right now" is an unrealistic argument, a canard, I'd even call it FUD.

You want a good argument for Network Neutrality, you can talk about providing an even playing field for new small media with little money and old entrenched conglomerates alike.

Re:Thank your neighborhood republican (5, Insightful)

sstamps (39313) | more than 3 years ago | (#35246516)

The problem is, though, that Google/Netflix aren't the ones "using" (as in "consuming") the bandwidth as those who are complaining about it claim. They are producers. The ones who are "using" (as in "consuming") the bandwidth are the ISPs' USERS, who are requesting the content from Google/Netflix. It doesn't make any sense to bill content providers for bandwidth consumed by users.

Well, it does make sense if you look at it from a competitive angle.. one where the ISPs so complaining have a vested interest in competing content provider services.

Google, Netflix, and everyone else pay for their access to the internet. They pay a LOT already. If every ISP who carries their content at the behest of the ISP's own users/consumers could charge an extra "fee" to carry "popular" content, then there wouldn't be any "popular" content, except from each particular ISP.

This is why I believe that true "Net Neutrality" is where content providers and bandwidth providers should not be allowed to be the same entities -- they are simply an untenable conflict of interests waiting to happen. Indeed, this is why the internet grew explosively and prospered, because, for a long time, the bandwidth providers had little interest in content, and the old "walled garden" combo access/content providers died out like the dinosaurs they became (AOL/Prodigy/Compuserve/etc). That's all changed now. Companies like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T want to go back to that model, which might be lucrative for them, but it impacts the freedom of their customers, and the free market overall.

Re:Thank your neighborhood republican (4, Informative)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 3 years ago | (#35246734)

"Disproportionate use of bandwidth" by Google and Netflix? What a joke.

The fact is that Google and Netflix each pay their respective ISPs for all the bandwidth they use. What they *don't* pay for is the bandwidth their customers use, nor should they have to. If Google has a contract with ISP A and ISP A in turn has a contract with ISPs B and C, it's really not B and C's place to charge Google for that which is already covered by their contract with ISP A. Otherwise Google would have to sign contracts with the entire alphabet of ISPs to account for what you call their "disproportionate use of bandwidth", which I'm sure you know is bullshit.

Re:Thank your neighborhood republican (3, Informative)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 3 years ago | (#35246120)

The GOP is a monstrosity. As Brad Delong says, they "lie about everything all the time." More than that, though, every single Republican initiative exacerbates inequality, smashes our dignity, and adds to the sum of human misery. There are no exceptions. There are no moderates left in the Republican party. What remains is an organization dedicated to aristocracy, superstition, and the snuffing out of curiosity. This party is a scourge, and to see its members elected against and against forces one to doubt the fundamental goodness of human nature.

Re:Thank your neighborhood republican (1, Informative)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 3 years ago | (#35246258)

This is true. Democrats are not all that much better in practice, but republicans are unfathomably evil to me.

Re:Thank your neighborhood republican (-1, Troll)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 3 years ago | (#35246494)

Listen to you nerds on the verge of declaring the Republicans akin to the Nazi party because they didn't side with one set of corporations over another. You neckbearded dweebs crack me up with your priorities. Republicans are evil, but for entirely different reasons. Democrats are evil too, just in different ways.

Re:Thank your neighborhood republican (3, Insightful)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 3 years ago | (#35246564)

As much as I agree with you politically, you are way out of line coming to a tech site and calling the participants "neck bearded dweebs" To paraphrase one of my favorite movies, why not go jack off to some snowboarding videos and let us "dweebs" worry about keeping this whole internet thing up and running for douchebags like you.

Re:Thank your neighborhood republican (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35246750)

You can't out-meta Godwin's law. Claiming your opponent is about to mention the Nazis is no better than doing it yourself.

Re:Thank your neighborhood republican (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35246298)

This is what we call a Democrat Moderate. The real hard core leftists are even worse.

The House, Not The House & The Senate (5, Insightful)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#35245810)

The Senate won't pass this so it's merely symbolic on the part of the House. Way to manage your time well, boys and girls. Now get back to work on real problems!

Re:The House, Not The House & The Senate (1)

AndyAndyAndyAndy (967043) | more than 3 years ago | (#35245836)

Yeah, no more screwin' around... time to get serious.

Re:The House, Not The House & The Senate (5, Insightful)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 3 years ago | (#35245908)

Don't be so sure they won't pass it. It's an amendment, not a bill; IIRC, that means they would have to vote specifically to strip the amendment out before they vote on the entire bill, and I'm not at all confident that enough members of the thin (and historically spineless) Democratic majority in the Senate have the will for that fight. Adding riders to "must-pass" bills is a time-honored technique for sneaking all kinds of looniness into law.

Re:The House, Not The House & The Senate (5, Informative)

Xacid (560407) | more than 3 years ago | (#35246370)

"Adding riders to "must-pass" bills is a time-honored technique for sneaking all kinds of looniness into law."

And this nails precisely why this technique needs to be abolished. It's dishonest politicking. Each section of a bill ought to be required to be voted on.

Re:The House, Not The House & The Senate (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 3 years ago | (#35246656)

Adding riders to "must-pass" bills is a time-honored technique for sneaking all kinds of looniness into law.

And this nails precisely why this technique needs to be abolished. It's dishonest politicking. Each section of a bill ought to be required to be voted on.

Then they'd start inserting it into "must-pass" sections of a bill.

Or sub-sections...

Or paragraphs...

Or sentences...

If you think we've got logjam now, wait until they have to vote on every word in a bill.

[Not to imply that logjam isn't sometimes a good thing.]

Re:The House, Not The House & The Senate (3, Informative)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 3 years ago | (#35246456)

Not only that if they amend the bill to remove the amendment it will have to go back to the House. As it stands this morning I doubt the final bill can even get through the House. There is possibility of a Government Shutdown at this point because the Speaker has stated he will not let an temporary extension of current funding bill go to vote. Personally I'd like to see that!

I don't know how I feel about Net Neutrality being forced by government. I am pulled in multiple directions on that but I do know that I don't like an executive agency like FCC deciding to do it on their own, it should be done or not done in the legislative branch. The FCC should just enforce whatever the Congress decides. So I am for Congress preventing the FCC from acting, in the mean time.

Re:The House, Not The House & The Senate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35246466)

Is there a paypal account we can donate too to fund this, bypassing the congress-critters. Crowd lobbying via direct funding of projects rather than corporate 'lobbying' of individual congress critters.

Real Problems (4, Insightful)

Tmack (593755) | more than 3 years ago | (#35246208)

Like making sure "Obama is a one term President!" Yeh, gotta get priorities set right, cause thats what the people want! Conflict and inaction to make sure someone else is elected, not any actual work on any real issues... ugh, makes me sick

-Tm

the millionaires got their taxcuts (0)

publiclurker (952615) | more than 3 years ago | (#35246296)

what else really matters?

Re:the millionaires got their taxcuts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35246386)

As long as this millionaire gets his tax cut, I don't care!

Re:The House, Not The House & The Senate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35246322)

I guess Reid will just ignore it and not allow it to be voted on. Then he will complain that the republicans refuse to work with him (work with him meaning agree with him and getting a cookie in return.)

Ignoring stuff you don;t like is the way the democrats work

Where are the new jobs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35246598)

These people got elected because Americans wanted jobs. But they're pulling these stunts instead. Even the 'spending cuts' are pathetically inadequate to even put a dent in the growing interest we pay on the existing debt, let alone balance the budget.

Fiscal conservatives...hah...America gets the politicians it deserves.

Fact is, politicians like power (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35245816)

Now why would politicians do something that makes corporations more powerful at the expense of individuals?

I thought this was a democracy. (Taaaa haaaa ha.)

Politicians thrive on anything that gives them more power. Here is just example #724,249,196 this month.

The usual. (3, Informative)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#35245818)

Sneaking an amendment into an appropriations bill. Everyone says it's an underhanded cheat, but it's just too *useful* to prohibit.

Re:The usual. (5, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 3 years ago | (#35245968)

Sneaking an amendment into an appropriations bill. Everyone says it's an underhanded cheat, but it's just too *useful* to prohibit.

It's only an underhanded cheat when the other party does it.

Re:The usual. (5, Informative)

phantomcircuit (938963) | more than 3 years ago | (#35246272)

That's not at all what they're doing here. The article is intentionally misleading.

This is a bill HR. 68 [loc.gov] "To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit Federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting after fiscal year 2013. "

Further they didn't even pass this yet, they merely referred it to committee. Indeed there isn't even any pork in it. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.68 [loc.gov] :

Re:The usual. (1)

Dredd13 (14750) | more than 3 years ago | (#35246536)

You're right. It's crazy talk, sneaking an amendment that addresses "whether or not to spend money on PROJECT_X" into an appropriations bill. Because if there's one thing that shouldn't be part of an appropriations bill, it's decisions about what we do and do not spend money on.

Er, wait a minute....

whores. (5, Interesting)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35245832)

"it will stifle innovation and investment in broadband"
wait. it did NOT. it was de facto rule of internet up till this day, until you corporate whores had been instructed to kill it.

land of the !free! *rich ... give me !freedom! *dollars or give me death ...

Re:whores. (1)

Spykk (823586) | more than 3 years ago | (#35246066)

Is "freedom dollars" what they call francs in the US?

Re:whores. (2, Informative)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 3 years ago | (#35246088)

Not just whores: temple whores. It is an article of their faith that the free market is always more innovative than the government and no government program has ever done anything good for the economy. The fact that this belief serves the interest of the people lining their pockets is a nice bonus. In other words, they're whores, but they'd be happy to do it for free, because God in His form of the Invisible Hand told them to. I'm not exactly sure how this dogma fits in with the Christianity so many of them so loudly profess, but apparently enough money buys indulgence for a multitude of sins.

Re:whores. (2, Insightful)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35246326)

>>>It is an article of their faith that the free market is always more innovative than the government

YES competition is always more innovative than a government monopoly. That is a self-evident truth, because the many produce more ideas than the one. Problem: ISPs are not a free market and never were (except during the brief dialup era). ISPs are monopolies and just like the utility monopolies, need to be regulated. (Or even price fixed.)

Re:whores. (1)

Dredd13 (14750) | more than 3 years ago | (#35246570)

Or, alternatively, we need to banish the idea of allowing municipalities to bestow monopolies on last-mile providers and say that "anyone can be a cable provider" or "anyone can be a telco provider" in any given town. And that where towns have bestowed monopolies in the past, those incumbent folks must provide wholesale-cost use of their outside plant for the next, say, 25 years, enough time for other folks to invest and deploy parallel infrastructure to support their own business.

Re:whores. (1)

ichthus (72442) | more than 3 years ago | (#35246650)

Your "faith" starts looking a lot more like science when you have the entire history of the internet to present as proof. Net neutrality is a solution in search of a problem. Additionally, it is a power grab for an unelected (yet demonstrably partisan) entity.

BTW, *golf claps* to you for, somehow, making this a Christianity issue. ?? _The_ most retarded thing I've read all week, and it's Friday.

Re:whores. (4, Informative)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35246144)

>>>it was de facto rule of internet up till this day,

Since when was net neutrality the defacto rule? I don't recall that ever being the case - in fact I remember the earliest ISPs like AOL, Compuserve, Genie, and so on used to put the internet behind a wall and charge extra. Then they opened the wall, but filtered which websites or newsgroups you could visit.

Re:whores. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35246384)

That was in the days when you used the POTS system and dialed into some provider. There was actually a ton of choices for this access.

Basically you are comparing apples to oranges.

Re:whores. (1)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35246696)

>>>That was in the days when you used the POTS system and dialed into some provider. There was actually a ton of choices for this access.

Then that's what we need to recreate.
- Is it true that on DSL I can choose any provider I want, and I'm not stuck with Verizon? Is the same true with FiOS?

Re:whores. (1)

dave562 (969951) | more than 3 years ago | (#35246442)

The internet has never been open if you're a tool. On the other hand, back when AOL et al were walling off "the internet", anyone with half a brain and a modem could setup a SLIP connection and do whatever they wanted on the net.

Re:whores. (0)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 3 years ago | (#35246530)

You're full of shit, it was not the "de facto rule". And net neutrality is just a bunch of chicken littleism. Why not wait until there's a real problem before bringing the force of a corrupt and inept bureaucracy to bear?

Seems Legit (5, Funny)

Flyerman (1728812) | more than 3 years ago | (#35245848)

Remember, these are some of the smartest people in the country. They have evaluated the issue from all angles and determined that "net neutrality" as regulated by the FCC is not in the interest of their constituents.

They know exactly how it works and what it means for various businesses and especially in terms of the First Amendment. They have been completely unbiased in their review and I applaud them for their actions.

Re:Seems Legit (2)

19thNervousBreakdown (768619) | more than 3 years ago | (#35245932)

Ahahaha oh man, I can't believe you kept a straight face.

Re:Seems Legit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35245972)

You could see his face?

Re:Seems Legit (4, Funny)

19thNervousBreakdown (768619) | more than 3 years ago | (#35246046)

I'm pretty good at Internet.

Re:Seems Legit (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#35246128)

You could see his face?

Can you say Chatroulette? [wikipedia.org]

Re:Seems Legit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35245964)

The smartest people in the country? Like the late "series of tubes" mr Stevens? Most of these people don't believe in the "round earth theory", most of these people think funding end of life counseling = death panels, a mandate to >purchaseprivate for profit company = socialism, an escrow fund from BP = a "shake down" and they're sorry. Yes, definitely the smartest people in the country...

Re:Seems Legit (3, Insightful)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 3 years ago | (#35246246)

jeez the op was so ripe with sarcasm that I think I got some of its juice on my desk, and yet somehow, someone had a woosh, good job

Re:Seems Legit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35246408)

You're just as smart as the people you described, good job.

Re:Seems Legit (1)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 3 years ago | (#35246578)

I don't get the series of tubes thing. Is it just some Internet smug meme about old people and politicians? One could certainly describe the Internet as a series of tubes to a layman and be correct, at a high level. He said some other stuff that was...poorly phrased but I tire of the smug smiles I assume people wear when they mock the "series of tubes" comment because it's largely correct (in as far as it goes).

Re:Seems Legit (2)

ZankerH (1401751) | more than 3 years ago | (#35246622)

whoosh...

Re:Seems Legit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35246422)

Remember, these are some of the smartestMOST MANIPULATIVE people in the country.

There, fixed that for you!

Re:Seems Legit (3, Insightful)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 3 years ago | (#35246424)

You laugh.

But of course, lurking in the back of everyone's mind is the simple possibility that it might not be possible to pay for a non-tiered, flat-rate, uniform quality-of-service internet of sufficient capacity to deliver on-demand HD video or SIP telephone from any particular content provider in the US, independent of geography and service provider, to every terminal in the United States with flat monthly or even per-byte pricing on either end. The costs of building and maintaing the system simply don't map to consumption of the system's resources. Some parts of such a price structure are really lucrative for a network operator and some of them don't pay off for decades.

And if there were ways of doing it this way, it would require a hell of a lot more regulation than mere mandatory "Net Neutrality."

Re:Seems Legit (1)

paiute (550198) | more than 3 years ago | (#35246708)

You laugh.

But of course, lurking in the back of everyone's mind is the simple possibility that it might not be possible to pay for a non-tiered, flat-rate, uniform quality-of-service internet of sufficient capacity to deliver on-demand HD video or SIP telephone from any particular content provider in the US, independent of geography and service provider, to every terminal in the United States with flat monthly or even per-byte pricing on either end. The costs of building and maintaing the system simply don't map to consumption of the system's resources. Some parts of such a price structure are really lucrative for a network operator and some of them don't pay off for decades.

And if there were ways of doing it this way, it would require a hell of a lot more regulation than mere mandatory "Net Neutrality."

I would be with you except for one thing: the company which is delivering the content is becoming the company which makes and profits from the content. If Comcast were to say that video - from any source - was expensive, and those who wanted to send/deliver it should pay more, then maybe you would have a point. But we all know what is going to happen: NBC Universal traffic goes to the head of the queue. E!, Style, G4, Golf Channel, Versus - web traffic out of my way! Content from competitors will come along when there is an opening.

Re:Seems Legit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35246604)

Wow... blind faith in government officials. I didn't think that happened anymore since Nixon.

Wake up.

The Senate (1)

ShopMgr (1639595) | more than 3 years ago | (#35245942)

I hope the Senate just ignores these people!

It's a MONOPOLY dummy (4, Insightful)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35245948)

Monopolies need to be regulated Mr. Congresscritter.

Jeez. Maybe we can appeal to our Member State Legislatures to regulate the Comcasts, Verizons, and other monopolies inside their borders.

Re:It's a MONOPOLY dummy (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 3 years ago | (#35246086)

Monopolies need to be regulated Mr. Congresscritter.

Not in the view of the party that now controls the House.

(And increasingly, not in the view of the party that now controls the Senate.)

Re:It's a MONOPOLY dummy (2)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35246226)

Before you go too far with your Republican 5-minute hate, remember which party established Commissions and Czars to help track-and-prosecute copyright (monopoly) infringers and downloaders, for their Hollywood and Record company friends.

That would be the D's.
Both parties suck.
"We don't have two parties - we have ONE party. The Big Government party with two branches - both of which want to limit your person and your liberty." - Judge Napolitano, http://freedomwatchonfox.com/ [freedomwatchonfox.com]

Re:It's a MONOPOLY dummy (1)

nzap (1985014) | more than 3 years ago | (#35246362)

If you reread his post, he talks about the party controlling the senate and the house. That means he's referring to the Democrats and Republicans.

Re:It's a MONOPOLY dummy (1)

Angst Badger (8636) | more than 3 years ago | (#35246230)

Monopolies need to be regulated Mr. Congresscritter.

Funny you mention that. I was just thinking that one of the easiest ways to identify monopolies is by how often their advocates bandy around the term "innovation". I can't actually recall it being mentioned very much before Microsoft used it in their PR push at the height of their powers.

Re:It's a MONOPOLY dummy (1)

Steauengeglase (512315) | more than 3 years ago | (#35246752)

Unless every state did this, they'd laugh their way to court and then sue the state for damages. Besides state reps and senators are very, very easy to buy out. You could probably swing a vote with a bottle of good scotch or here in the south a case of Coors.

No, things are going to have to get bad, really, really, really bad before they get better.

Just to be clear... (5, Informative)

Anubis IV (1279820) | more than 3 years ago | (#35246012)

This lack of funding is aimed at the FCC's version of "net neutrality" [slashdot.org] , not to block net neutrality in general. This is a good thing. That version of "net neutrality" was in name only. Obviously there are interests on both sides of the aisle at play here (Big Business wants even less restriction, consumers want what they've always had), but we all agreed that the FCC's current idea sucked, so this is a win.

Re:Just to be clear... (5, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35246214)

And once the Republicans repeal the health care reform bill, they'll be replacing it with a new reform package, right? Just because the current idea sucks, does not mean that if it gets repealed we're guaranteed something better. At least with what we have we can fix it and adjust it as needed, whereas if we repeal it then we have to start over and every interest group and corporation is going to be eyeballing it to see what they can get slipped in.

Re:Just to be clear... (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35246674)

The "current idea" as you so ignorantly call it is that the FCC demands regulatory power over the whole fucking internet. nchallenged, they came up with this bullshit "net neutrality" policy that did not.. you know.. enforce any sort of actual neutrality.

You have been informed of the fact that the FCC is fucking evil in the past (in every single FCC-related net neutrality slashdot article, you have been informed)

..yet STILL you fucking want the FCC to regulate the internet. Its a sign of mental illness on your part. You've been fucked more than once by the FCC, recently in fact, and you are more than willing to be fucked again.. you seem to even demand it.

The FCC is in fucking bed with the providers. FUCKING WAKE UP, MORONS.

Re:Just to be clear... (1)

CyprusBlue113 (1294000) | more than 3 years ago | (#35246282)

Yep, clearly since proposed regulation wasn't enough, we should scrap it and have none. That will be so much better.

How does that follow? (1)

pavon (30274) | more than 3 years ago | (#35246286)

So how is going from rules that are not strict enough to no rules at all a win? Especially during a congress that will not pass stricter rules? That doesn't make any sense to me at all.

Re:Just to be clear... (5, Informative)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35246610)

>>>This is a good thing.

It is? What was wrong with the FCC's latest rules? I didn't see anything objectionable about them, and I'm usually anti-government. The rules seemed reasonable - block ISPs from discriminating against sites or charging extra to reach them.

a proposal (4, Interesting)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 3 years ago | (#35246048)

There is an interesting proposal in an essay in the latest Scientific American: allow differential charges on the basis of quantity of traffic, but not on the basis of content.

That would all the (IMO) reasonable approach of charging the heaviest users more and/or throttling their bandwidth, but wouldn't allow Comcast to put competing Netflix out of business.

Re:a proposal (1)

BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) | more than 3 years ago | (#35246122)

You're making the faulty assumption that the folks in Congress actually want a reasonable approach.

Based on their track record, I'm just going to go ahead and say they don't like reasonable. If they do, then they suck too much at implementing it to ever expect them to get this one right.

Re:a proposal (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35246234)

That wouldn't be prohibited under net neutrality rules, you'd just have to make the formula used the same for everybody.

If there's no funding... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35246078)

...then they may have to get funding from "other sources". Yeah, that'll work out great.

I hope Comcast and friends bought dinner first... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35246102)

I hope Comcast and friends bought Rep. Walden dinner first, 'cause he is GOBBLING that corporate cock!

Re:I hope Comcast and friends bought dinner first. (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35246260)

Does that then mean that we have goblins elected to office?

Innovation! (1, Insightful)

Grapplebeam (1892878) | more than 3 years ago | (#35246156)

It's the new old synonym for completely unregulated capitalism!

Re:Innovation! (1)

Merk42 (1906718) | more than 3 years ago | (#35246624)

"Stifle Innovation" has become the new "Think of the children"

Praise the lard with snout in trough! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35246164)

I for one am glad that those too sinful for the lard to make rich, such as myself, are reduced to the state of slavery we so deserve! All hail our Republican overlards!

The plan continues apace. Soon the "party of Lincoln" will get us back to the point we were before that pesky emancipation thing! This time slavery will only depend on one color: Green! If you have it, you're free, if not, start kneeling!

How many of you wrote to your congresscritters? (1, Interesting)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 3 years ago | (#35246192)

I wrote to my Congressman in support of net neutrality and got a note back saying that he also supports net neutrality.

Obviously, he must be a communist loon..... Wait, what does that make me?

Exasperating (5, Insightful)

BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) | more than 3 years ago | (#35246256)

Does anyone else just feel worn out by all political BS in the U.S these days? I mean, it seems like Congress is nothing more than a group of professional trolls at this point. They never, ever seem capable of doing anything useful, or beneficial for the citizens of this country anymore. It's exhausting. Every single time a story pops up (on Slashdot or anywhere else) that involves politics or a political decision, you can basically just assume that it's going to screw over everyone in the country that isn't already a politician.

Being a U.S. citizen today feels just like playing the role of Sisiphus [wikipedia.org] , consistently pushing a boulder uphill (trying to improve the world by being a responsible citizen, voting, jury duty, etc.) only to realize that you have to push it up again when you reach the top (Congress critters keep passing bills that fuck things up even more). It's exhausting, to keep reading about how those folks we elect to power just stumble around and fuck things up so badly....It's so consistent that it very nearly serves as a dataset to debunk that old meme of, "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence."

Our leaders are just fucking terrible. It's exhausting.

Re:Exasperating (1)

Xacid (560407) | more than 3 years ago | (#35246404)

"Does anyone else just feel worn out by all political BS in the U.S these days?"

YEP.

Re:Exasperating (5, Insightful)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35246452)

Does anyone else just feel worn out by all political BS in the U.S these days? I mean, it seems like Congress is nothing more than a group of professional trolls at this point.

Politics HAS become a profession. You work in politics for years, make 6 figures per year, then retire to the lecture circuit, or work for one of your supporting corporations as a lobbyist. Back when this country was first founded, politics was a calling, a sacrifice. Representatives were lawyers, farmers, merchants, doctors. A couple months out of the year they would give up their time(and therefore their money) to go to the capital and legislate. But politics was not how they made their living. But we've gotten away from this. People no longer see public service as a sacrifice. They see it as a tool for personal enrichment, a way to gain power for their family, and(this is the worst part) a means to an end. That end is power and influence, both while in office and once out of it.

Basically, it's not the system that is broken. It is the people within it.

Re:Exasperating (0)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 3 years ago | (#35246614)

It's funny, I think I'm the only person reading this article who doesn't give a fuck about net neutrality. When it's a real problem and not just a bunch of FUD that could happen, maybe we think about moving our inept government into action. Until then it's just a bunch of nerds whining about a non-issue.

Gov't enforced net neutrality will suck (1)

marco.antonio.costa (937534) | more than 3 years ago | (#35246358)

I can't really get how so many Slashdotters are rooting for this bullshit legislation like it will be a cure all for the internet.

Ok, providers will be forced to treat torrent downloads as normal traffic, but once the government has that foothold on the internet, it will never let go and you can kiss privacy, anonimity and other basic stuff we take for granted in the now 'unregulated capitalist' internet.

People never learn when it comes to government intervention, it seems.

Re:Gov't enforced net neutrality will suck (1)

marco.antonio.costa (937534) | more than 3 years ago | (#35246378)

Lol, I meant kiss it GOODBYE, not just kiss it.

Not that those very nice things about the internet don't deserve kissing.

Re:Gov't enforced net neutrality will suck (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 3 years ago | (#35246692)

you can kiss privacy, anonymity? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A [wikipedia.org]
as for 'unregulated capitalist' aspects are very locked down http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/01/municipal-fiber-needs-more-fdr-localism-fewer-state-bans.ars [arstechnica.com]

Re:Gov't enforced net neutrality will suck (1)

GSloop (165220) | more than 3 years ago | (#35246746)

...and Monopoly Enforced NON net neutrality will be so very much better?

Ah, I see.
[Sarcasm]
They'll innovate! [Like innovate you out of all your cash, and screw you over.]
Ah, but those monopolies will screw you over SO MUCH BETTER THAN THE GOVERMENT CAN.

I can hardly wait.
[/sarcasm]

You already kissed privacy and anonimity and other basic stuff away.
Let me guess, you voted for the Shrub, and thought Gitmo, smoke-'em-out, torture and such were great things - but now when the massive economic interests of a few monopolies are at stake, you're all for "smaller government?"

[I have no respect for Obama on these issues either - he's been a serious failure on torture, accountability and don't get me started on "look forward, not backward" ... but Shrub was way worse.] I feel like ripping my eyes out when I see someone like you claim we need to protect our privacy by keeping the government out of the internet.

The freeking government was already IN the internet a LONG time ago, and virtually all "small government" republicans thought it was just fine since it was just going to target them brown evil-doer forriners.

The whole charade is incredible.
Do nothing while our civil liberties are eviscerated under Bush.
Then, in the very next breath, complain how our privacy will be ripped away if we support a bill that is going to prevent huge greedy interests from deciding what you get to access on the internet.

Talk about chutzpah.

It's like ... That fireman that's extinguishing the flames at your house - well he *might* take something from your garage - so rather than keeping a watch on the guy, be sure to shoot him and let the whole house burn down. That's your solution to the problem, huh? [And never mind that you actually watched him rob everything of value from one neighbors house and actually helped him carry off the stuff from another - and never said "boo" about it till now.]

It goes way beyond cutting off your nose to spite your face.

-Greg

A form of mental illness (1)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | more than 3 years ago | (#35246360)

believing that monopolies and soulless corporations can make things better. I wish Jebus would come back; his first order of business would be gutting all these scumbags like fish.

Rule of thumb for Congress for next 2+ years (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35246440)

Psst. Slashdot, I would like to tell you the secret to understanding everything congress will do in the next 2 years, possibly more.

Nothing will happen.

Now, I know you're thinking Congress huffs and puffs and doesn't really do much for You the People in a typical session. But this time I mean it. Even less will happen. Nothing! Even when it comes to scratching the backs of big corporate donors, very little of it will actually happen. It's been trending this way for a few years, but the rate at which nothing happens has been rapidly accelerating with each passing year.

Seriously. What happens in the House is meaningless. And they know it. It's total gridlock. The plan on both sides (though the Republicans are most responsible for the current state of affairs) is to just do nothing for 2 years and be in permanent election mode. You'll hear crap about spending and abortions and unions and net neutrality and god knows what else. But nothing serious will happen. When they're confronted with anything of any substance, they'll say it should wait for the next election. In perpetuity.

And again, it's been trending this way for a long time... But man, that old cliche has never been truer than it is now. 2012 will likely be even more depressing.

In the meantime, Slashdot.... Please don't bother sensationalizing the things congress is claiming to do. It only encourages them. It's all meant to plant news headlines like this one, for permanent election mode.

Funding for what exactly? (1)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | more than 3 years ago | (#35246474)

I don't understand how it requires significant funding to write a set of rules. Is this money used to pay people for their time writing the legislature? I was under the impression that this was exactly what the Senators and Representatives in the government are paid for already...

Perhaps for once politicians could do something that benefits someone other than themselves? Nah, guess that's asking too much.

So.. The Government will fix it, right? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35246590)

So let me get this straight: We *want* the FCC to gain regulatory control over our Internet to save us from bad ISPs?

Do IT people not understand that the net-neutrality debate (a valid issue) is being subverted and used in order for the US Government to gain Regulatory Control over our Internet? The FCC clearly has no legal jurisdiction over the Internet, but if they can get people to go along with this, then they'll be in like Flynn.

Do we actually comprehend the angle of the slope we are standing on?

Perhaps content providers need to band together? (1)

FriendlyPrimate (461389) | more than 3 years ago | (#35246726)

We all know the reason why ISPs are against net neutrality is so that the Time Warner Cables and Comcasts of the world can kill off the competition like Netflix and Vonage. And the Netflixes of the world are pretty much powerless to do anything about it. What are they going to do? A boycott from a single content provider is not going to be noticed my many.

However, if the proponents of net neutrality (i.e. Google, Vonage, Yahoo, Microsoft) formed a NATO-like pact, they could ALL boycott any ISP found to be breaking net neutrality against any one of them.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?