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!

US Democrats Introduce Bill To Restore Net Neutrality

Soulskill posted about 6 months ago | from the doubtful-prospects dept.

The Internet 535

New submitter litehacksaur111 writes "Lawmakers are introducing the Open Internet Preservation Act (PDF) which aims to restore net neutrality rules enforced by the FCC before being struck down by the DC appeals court. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) said, 'The Internet is an engine of economic growth because it has always been an open platform for competition and innovation. Our bill very simply ensures that consumers can continue to access the content and applications of their choosing online.' Unfortunately, it looks unlikely the bill will make it through Congress. 'Republicans are almost entirely united in opposition to the Internet rules, meaning the bill is unlikely to ever receive a vote in the GOP-controlled House.'"

cancel ×

535 comments

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

It's incredibly frustrating... (5, Insightful)

ZorinLynx (31751) | about 6 months ago | (#46153205)

...to see just how in the pocket of huge corporations the GOP is, and yet people continue to vote for them, against their own interests.

What will it take to wake people up? I fear it may not happen until it's too late, if not already.

Re:It's incredibly frustrating... (4, Insightful)

jeff13 (255285) | about 6 months ago | (#46153249)

Propaganda works. Sorry.

Re:It's incredibly frustrating... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46153297)

where are all the freedom loving tea baggers? why are they not screaming for individual freedom? oh, sorry. they are only for corporate individuals. corporations are people my friends.

Re:It's incredibly frustrating... (3, Insightful)

just_another_sean (919159) | about 6 months ago | (#46153461)

where are all the freedom loving tea baggers?

Apparently on /. modding ZorinLynx flamebait.

I don't get that, I see nothing but observed truth in that comment. Oh well, trolls gonna troll I guess.

Re:It's incredibly frustrating... (0, Troll)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 6 months ago | (#46153459)

Propaganda works. Sorry.

Indeed - just look at the way the summary writer uplifts Democrats while lambasting Republicans, even though any objective observer will tell you they're essentially two sides of the same, evil coin.

Re:It's incredibly frustrating... (1)

thaylin (555395) | about 6 months ago | (#46153485)

False dilemma, while I agree, not necessarily all objective observers will. Maybe most, or a lot, but probably not all.

Re:It's incredibly frustrating... (1, Redundant)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 6 months ago | (#46153619)

False dilemma, while I agree, not necessarily all objective observers will. Maybe most, or a lot, but probably not all.

But.. if they're all objective observers, how can they arrive at differing, subjective outcomes?

Re:It's incredibly frustrating... (1)

thaylin (555395) | about 6 months ago | (#46153671)

Because it is SUBJECTIVE, but even still, the topic is not what makes it a logical fallacy, it is the wording. Claiming that if you are objective then you would agree, therefore anyone who does not agree with you is not objective, is what makes it a fallacy, even though there may be any number of reasons an objective observer may disagree with you.

Re:It's incredibly frustrating... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46153631)

If the article summary is correct in that the bill would pass the Democratic Senate and that House Republicans are united against it, then no, they aren't two sides of the same, evil coin. It probably doesn't fit your model of your own moral superiority and wisdom, but perhaps, just perhaps, the world isn't quite so black-and-white and you like it to be. Believe it or not, but in the real world the subtleties and nuances go well beyond anything that can be imagined by anyone under the age of 25.

Re:It's incredibly frustrating... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46153639)

My guess is you vote libertarian--because that's the same rhetoric I keep hearing from them, which is in reality nothing more than a rebranding of the extreme right wing of the republican party. Same party different name.

Re: It's incredibly frustrating... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46153665)

Those are called facts. I'm sure you are not familiar with facts as your objectivity is probably defined be FOX news.

Re:It's incredibly frustrating... (4, Insightful)

Kenja (541830) | about 6 months ago | (#46153259)

It's simple, while I may not be rich now, tomorrow I could be! And then I won't want my hard earned money going to poor people like I was.

Re:It's incredibly frustrating... (4, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 6 months ago | (#46153505)

And then I won't want my hard earned money going to poor people like I was.

Also, if the government didn't force me to give any of my money to those people, then I'd be rich.

(Seriously, a lot of people think that this is the only effect of government programs designed to help poor people, even when they know people who are benefiting from those programs.)

Re:It's incredibly frustrating... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46153835)

I, personally, don't want poor people to rob me or steal things from my house - so I would prefer that there are plans in place to help them (yes, with some of my tax money). In a world where there are not enough jobs to go around, it is extremely disingenuous for right to claim that the only reason poor people are poor is that they are lazy.

Re:It's incredibly frustrating... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46153657)

Does anyone actually believe this? I mean I have heard it all the time to categorize people over political disagreements, but I have never met anyone who actually based their values of such an idea.

As part of our liberal society we need to have the same rules for everyone. As soon as we start treating poor people different from rich people we aren't following that. This includes not charging rich people more for the same government services provided for free to poor people. For practical reasons we can never get to the point. However, none of this is based off of self-interest. It is just what rules work best for a functioning society. Smart people can (and most do) disagree with me, but political thought, no matter how wrong it is, is generally not rationalized by selfish reasons.

Re:It's incredibly frustrating... (0)

NatasRevol (731260) | about 6 months ago | (#46153847)

As part of our liberal society we need to have the same rules for everyone. As soon as we start treating poor people different from rich people we aren't following that.

Wait, what?

It's as if all people have always been able to vote and not just white, male land owners.
Or that different incomes get taxed differently.

Re:It's incredibly frustrating... (0)

flyingsquid (813711) | about 6 months ago | (#46153797)

It's simple, while I may not be rich now, tomorrow I could be! And then I won't want my hard earned money going to poor people like I was.

Wow! He managed to sum up the entire Republican platform, AND went an entire 28 words without saying anything positive about rape in the process! Just add in a few words about doubting global warming and maybe 'teaching the controversy' on evolution, and I think we will have our 2016 Republican presidential nominee!

Re:It's incredibly frustrating... (2, Insightful)

TheResilientFarter (3216187) | about 6 months ago | (#46153281)

Wouldn't it largely be huge corporations benefiting from so-called 'net neutrality'? If it is going to be required that owners of private property charge the same price to all-comers, then it is going to be more difficult for small businesses to compete with large businesses, no? It seems true net neutrality would be allow anyone to compete as they see fit - if a company is going to 'over charge', then another company should be allowed to come in and 'under charge'.

Re:It's incredibly frustrating... (4, Interesting)

i kan reed (749298) | about 6 months ago | (#46153471)

Not really. Net neutrality removes a barrier to entry for the market. One that doesn't exist yet, "pay off local ISPs to allow traffic" would be a necessary step for starting a new web-based business.

Re:It's incredibly frustrating... (4, Insightful)

lexman098 (1983842) | about 6 months ago | (#46153509)

It gets more complicated when your "private property" is a bridge that leads to somewhere really important.

Re:It's incredibly frustrating... (2)

TheResilientFarter (3216187) | about 6 months ago | (#46153615)

It seems like those replying to my argument are using some version of this argument, but as I state, wouldn't someone just come in and build a new bridge? Or, if the bridge truly is that important, it must be difficult and costly to build, thus wouldn't this legislation increase the price the people on the other side of the bridge will be paying, given that the investors in the bridge are expecting a certain level of return?

There is no "come in and under charge" when there (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46153515)

There is no "come in and under charge" when there is only one line of service.

Re:It's incredibly frustrating... (1)

AutodidactLabrat (3506801) | about 6 months ago | (#46153649)

No, since large businesses control the net, they set lower prices FOR THEMSELVES and higher prices for the poorer potential competitors for content.

Re:It's incredibly frustrating... (4, Insightful)

ADRA (37398) | about 6 months ago | (#46153693)

None of what you say matters. Basically all providers besides very few number of high density area ISP's are huge and effectively Oligopolies, which means 'some small company coming in and selling bwelow cost' doesn't happen. Additionally, the idea of Net Neutrality means that in this limited marketplace, we as conbsumers have no information of what kind of extortion that their companies are putting on the internet services that we use. Would you support an ISP that charged excessively high rates on a site you frequent regularly (like slashdot)? Would you ever know? How much do you want to bet that fees will be doubled+ if its publically disclosed?

I say screw it. Have the gov take pack the lines they laid and introduce a non-profit entity who's only job is to maintain the architecture and push costs on the content / service backbone carriers.

Re:It's incredibly frustrating... (1)

spitzak (4019) | about 6 months ago | (#46153777)

Different charges will only benefit small business if the charge is *smaller* for them than for large established companies. If it is *larger* then it hurts small companies. There is a large bridge in Brooklyn I need to unload quickly, and anybody who believes the charge will be smaller for small businesses is probably an ideal owner, so please make an offer.

Re:It's incredibly frustrating... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46153309)

Lets say it was the DNC in charge. Do you honestly think it would be any different?

The *only* thing that talks on the Hill is money. The money is currently pointed at who is in charge.

Re: It's incredibly frustrating... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46153831)

Democrats are putting the bill forward. Republicans will block passage in lieu for another vote to defund ACA or hold the government hostage for private interests.

I'm not sure if you noticed, but the bush administration pushed plans to privatize government services that could help fund social programs without raising taxes.

The move in the 80's to move mental health services to individual states is an example. These comprehensive services were privatized, but the services that could not make money were cut. Nebraska is a perfect example of this outcome.

Re:It's incredibly frustrating... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46153317)

Obamacare is not in my interest.

Re:It's incredibly frustrating... (5, Insightful)

Carcass666 (539381) | about 6 months ago | (#46153333)

...to see just how in the pocket of huge corporations the GOP is, and yet people continue to vote for them, against their own interests.

What will it take to wake people up? I fear it may not happen until it's too late, if not already.

I don't buy that the GOP is necessarily in bed with corporations any more than the Democrats, it's just more of a position of political posture. The GOP takes care of their corporate masters by fighting against regulations, while the Democrats handle the tax breaks, subsidies and programs that ensure their campaign contributors are happy.

The anti-regulation dogma of the GOP is disheartening because while I agree with a decent number of GOP principles around spending restraint, tax reform, etc.; I don't agree that the free market can be trusted to handle finite public resources like spectrum and last-mile connectivity. This is especially troubling given the nature of the last-mile providers (COX, Time Warner, AT&T, etc.) who have vested commercial interests in maximizing their bandwidth performance at the expense of others (Netflix). It's too simplistic to say that all regulation is "bad", just as it's too simplistic to say that any social or green energy program is "good".

Re:It's incredibly frustrating... (1)

thaylin (555395) | about 6 months ago | (#46153563)

umm, the GOP handles "tax breaks, subsidies and programs that ensure their campaign contributors are happy" as well, just look at NC, our GOP overlords want to drop the corporate tax rate to like 3%,less than individual tax by almost 50%.

Re:It's incredibly frustrating... (3, Informative)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 6 months ago | (#46153689)

umm, the GOP handles "tax breaks, subsidies and programs that ensure their campaign contributors are happy" as well, just look at NC, our GOP overlords want to drop the corporate tax rate to like 3%,less than individual tax by almost 50%.

If you think that sort of behavior is exclusive to the GOP, you don't pay attention to campaign finances. Obama's top donors were almost identical to Romney's, with few exceptions.

Judging by that metric, Goldman Sachs runs America, regardless of who gets elected.

Re:It's incredibly frustrating... (1)

thaylin (555395) | about 6 months ago | (#46153793)

I never said it was exclusive to the GOP, if you actually read the comment I was replying to they said Dems were the ones doing that, where I pointed out the Repubs do it AS WELL, not exclusively.

Re:It's incredibly frustrating... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46153375)

It's pretty simple:

1) The majority of them are older
2) The majority of them don't understand what this issue means
3) The majority of them have to get back to Duck Dynasty and hate gays.

Re:It's incredibly frustrating... (1, Insightful)

ackthpt (218170) | about 6 months ago | (#46153467)

It's pretty simple:

1) The majority of them are older
2) The majority of them don't understand what this issue means
3) The majority of them have to get back to Duck Dynasty and hate gays.

They also need some takeout from Chik Fil A.

Re:It's incredibly frustrating... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46153391)

It is also mind-boggling how a party which claims to want a free market is willing to skew the market in favor of businesses.

The GOP are purely a pro big business party who don't give a damn about consumers.

They're only interested in allowing corporations to line their pockets at our expense, as long as they get their requisite kickbacks.

In short, everything the GOP claims to stand for from the position of economic policy is a fucking lie. They don't want free markets, they want monopolies and oligarchies to tell us what we're allowed to have -- and coincidentally, they all either own, are on the payroll of, those exact same companies.

Re:It's incredibly frustrating... (3, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | about 6 months ago | (#46153493)

...to see just how in the pocket of huge corporations the GOP is, and yet people continue to vote for them, against their own interests.

What will it take to wake people up? I fear it may not happen until it's too late, if not already.

Its even more infuriating when people don't understand that there is a huge difference between this bill and the one the Republicans voted for in 2011. And its yet more infuriating when some biased blog doesn't even mention the regulations the FCC was trying to impose in 2011 were things that a lot of people here on Slashdot were complaining about vociferously back in 2011. Those regulations went way past what the common man understands as "net neutrality". Those regulations essentially made the internet like a telephone carriers or tv station, which would need FCC licenses just to operate. It was a back-door regulation grab. No rules are better than total government control.

Its depressing to see how many people automatically think that if a Democrat authors a bill its automatically good for the people. Have you learned nothing in the last 8 years?

 

Re:It's incredibly frustrating... (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 6 months ago | (#46153715)

Its depressing to see how many people automatically think that if a Democrat authors a bill its automatically good for the people. Have you learned nothing in the last 8 years?

Well sure! We've learned how to be even more divisive and vitriolic, we've learned how to subjugate others via insults and marginalization, and we've learned that, right or wrong, we must defend the party line to a T.

Oh, you meant "have we learned anything useful in the last 8 years..."

Debatable.

Re:It's incredibly frustrating... (1)

spitzak (4019) | about 6 months ago | (#46153883)

Those regulations essentially made the internet like a telephone carriers or tv station, which would need FCC licenses just to operate.

Care to explain this, in detail with reference to the actual items in the bill?

Re:It's incredibly frustrating... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46153765)

Nice to see that this has become an anti-GOP circle jerk shouldn’t expect anything less from the degenerates on /.

Both parties are out for their own interests neither have your interests in mind they just want you to stay in line and not interrupt their looting.

9/11 was an inside job (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46153821)

perpetrated by people within the United States Government

until people realize this fact of life, they will continue happily being assfucked by old rich white men

Re:It's incredibly frustrating... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46153873)

If you think it's just the GOP, then I've got some bad news for you...

Re:It's incredibly frustrating... (1)

Shagg (99693) | about 6 months ago | (#46153889)

Unfortunately, most voters are idiots.

Democrats the #1 party of U.S. Imperialism (1)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | about 6 months ago | (#46153225)

Remember Hiroshima, Remember Vietnam, Democratic Party, We Know Which Side You're On!

Re:Democrats the #1 party of U.S. Imperialism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46153879)

You left out slavery and segregation.

OMG IT'S A MARXIST PLOT (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46153251)

DON"T FALL FOR IT

Wrong fight (5, Insightful)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | about 6 months ago | (#46153253)

It's not Net Neutrality, but "Republicans want to take away your Netflix..." People dislike losing something tangible much more than gaining some important, but hard to quantify item. Change the debate; just like the natural food industry who says "The government wants to take away your vitamins..." to the opposing argument of "We want to be sure you aren't getting ripped off by spurious claims..." Guess which one wins?

You've oversimplified it ... (1)

mmell (832646) | about 6 months ago | (#46153773)

Tastycrats and Fingerlicans alike seek to maximize their popularity (voting numbers) by selecting the side of any given issue which most appeals to their voter base. In most cases, this results in diametrically opposed highly polarized conditions with each party going to the extreme and laboring to show how it is different (and superior) to the other party. In the final analysis, I don't believe the Democrats care one jot or tittle for Net Neutrality; but if the Republicans are against it, the Democrats will defend it (or it could be vice versa - I can never keep one batch of lunatics separate from another, we should just lock 'em all away in Bedlam).

Wait'll the balance of power shifts again. The U.S. political landscape is about as stable as my Aunt Ethel's spastic colon - by design.

Re:Wrong fight (1)

meta-monkey (321000) | about 6 months ago | (#46153833)

Call it the "Save Netflix Act" or the "Internet Video Protection Act." Nobody outside of /. understands what "net neutrality" means, but "neutral" sounds like you're some kind of pansy. What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were they just born with a heart full of neutrality?

ah, yes (0, Troll)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 6 months ago | (#46153255)

republicans. is there anything you DON'T fuck up?

seriously. how could you, with a clear conscience, be against fairness in network access?

I can't understand why people support the republican agenda. they are always (the last 20 or so years) on the wrong side. they are anti-women, anti-gay, anti-immigrant (unless its cheap h1b labor), and anti-choice. and like racial segregation from the 50's, history will show the republicans to be on the wrong side of history, too.

a thorn in our side in progress. this is the part of my country I really hate; the fact that we have idiots keeping us back from making progress the rest of the world already enjoys.

Re:ah, yes (0, Flamebait)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about 6 months ago | (#46153381)

Well, they don't fuck up by paying for doctors to murder babies.

See what I did there?

Re:ah, yes (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46153599)

Well, they don't fuck up by paying for doctors to murder babies.

Never go full retard.

Re:ah, yes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46153767)

An embryo is not a baby.

See what I did here?

Re:ah, yes (2, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about 6 months ago | (#46153865)

Yeah, they fuck up by not doing that. I feel no personal moral compunction against killing any creature incapable of self-awareness. When such prohibitions actively harm those that do meet that criteria, I begin to see injustice.

Re:ah, yes (2)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about 6 months ago | (#46153411)

All you're doing is stating that you hold positions that are firmly contrary to the Republican platform, and emoting at how amazed you are at the chasm.

That's nothing remotely like an argument for how you're right and they're wrong.

Re:ah, yes (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 6 months ago | (#46153775)

anti-women, anti-gay, anti-choice: those are absolutes. or, do you think that certain people deserve more rights than others?

should blacks have to use a 'colored only' water fountain??

its just like this. this is not 'relativism', its pretty absolute and everyone deserves equal rights in a so-called free country.

when I read forums that have a lot of young people, I can see they are all for equal rights and they are not following the republican agenda, not one bit. only the older 'white men' seem to believe their special kind of insanity. the younger crowd wants none of it.

they are our hope for the future. current old guys need to die out so that new blood can fix the evils the older ones did.

Re:ah, yes (5, Insightful)

SirGarlon (845873) | about 6 months ago | (#46153457)

I can't understand why people support the republican agenda.

I understand your frustration, but both parties seem pretty bad in their own ways. I suspect most Republicans are actually just anti-Democrats, and vice versa.

Re:ah, yes (4, Funny)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 6 months ago | (#46153747)

I suspect most Republicans are actually just anti-Democrats, and vice versa.

Now if only the laws of physics would apply here . . . then these particles would mutually annihilate each other when they meet in Congress, and we would all be much better off without the lot of them.

Re:ah, yes (0)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about 6 months ago | (#46153853)

I can't understand why people support the republican agenda.

I understand your frustration, but both parties seem pretty bad in their own ways. I suspect most Republicans are actually just anti-Democrats, and vice versa.

To be fair, the Republican are probably more just anti-Obama. As one comedian said, they just can't get over the fact that he's black and are bitter that they lost two elections to him.

Re:ah, yes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46153523)

They don't take doctors and healthcare away from terminal cancer patients, unlike some other "popular" parties in the US.

Re:ah, yes (1)

kick6 (1081615) | about 6 months ago | (#46153609)

republicans. is there anything you DON'T fuck up?

seriously. how could you, with a clear conscience, be against fairness in network access?

I can't understand why people support the republican agenda. they are always (the last 20 or so years) on the wrong side. they are anti-women, anti-gay, anti-immigrant (unless its cheap h1b labor), and anti-choice. and like racial segregation from the 50's, history will show the republicans to be on the wrong side of history, too.

a thorn in our side in progress. this is the part of my country I really hate; the fact that we have idiots keeping us back from making progress the rest of the world already enjoys.

Why are any of those things wrong? Because they "feel" bad to you? You sort of have to ignore a pretty serious mountain of evidence that being pro-(insert your list of what republicans are anti) are destroying soveriegnty, culture, and economic prowress of this country.

Re:ah, yes (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about 6 months ago | (#46153645)

The GOP was instrumental in killing SOPA. So... there's that.

Re:ah, yes (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 6 months ago | (#46153739)

The GOP was instrumental in killing SOPA. So... there's that.

Perhaps, but with apologies to Yakov, "In Soviet America, the other party is always wrong, even when they're right."

Re:ah, yes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46153699)

You sure are spewing the far left extremist Democrat talking points!

- anti-women? how? because they don't want to pay for someone's meds in the form of free birth control? or because they don't like killing babies?

- anti-gay? how? because they agree with Obama's original stance on same sex marriage? Personally, I don't care. But saying that all Republicans agree on everything is kind of silly.

- anti-immigrant? how? because they don't want to invite the whole world to come here and get everything for free that our caring liberals hand out?

- anti-choice? I assume this is abortion again, but our liberals only seem to like choice when it allows them to kill babies. Choice in other things are bad. Like choice in lightbulb tech, gas mileage, and how big a soda can be, and many others.

- racial segragation? what? since when do Republicans support that? Republicans were against this for religious reasons.

There is a lot more to the net-neutrality issue than many people want to admit. But all they do is put it into simple easily misunderstood phrases like "net neutrality".

About the Republicans . . . (2)

mmell (832646) | about 6 months ago | (#46153809)

Yeah, there's plenty we don't fuck up - we don't fuck up the shit the Democrats have already fucked up. We let the Democrats keep screwing up their shit while we Republicans screw up different shit. That's why we have a two-party system - and when both parties decide to fuck with the same thing, it's glorious.

Re:ah, yes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46153881)

Rep. Greg Walden, the Republican chairman of the House Communications and Technology Subcommittee, said in a statement that he is willing to consider the bill as part of a broader discussion of re-writing communications law. "However, we remain vigorously opposed to any attempt to install the FCC as the traffic cop of the Internet," Walden said.

Is that being unreasonable? Keep complaining about how when your guys want to keep piling band-aids on a festering, squirting wound, the other guys keep tearing them back off.

Re:ah, yes (2)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | about 6 months ago | (#46153893)

republicans. is there anything you DON'T fuck up?

Speaking of fucking.. There is far too much sodomy of the taxpayer going on to actually use the term "republican" or "democrat". That would imply there was actually some sort of representation present for their constituent base.

We need a better name for what we have but "Right/Left Leaning Corporate Bill Smuggling Mercenary" is a bit of a mouthful.

US Democrats? (0)

Megane (129182) | about 6 months ago | (#46153257)

As opposed to Canadian Democrats? Or French Democrats?

Standards... (1)

MobSwatter (2884921) | about 6 months ago | (#46153287)

Just like encryption, you can't have it unless it's broken growing into the internet, you can't have it unless all aspects of innovation are quashed and ideas can be stolen.

"liberal media control" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46153301)

For a bunch of people that complain they are the minority voice, they sure don't understand that the laws there promoting can completely stomp out their voice online altogether. What happens when telecoms push everyone through to NBC.com instead of fox news you jackasses?

There's no need for a new bill ... (5, Insightful)

DeadDecoy (877617) | about 6 months ago | (#46153335)

Just reclassify ISPs as common carriers. Creating a separate bill would probably open up the doors for more abuse, not less.

Re:There's no need for a new bill ... (4, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 6 months ago | (#46153601)

What the ISPs really want is all the benefits of being a common carrier without any of the responsibilities. And that's exactly what they got with the Net Neutrality ruling. Given that AT&T is in the running for the top campaign donor in the country [opensecrets.org] , it's unlikely that will change anytime soon (Seriously, it would be easier to list the politicians not on the take from AT&T).

Needed (5, Insightful)

JWW (79176) | about 6 months ago | (#46153393)

What is needed is not a reestablishment of the "rules" the FCC set up for what they called "net neutrality", what we need is for the FCC to declare the internet common carrier and to make all ISP's honor that.

This bill not that. When these policies were in place at the FCC before being struck down, there were huge loopholes that companies (especially wireless) could drive giant trucks full of money through.

We need the internet classified common carrier now!

Re:Needed (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46153623)

Would this ban QoS?

Business sat down... (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 6 months ago | (#46153425)

Business sat down and discovered it had a big lump in its pocket, upon inspecting the pocket found it contained the GOP.

Nothing new here.

Look at the History (3, Insightful)

roccomaglio (520780) | about 6 months ago | (#46153439)

If this is purely a Republicans versus Democrats issue as it presented here, then how come the Democrats did not pass it from 2008-2010 when they controlled the presidency, house of representatives, and the senate (by filibuster proof majority). They could have passed it without a Republican vote.

Re:Look at the History (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 6 months ago | (#46153529)

If this is purely a Republicans versus Democrats issue as it presented here, then how come the Democrats did not pass it from 2008-2010 when they controlled the presidency, house of representatives, and the senate (by filibuster proof majority). They could have passed it without a Republican vote.

Because had they done that, they would not be able to use this bill as a weapon against the party they'll be running against.

Re: Look at the History (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46153541)

Because it wasn't until 2010 that total partisanship and fuck-those-other-guys became the norm, and the majority and minority actually talked with each other once in a while.

Re:Look at the History (2)

fodder69 (701416) | about 6 months ago | (#46153575)

Because there was an existing classification that covered it so it wasn't needed.

Re:Look at the History (3, Insightful)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | about 6 months ago | (#46153579)

I don't think it was as big a deal five years ago. I certainly would have given them props for being so forward thinking in bringing up what was a non-issue at the time, but I imagine it would have been spun as they're wasting time on something no one cared about, so it's really lose-lose for them isn't it?

Whitehouse petition (5, Informative)

TopSpin (753) | about 6 months ago | (#46153447)

A petition [whitehouse.gov] of the White House to `Restore Net Neutrality By Directing the FCC to Classify Internet Providers as "Common Carriers" just attained the 100k signatures required for a response.

I'm sure a number of you would have liked to have known about that and signed it at the time... but the story submission was declined. Guess there were too many terribly important climate change stories or something.

Re:Whitehouse petition (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46153703)

Guess there were too many terribly important climate change stories or something.

Well, you might not agree, but I, for one, appreciate all the announcements put out when every little fucking vendor starts accepting bitcoins. Where else do you suggest I get such timely and important news? And some of us want to know every time Snowden farts or walks around. This is news that matters!

Re:Whitehouse petition (2)

SirGarlon (845873) | about 6 months ago | (#46153811)

The editors probably dismissed that story because so many of the Obama administration's "responses" to the petitions are some low-level staffer writing a condescending 200-word essay explaining why the government won't take action on that issue. Yeah, that's a technically a response, but if it keeps up, some day people might start to think the President is not serious about these petitions!

Remember the times? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 6 months ago | (#46153491)

Remember when the GOP stood for unfettered liberty, not only for economy but also for you, when your personal liberty was paramount?

Today, it's a breeding ground for cronyism, where the ancient creed of the free market has been replaced by a corporate mantra of "who pays the most can have the most rights". Mix in a bit of backwards conservativism without substance (aka "new stuff - bad") to appeal to the change fearing mouth breathers and, well, there you have it.

I kinda wish some of the old GOP heads were alive today, I'd really like to hear what they think of the crooks that run it today, and what they think of the direction it took.

Re:Remember the times? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46153647)

I'm only 42. How would I remember back that far?

Aggravation (1)

Dega704 (1454673) | about 6 months ago | (#46153495)

AT&T and other ISPs have been greasing those wheels with flatbeds of lobbying(bribing) money for far too long. Net neutrality was the single largest issue that made me turn from the Republican party in disgust. They crap all over the free market in the name if the free market and endanger free speech in the name of free speech. It's pure madness.

Simple solution (1)

Anon-Admin (443764) | about 6 months ago | (#46153519)

To any congressman, Congressman's aid, or anyone sleeping with a congressman. Here is the solution to net neutrality.

Append a rider to an existing bill that modifies the Telecommunications Act and redefines a data provider as a common carrier.

Re:Simple solution (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 6 months ago | (#46153785)

Append a rider to an existing bill that modifies the Telecommunications Act and redefines a data provider as a common carrier.

I think that's the best idea posited so far, one that ensures neutrality and access to most if not all Americans.

Which means that it's against the interests of someone who can afford to bribe Congresscritters, both D and R, which means it's not going to happen.

Net Neutrality WILL get a vote! (1)

dyfet (154716) | about 6 months ago | (#46153547)

If it's not fixed in congress or elsewhere such as using common carrier status regulation, entrepreneurs will "vote" with their feet...

Re:Net Neutrality WILL get a vote! (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 6 months ago | (#46153617)

How, someone is going magically create a separate ISP in areas where the cable-coms essentially have a monopoly? Where they'll sue the city if they try to set up free wifi they get sued?

Sorry, but from what I can tell the major ISPs often have no competition, and enjoy the use of public easements nobody could compete against.

As long as the cable companies can simply decide what they want to carry and what they don't, there can't be network neutrality.

These things need to be deemed common carriers so they no longer have loopholes to say "nice internet, shame if something were to happen to it".

Re:Net Neutrality WILL get a vote! - out of the US (1)

dyfet (154716) | about 6 months ago | (#46153891)

I mean they will leave the US entirely for more technologically free regions of the world...

Misinformation (4, Insightful)

neonv (803374) | about 6 months ago | (#46153549)

Being someone who usually votes conservative, I find that net neutrality among conservatives is largely misunderstood. I continually hear that it requires content to be neutral. Meaning that if one opinion is present on a web page, all opposing opinions must be present as well to maintain neutrality. Everyone here should understand that is false. The source of that misinformation seems to be that the bill could be interpreted to let the FCC dictate content requirements. If the FCC were to do something crazy like that, it wouldn't hold up in court due to free speech, so it's not a reasonable concern.

To prevent misinformation, here are the two views to net neutrality.

1) Pro Net Neutrality: Internet Service Providers (ISP) should not dictate which data sources are allowed, how much bandwidth is allowed from each data source, or charge differently for data sources. For example, Netflix creates up to a third of internet traffic in the evening hours. As a result, ISP's are temped to reduce bandwidth allowed from Netflix to free up resources. Net neutrality would not allow this. This is usually the consumer point of view.

2) Anti Net Neutrality: The ISP's own their equipment, pay for their bandwidth, and can do what they want with it. If they want to shape network traffic to make overall service better, it's their right. This is usually the business point of view.

There are lots of details associated with either option. There can be a hybrid approach taken by the FCC as well. For example, if YouTube traffic gets so bad that I can't load a web page in a reasonable amount of time, then limiting YouTube would be in my best interest. In the rare cases such as that, bandwidth limiting is a good idea. Illegal activity such as child pornography could reasonably be blocked as well.

Here's the wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Misinformation (1, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 6 months ago | (#46153621)

2) Anti Net Neutrality: The ISP's own their equipment, pay for their bandwidth, and can do what they want with it. If they want to shape network traffic to make overall service better, it's their right. This is usually the business point of view.

and if you could freely choose which ISP you want to connect to, that would be fine. but most of the time, there is ONE choice for internet and so you can't take your business elsewhere! ie, there is no competition and whoever services your area is who you can buy from and that's it.

this is why they don't deserve to control the network traffic. we are forced into a monopoly (effectively) and so this HAS to be a common carrier arrangement.

give us choice in carriers and we can talk about letting them throttle. until then, they dont deserve to be able to control us like that!

Re:Misinformation (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46153801)

You miss an important part of point #1 for "pro net neutrality" in that Netflix is already paying for its bandwidth _and_ the consumer receiving the stream is also paying. The parties in the middle have peering business arrangements, so they are getting paid in one way or another for traffic crossing networks (or they should renegotiate their peering arrangements).

Everyone is already getting paid for the access they use. I would also add that Netflix creates 1/3 of the traffic at the request of the ISP's customers. Its not like Netflix is randomly injecting junk into the network.

Net neutrality is not the problem (4, Insightful)

SuperCharlie (1068072) | about 6 months ago | (#46153603)

Marketplace monopoly is the problem. When the majority of access is controlled by a handful of ISP's there is no option to simply "Go somewhere else". It's a moot point tho, as the money flows, so shall the votes.

Re:Net neutrality is not the problem (1)

Gavagai80 (1275204) | about 6 months ago | (#46153709)

Indeed. I loathe Comcast, and after their latest attempt to cheat me by charging me rent on a cable modem I own I searched for alternatives.... and there are none. Not even satellite is available here. I'd have to go with dial-up.

Finally (0)

pouar (2629833) | about 6 months ago | (#46153683)

The democrats do something useful for once. Of course both parties are corrupt. The republicans just happen to be less corrupt. Why can't we ever get a 3rd party canidate in office since a lot of them seem to be better than the Democrats and Republicans combined

Re:Finally (1)

pouar (2629833) | about 6 months ago | (#46153735)

The democrats do something useful for once. Of course both parties are corrupt. The republicans just happen to be less corrupt. Why can't we ever get a 3rd party canidate in office since a lot of them seem to be better than the Democrats and Republicans combined

Of course I don't expect this bill to go anywhere since it's mostly PR.

Publicly-Owned Cable Providers (1)

MarkvW (1037596) | about 6 months ago | (#46153719)

In a grocery store, the store makes the manufacture pay for product placement. If you want your product to get placed in the middle of a shelf, you have to pay the store money for it.

Without neutrality, the Internet will be the same way--those that cut sweet deals with the provider (cut him in), will get the best bandwidth for their services.

We need non-discriminatory municipally owned cable. Such a service NEEDS to be content-neutral, because of the constitution.

Net Equality (1)

bzipitidoo (647217) | about 6 months ago | (#46153733)

Should have called it the Net Equality bill. Then if Republicans dare oppose it, Democrats could roast them for opposing equality. Neutrality doesn't have the same ring to it.
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>