SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Jon Brodkin at Ars Technica reports that the House Energy And Commerce committee approved the Save The Internet Act, which rolls back the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC)* 2017 repeal of its 2015 order on network neutrality[PDF].
The Ars Technica article states:
Democrats in the US House of Representatives yesterday rejected Republican attempts to weaken a bill that would restore net neutrality rules.
[...]
Commerce Committee Republicans repeatedly introduced amendments that would weaken the bill but were consistently rebuffed by the committee's Democratic majority. "The Democrats beat back more than a dozen attempts from Republicans to gut the bill with amendments throughout the bill's markup that lasted 9.5 hours," The Hill reported yesterday.Republican amendments would have weakened the bill by doing the following:
- Exempt all 5G wireless services from net neutrality rules.
- Exempt all multi-gigabit broadband services from net neutrality rules.
- Exempt from net neutrality rules any ISP that builds broadband service in any part of the US that doesn't yet have download speeds of at least 25Mbps and upload speeds of at least 3Mbps.
- Exempt from net neutrality rules any ISP that gets universal service funding from the FCC's Rural Health Care Program.
- Exempt ISPs that serve 250,000 or fewer subscribers from certain transparency rules that require public disclosure of network management practices.
- Prevent the FCC from limiting the types of zero-rating (i.e., data cap exemptions) that ISPs can deploy.
[amendment links above are all PDF]
Another Republican amendment [PDF] would have imposed net neutrality rules but declared that broadband is an information service. This would have prevented the FCC from imposing any other type of common-carrier regulations on ISPs.
The committee did approve a Democratic amendment [PDF] to exempt ISPs with 100,000 or fewer subscribers from the transparency rules, but only for one year.
[...]
Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) claimed that the Democrats' bill "is not the net neutrality that people want" and is "actually more government socialism," according to The Hill.But the primary opponents of the FCC's net neutrality rules were broadband providers and Republicans in Congress, not the people at large. Polls showed that the FCC's repeal was opposed by most Americans: "Eighty-six percent oppose the repeal of net neutrality, including 82 percent of Republicans and 90 percent of Democrats," the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland reported last year after surveying nearly 1,000 registered voters.
"It's embarrassing watching telecom shills in these committee votes attempt to turn this into a partisan issue when it's actually quite simple: no one wants their cable company to control what they can see and do on the Internet, or manipulate where they get their news, how they listen to music, or what apps they can use," Deputy Director Evan Greer of advocacy group Fight for the Future said.
The now-repealed net neutrality rules prohibited ISPs from blocking or throttling lawful content and from charging online services for prioritization. The Democrats' bill would reinstate those rules and other consumer protections that used to be enforced by the FCC. For example, Pai's repeal vote also wiped out a requirement that ISPs be more transparent with customers about hidden fees and the consequences of exceeding data caps.
*The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent agency of the United States government that regulates communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable. The FCC serves the public in the areas of broadband access, fair competition, radio frequency use, media responsibility, public safety, and homeland security.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DannyB on Monday April 08 2019, @03:54PM (20 children)
Why not say the Telephone is an information service? Television?
Lettuce consider things on them intarweb tubes which might not seem like an "information service" to most people:
* Skype
* Netflix
* Spotify
* iTunes
* Google Play Store
* Amazon shopping
* Facebook
* FoxNews
Furthermore some things online are disinformation services.
Classifying Broadband as an information service is merely a weasel way to end run around net neutrality.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Monday April 08 2019, @05:23PM (6 children)
What spell checker / browser are you using? Speaking from experience, when I type "Lettus" instead of "Let us" I get the plural "Lettuces" instead of the singular "Lettuce" like you got.
compiling...
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 08 2019, @05:55PM (5 children)
did you notice the "on them intarwebs" thing afterwards? i'd say it was on purpose.
and if it wasn't, we need a browser plugin that can do it.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 08 2019, @07:52PM (1 child)
Occam's razor: OP is mentally retarded
(Score: 3, Informative) by DannyB on Monday April 08 2019, @09:54PM
I'll have you to know the correct quote was "on them intarweb tubes". That would be on porpoise.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 08 2019, @09:30PM
Cabbage we not engage in such displays of pendulums here on Soylent News? Yes, we all are Functionally Illiterate on a spectrum of some sort. But at least we do not have to up with put submissions a la Norse.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Monday April 08 2019, @10:17PM
That's just how some folks talk about this here parts. The lettuce... Now that takes the tau!
Reason I was asking is because MS Word, Google Docs and services like Grammarly have an AI trained spell checker that eliminates unwanted 's suffixes so I was hoping there's a free open-source extension for Firefox that does it too without relying on a server. When I tried writing one myself I realized it will take bootstarting off Markov chaining thousands of books followed by the usual deep learning via a large user-base to correct the suggestions so only a GNU or Mozilla sized foundation could pull off something like that.
Anywho, I guess I got too optimistic hoping DannyB found something like that and haven't considered it's was done on purpose.
compiling...
(Score: 2) by el_oscuro on Tuesday April 09 2019, @12:29AM
The spell checker should have definitely caught that one. I always use "on teh Interwebs" when writing official security reports at work.
SoylentNews is Bacon! [nueskes.com]
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Monday April 08 2019, @05:38PM (1 child)
But does Lettuce speak for the majority of vegetables or just the leafy greens?
And what do fruits have to say about the issue?
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 08 2019, @11:46PM
And what do fruits have to say about the issue?
I don't know. You'll have to call the governor of California
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 08 2019, @05:54PM (10 children)
The internet is so important that it deserves a distinct category. We shouldn't be lumping it in with obsolete tech like hard-wired stock tickers.
That said, yes indeed every web site is obviously an information service.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by RS3 on Monday April 08 2019, @08:40PM (9 children)
Absolutely agree. An interesting paradox is that the law always likes to consider precedent, all the way back to the US Constitution (and further), which is often good wisdom- no need to reinvent the wheel, right? But like you said, the Internet is unique, so rather than do proper studies, test cases, etc., the lazy rats try to lump it in under existing laws. Absurd.
Years ago a very wise friend of mine asserted that public utility infrastructure- electric, phone, gas, sewer, water, and now the Internet- wires, pipes, etc., should all be publicly owned and operated. I suggest it could be done by a publicly owned, fully open-book, non-profit corporation.
(Score: 2, Troll) by NotSanguine on Monday April 08 2019, @11:00PM (8 children)
You apparently don't realize that the law establishing and governing the FCC [wikipedia.org] (which is the law you're trashing) has been repeatedly amended to address changes in technology.
Were I opposed to Net Neutrality, "The law is old!" would be the *last* argument I would go for, as it's not only a poor argument, it's inaccurate on its face.
Or you misunderstand what it is, exactly, that the FCC regulates. In the case of the Internet, it regulates ISPs *only*, which are (notwithstanding the amendments to the law which specifically address the Internet) pretty good analogs for telephone lines in that they're infrastructure that provides connectivity.
I've advocated for municipal broadband managed that way repeatedly, both here and in other places. But those are local and state issues, not something that the FCC can (or should) get involved with.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by RS3 on Monday April 08 2019, @11:18PM (7 children)
Why are you attacking me? I did not mention nor infer FCC. Mushrooms kicking in? You say I misunderstood? I think TV, movies, fiction stories, games, etc., are messing with people's minds. Your post, in its fallacious reference to mine, is a series of leaps of logic, specious statements, fiction, imaginations, far-fetched extrapolations, and at best, complete misunderstandings. So am I to waste more time dispelling your complete twists of my few words?
What the heck is with people like you? I come to this website hoping for intelligent interaction, which, by my definition, does NOT involve attacks. This site is going downhill faster than the green site, which seems to have gotten much better.
Rather than attack me, why don't you just state your ideas, like an adult? (admittedly I have no idea your age; maybe you are only 13).
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday April 08 2019, @11:52PM (6 children)
Let's add a little context here.
You *replied* to someone who said:
Which is an absurd assertion that, frankly, just isn't true.
To which you replied:
How *should* I have interpreted your statement agreeing with a position (and certainly within the context of this discussion) that is both poorly thought out and dishonest on its face? That you weren't talking specifically about the FCC and the law which governs its activities [wikipedia.org]? Especially since those who are opposed to Net Neutrality have *repeatedly* used that "argument."
If I misunderstood both your response and your tone, I apologize. However, if that's the case, you didn't (and still haven't) made clear what it is, *specifically*, you are talking about.
And for the record, I did not "attack" you. Given what *I* understood (based on what you said), I stated that "[y]ou apparently don't realize that the law establishing and governing the FCC [wikipedia.org] (which is the law you're trashing) has been repeatedly amended to address changes in technology."
That's not an attack on you, nor was it meant to demean or diminish you. Given your original statement, it was a reasonable conclusion to draw.
And when I said "Or you misunderstand what it is, exactly, that the FCC regulates." That's not an attack either. Most people have very little idea as to what the FCC is or does. And that wasn't meant to demean or diminish you either.
Talk about making assumptions on top of assumptions! Geez Louise!
As for "people like me," please do go on and describe the characteristics of such an imaginary group. Perhaps those who actually pay attention to the language others' use and respond based on the ideas expressed? Maybe those who dislike bullshit arguments and call them as they see them? Inquiring minds want to know.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Tuesday April 09 2019, @12:10AM (5 children)
You could ask for clarification in a much kinder, nicer, affable, agreeable way. It's okay, you're living up to your username, and I've learned a lesson.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by NotSanguine on Tuesday April 09 2019, @12:19AM (4 children)
I could. I will make a mental note that you are very thin-skinned.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by RS3 on Tuesday April 09 2019, @03:25AM (3 children)
You just can't stop the insults, can you.
It's not a matter of being "thin-skinned", or boorish. It's a matter of my preference for intelligent discourse, which most people understand is undermined by childish flame wars.
Something is wrong with you, and I hope you find psychiatric help. They're real MDs and might be able to do wonders for you. They've come a long way with understanding and treating behavioral problems, such as anti-social behavior, which result from brain chemistry malfunctions. There are whole new classes of meds. which work correctly to rectify problems with dopamine, acetylcholine, etc. It can't hurt for you to get checked out. Please don't let it get the best of you.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday April 09 2019, @03:42AM (2 children)
Seeing that something is incorrect and offering facts and arguments that back against it is the *essence* of intelligent discourse.
What you *could* have done was to rebut my arguments and we could have had a discussion about the ideas.
But instead, you whinged the equivalent of "Mommy! NotSanguine is being mean to me!" and have yet to rebut a single thing I've said.
As such, I find it ironic that you complain about the lack of intelligent discourse when you, apparently, are unwilling to engage in it if others are disagreeing with you.
Calling you thin-skinned isn't an insult. It's an observation. And an accurate one, apparently. I didn't call you names. I didn't impugn your intelligence, your parentage or your taste in music. I merely pointed out why I thought your ideas were lacking and offered arguments to back that up. You taking that as an "attack" or an insult is being *very* thin-skinned. Hence my observation.
What's more, you're still whinging and *still* not talking about the ideas. More's the pity.
As for my physical and mental health, thank you for your suggestions. I will give them the attention and weight they deserve.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by RS3 on Tuesday April 09 2019, @05:37AM (1 child)
You are completely 100% absolutely irrational. If you had 0.001% rational thought, you would realize that if I think you're irrational, there's no intelligent discourse to be had with you. Make sense? No, I didn't think you could handle it. I have better things to do than argue with someone who needs mental health help.
(Score: 1, Troll) by NotSanguine on Tuesday April 09 2019, @06:23AM
I love it! Do you do parties?
That's quite a performance: Have a temper tantrum, then when called on it, decry "insults" and start insulting the other party.
Good show!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 4, Insightful) by gtomorrow on Monday April 08 2019, @04:13PM (2 children)
Wow...I know I'm not a rocket scientist like (supposedly) a lot of the people that frequent this site but, gosh, that headline took me a while to parse!
Couldn't it have been "House Commerce Committee Votes to Restore Net Neutrality" instead of all the double-negative nonsense? [/pedant]
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 08 2019, @07:01PM
Yes, i'm a rocket surgeon and i had to read it couple of times also. I'm sorry god damn it that i didn't take the scientist course. I know it was only 2 weeks course, but surgeoning rockets is not that easy. What do you people want from me?!?!
(Score: 4, Touché) by RS3 on Monday April 08 2019, @08:43PM
That's how politicians actually think and communicate. Why don't you think that nothing never doesn't get done?
(Score: 2, Funny) by realDonaldTrump on Monday April 08 2019, @04:57PM (3 children)
VETO!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Monday April 08 2019, @09:48PM (2 children)
Yes, we know — the asshole you're trying to channel, pretty much all of his minions, and Republican politicians in general are utter scumbags. But hey, thanks for reminding us. I'm sure we're in serious danger of forgetting... somewhere around the year 3,000 CE or so, anyway.
--
If people make you sick... perhaps you should cook them longer
--Hannibal Lecter, probably
(Score: 1, Troll) by realDonaldTrump on Monday April 08 2019, @11:45PM
I think you forgot about President & Senate. Or, you want to forget. And live in the Liberal Media Bubble. Because, your an Editor. And you can tweet in secret, where only the other Editors can read. About every story. But this VERY DUMB story went up. About, House of Representatives passed something. But -- do you know this -- House of Representatives doesn't make laws all by it'self. Must have a Vote in Senate, get majority in Senate AND beautiful signature of President Donald J. Trump. Or, 2/3 of House & 2/3 of Senate when President won't sign. I'm telling you, President won't sign. Except to VETO. And maybe you think you have the 2/3. I don't think so. I don't think so. Very easy for you to do the secret tweet of "oh guys, this isn't a real law." And I think the other Editors would read it, would have read it. And not put up this very dumb story about Dem grandstanding. If Dems really wanted Net Neutrality, they could have made it a law, very easily. When they had a Dem President. Dem House. And Dem Senate. But, they didn't do it. They lost very badly in 2016. Again in 2018. And now they're all, "oh, let's have Net Neutrality." When they know it won't happen. BECAUSE they know it won't happen. Meanwhile we did a magnificent BIPARTISAN law in December. Known as First Step Act. And celebrated its tremendous success on April the 1st. -- in terrific style. I'm getting so much praise about that one. Where are the stories? Not on Soylent News Main, or Front "page." Very biased!!
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Tuesday April 09 2019, @05:22PM
Keep on burying your heads in sand. Keep on telling me to shut up. Keep pretending as hard as you can. And possibly your Fantasy World will come true. The Net Neutrality, the Green New Deal and the everything else. It's the sand that does it!!!!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Entropy on Monday April 08 2019, @04:57PM (38 children)
But I'm fairly sure both sides are trying to rape the consumers, in slightly different ways.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Monday April 08 2019, @04:59PM (36 children)
One side wants Net Neutrality.
One side doesn't want Net Neutrality.
Those are OPPOSITE positions.
Both sides are NOT THE SAME and you are just rationalizing your support for the side that wants the opposite of what you do.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 08 2019, @06:09PM (28 children)
Both sides ADVOCATE for opposite positions.
The value of this vote is simple: Dems get to say they "DID SOMETHING" about Net Neutrality. Nothing will change as nothing will clear the Senate. Let's say a miracle happens and you get that as well. RdT above is actually channelling what the President would say and do here.
Hell, they can't override Trump's veto on the biggest Presidential Power Grab since 9/11, the Manufactured Emergency That Wasn't.
THIS is theatre, people. At least Security Theatre actually gets people scanned and groped - something actually Happens.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Monday April 08 2019, @06:19PM (15 children)
Yes, because in 2015 Dems IMPLEMENTED NET NEUTRALITY.
Doing something generally does mean you get to say you did something.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 08 2019, @08:17PM (11 children)
in 2015 Dems IMPLEMENTED NET NEUTRALITY.
That is a lie! They did NOT implement net neutrality. They implemented "net neutrality", defined politically, not technically.
You know, all you so-called "moderates" are much better off working from the republican side. Just move yourself and all your "moderate" buddies over and take over the party like the old dixiecrats did. Then maybe real liberalism can take hold of the democrats if they do it right, make them worth voting for.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Monday April 08 2019, @11:16PM (10 children)
Them's strong words from a one-eyed fat man!
Got any actual facts or evidence to support this claim? I'll even hold my breath.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 08 2019, @11:35PM (9 children)
Read the bill. Where's the dumb pipe and open markets? Without that, it's NOT net neutrality, outside the political realm. It's just like the ACA it's half-assed bullshit to protect the industry, not to open up access.
Oh damn! I just looked it up. It never passed in congress, ever. It was a bullshit FCC rule, designed to be easily revoked. You know? Fuck the democrats even more! No wonder Trump is president! Fucking democrats are always playing games instead of passing real law. This is why republicans can win so easily. Then the democrats play their "Russian" victim card instead of putting up good candidates, because, well, that's where the money is.
Sorry, democrats are deceitful bastards. We need to vote them out too.
(Score: 4, Informative) by NotSanguine on Tuesday April 09 2019, @12:05AM (8 children)
I did. It re-instates (via repeal of the 2017 order) the 2015 FCC order reclassifying ISPs as common carriers [wikipedia.org] under Title II of the law governing the FCC [wikipedia.org].
Classification under Title II *requires* ISPs to provide "dumb pipes" and prohibits throttling, blocking and giving preference to any network traffic except for network management purposes.
As for "open markets," the FCC (or the rest of the Federal government) has no control over which ISPs operate where (except in the District of Columbia). Those decisions are made by state and local governments. Congress (and the FCC) have no say in those decisions.
If you don't like how your state/municipality addresses this, there will be elections in November. And the November after that. And the November after that...
Ergo, this bill restores dumb pipes. Full stop.
I will assume that you're frustrated with Washington, DC and didn't understand what was happening. Now you know.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 09 2019, @01:40AM (7 children)
Again you are wrong. The FCC is a bureaucracy appointed by the president and congress. Congress has to pass a law, that can't be so easily repealed. They failed. And the voters failed by reelecting them, again! You're just following the mass media spoon fed script. And so next year (or 2024) we will get yet another repeat of ten years ago, with all the same disappointments, followed by the regular swing back to republicans. I know this routine, I've seen it many times over many years. Everybody here is just in denial. And I sure don't expect the kids to understand, poor little buggers, not even being born before Clinton was prez... What could they possibly know?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 09 2019, @02:21AM (6 children)
I'm sorry you're so bitter.
Were you abused as a child?
I recommend getting some professional help for your obvious depression and feelings of inadequacy.
Good luck. I hope things get better for you, friend!
(Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 09 2019, @03:35AM (5 children)
I'm sorry you're so bitter.
:-) You're projectinggg. You all are quite famous for that, especially after Trump. I'm as happy as can be. And watching you people angrily flail about is very entertaining. Thanks for the laughs!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 09 2019, @04:24PM (4 children)
who the hell is upvoting every single one of this twat's posts
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 09 2019, @05:29PM
Presumably the AC himself. Who else would mod up that ridiculous bullshit?
Okay. Maybe I'm giving some folks too much credit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 09 2019, @06:27PM (2 children)
You're just a hack. Ask who is the fucking troll modding them down??! It's not my problem if you find the truth about your teams and your tribalism to be so offensive. You should look in the mirror instead! That person you see there is the cause of all your problems. It takes your vote to put your lowlife dirty trash into office, not their money, not their propaganda. It all comes from you people! Every bit of it! Ah! But fuck me! Right?
Don't be a dick!
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 09 2019, @07:27PM (1 child)
Yep. Fuck you!
Says the jackass being a dick. That's rich!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 09 2019, @09:00PM
Yeah, blah blah blah.. Do tell!
This is why you people lose. You don't need no Russians. Tag! You're it!
Once again, please don't be a dick. You know, if you want votes an' all. See, 'cause otherwise, fuck YOU! My vote, any many others' are going elsewhere. That's the best way of saying it, and meaning it! Shouting on the internet, as you can see, is pretty stupid. Some day we will make our vote do the talking. I already do, and some people go along. You are always welcome to join us. Then your GOP/DNC will go, *poof*!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 08 2019, @09:59PM (2 children)
Yes, dear. They did so over the kicking and screaming of the Republicans. Then they got their comeuppance. Now they are passing legislation that doesn't have a hope in hell of getting signed by this President.
Instead of the legislators actually doing their jobs, which is to find meaningful compromises which both sides will live with, instead we get a political dog-and-pony show where my Elephant punches your Donkey and your Donkey tries to screw my elephant. Party does something, people get pissed and change, other party changes it back, rinse lather and repeat and no progress ever really gets made. (Except that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer while mainstream america is interested in who is winning instead of building a country together).
And the Republicans are no better: They know their amendments won't clear in the House, but they get to say the DID SOMETHING to stop the Democrats.
In the meantime, we get the country we deserve by not recognizing the circus being played out in front of our bread-munching faces.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday April 09 2019, @12:03AM
That all sounds like an odd way to run a country.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by tangomargarine on Tuesday April 09 2019, @04:22PM
Oh, that's rich, being lectured by a Republican about compromise. Congressional Republicans seem to think compromise is defined as "you give me everything I want and then fuck off. Then I bitch about how it's all your fault anyway".
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 08 2019, @06:20PM (5 children)
And why? Because Republicans stand for nothing.
Oh go fuck yourself. Democrats actually put in Net Neutrality and the Republicans took it away. Now they want to put it back, and all you do is bullshit about their efforts. So fuck you and your cynicism.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Monday April 08 2019, @06:27PM
Even if this idiotic fallacy were true actions still speak louder than words.
If they're pretending so hard that they succeed in creating Net Neutrality then it's still a success.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 08 2019, @10:03PM
Yep. You have the government you deserve.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 08 2019, @10:19PM (1 child)
If Republicans stood for nothing, dear, then why shouldn't the Democrats have been able to stop a declaration of a non-emergency?
Whether the Dems WANT to put it back is completely irrelevant. What matters is what they CAN do. And getting this bill enacted is something they CAN'T. You may not like having the strings of the puppet show revealed to you, but there they are. This bill is noise and fire signifying nothing but braying so that they can beg for votes next election cycle against them old meanie Republicans. The problem is that you don't like that reality IS cynical right now, and that the vast majority of actors you see are all nothing but selfishly interested. Go look up cynicism in a dictionary.
Or just rest happy in your little dreamworld that the Democratic party machine actually cares about you and your dream of a free internet. Call me when they actually do something that lasts past the next party swing. I expect a long silence.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Monday April 08 2019, @11:24PM
Actually, that's en excellent argument away from your point. If the Rs had any principles or scruples, they wold have joined with the Ds in creating a veto-proof majority for the "emergency" declaration.
Because allowing the Executive to *reallocate funds to a different purpose than the one for which they were appropriated by Congress* further unbalances the co-equal branches of our government. If the Rs had any principles, there would have been 435-0 and 100-0 votes in the House and Senate rejecting the President's attempt to usurp the power of the purse from Congress.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 08 2019, @11:38PM
So fuck you and your cynicism.
Telling the truth about corrupt political parties isn't cynicism. Voting for the GOP/DNC is the worse kind of cynicism. Voting them out would be the exact opposite. Why would you claim otherwise?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by sjames on Monday April 08 2019, @07:23PM (5 children)
It forces the Senate and president to admit to doing the opposite of what a clear majority of the people want done. No more hiding behind an unelected bureaucrat.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 08 2019, @10:02PM (3 children)
Oh. Is that the Senate that is also elected by the people but still has a Republican majority? A small majority, but a majority? And the President that lost a popular vote but was still elected by the representational compromise that is the electoral college? How interesting.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by NotSanguine on Monday April 08 2019, @11:30PM (2 children)
Does your Senator (or the President) always do exactly what you want them to do? specifically *you*, not some nebulous set of ideological garbage?
From TFS (I guess reading is hard, huh?):
So your position is that what people say they want doesn't matter?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday April 09 2019, @12:07AM (1 child)
What people actually want does not matter if it clashes with what your ruling class want.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 09 2019, @12:16AM
There. FTFY.
Sure there are Ds who are shills too (Max Baucus [wikipedia.org], I'm looking at you, especially for killing the "public option"), but in this case, it's all on the Rs.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday April 09 2019, @04:17PM
You say that as if any of them care. The re-election rate for the Senate is easily over 90%, so why would they?
And don't get me started on the president.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 08 2019, @06:15PM (6 children)
One side PRETENDS to want net neutrality, just like they pretended to want universal health care, until they got their majority.
The other side simply doesn't pretend like yours does. Why do you cling to such obvious phonies?
(Score: 3, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Monday April 08 2019, @06:17PM (5 children)
One sire ALREADY IMPLEMENTED Net Neutrality.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 08 2019, @08:04PM (4 children)
That was NOT net neutrality. It's as phony as a three dollar bill, like the ACA that was supposed to be single payer. This is why the democrats can't motivate people. They don't oppose the austerity. They only pretend, play their rotating villain game, and gullible people fall for it every time. And the pendulum does its thing...
We will not have net neutrality until we have the dumb pipe, priced by bandwidth, not content or anything else. Anything less is political bullshit.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday April 08 2019, @10:27PM (3 children)
That's what we had prior to the Bush II FCC reclassifying ISPs (not web sites, ISPs) as "Information Providers" in the early 2000s.
In 2013, the Obama FCC tried to implement net neutrality without reclassifying ISPs back to being common carriers, which was loudly decried by Rs and litigated by the ISPs. And the ISPs won. The court ruled that as long as they were classified as "Information Providers," ISPs could *not* be
required to provide, your words, "dumb pipes."
In 2015, the Obama FCC reclassified ISPs as "Common Carriers," which *requires* them to provide "dumb pipes" with no throttling, blocking or paid prioritization..
And in 2017, the Trump FCC rolled it all back, allowing ISPs to block, throttle and give preference to some traffic over other traffic. Exactly the *opposite* of a dumb pipe.
You're talking out of your ass and it smells that way too. Perhaps you should educate yourself before spouting off (I know, that's out of fashion)?
Here are a few places to start:
What is a Common Carrier [wikipedia.org]?
What was the actual law applied [wikipedia.org] in the reclassification mentioned above?
What is Network Neutrality, and what is its history in the US [wikipedia.org]?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 08 2019, @11:58PM (2 children)
Yes, fuck the FCC. Congress is responsible. And the voters are responsible for the congress we have. The democrats AND republicans need to excised from our government, and replaced by people that don't owe favors to their "donors". Then you might get net neutrality. Failure to do so is on the voters and nobody else.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 09 2019, @02:28AM (1 child)
I find your fact-free ideas interesting and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Facts are for suckers, amirite?
(Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 09 2019, @02:43AM
Facts are for suckers, amirite?
Evidently they're not for you! You all prefer GOP/DNC propaganda. I hope you get something out of it.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 08 2019, @06:42PM
Truly a stupid statement, but I expect nothing less these days from this site's ENLIGHTENED CENTRISTS!@!
(Score: 2, Troll) by Snotnose on Monday April 08 2019, @09:00PM (5 children)
The old version I read about, maybe a month or 6 weeks ago, had 2 issues I figured would pop up somewhere, but didn't:
1) The FCC could decide what large ISPs could charge each other to talk to each other, which sounds bad to me; and
2) ISPs were required to comply with warrantless wiretapping and metadata collection, which I know is bad.
Anything change? Cuz #2 seems to be A) why the dems are so hot for it; and B) aptly numbered.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday April 08 2019, @10:47PM (4 children)
Do you have a link that article? I heard nothing about that in any of the coverage I've read.
The bill is is a straight up repeal of the FCCs 2017 order canceling Net Neutrality.
Don't believe me? There is absolutely zero about any of that in the bill [govtrack.us], which I helpfully linked in the first sentence of TFS
Since you obviously have some sort of repetitive motion disorder that keeps you from clicking with your mouse, I'll quote the text of the bill [govtrack.us] here. It's quite short, in fact:
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Tuesday April 09 2019, @12:41AM (3 children)
I wish I'd saved it, I've already looked for it in all the usual places with no joy. I do hope I'm proven wrong here and Congress actually does something in the people's interest.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday April 09 2019, @01:32AM (2 children)
The link to the bill in TFS [govtrack.us] allows you to look at *all* versions of the bill (and the site does this for all bills being considered by the House). At the top of the page, look for "This bill has 2 versions" and select the original version.
There's nothing in that version about either:
So, if you heard/read that somewhere, someone was lying to you.
If it were me, I'd make an effort to figure out where those lies came from, so I'd know not to pay attention to those folks any more. Just sayin'.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday April 09 2019, @03:53PM (1 child)
Or that person was discussing one of the several OTHER "net neutrality" bills. Note that OP indicated they heard about it "maybe a month or 6 weeks ago", and the bill in question was first introduced exactly one month ago. There are earlier bills like HR 1006 which I think would more likely have been under discussion in that timeframe (1006 was introduced in Feb.) I'm not seeing anything directly authorizing warantless wiretapping in the two that I've found so far (not that I'd expect to find that stated so directly), but I *do* see some very broad language about giving providers a right to "address the needs of law enforcement" and also some broad text about implementing network management to prohibit unspecified "unwanted" traffic.
Another option is that the concern is buried not in the text of the bill itself, but in one of the referenced documents. Are you certain that there are no additional privacy protections somewhere in the 539 pages of FCC 17–166 [fcc.gov] which is being repealed? Have you checked? I do see some references within that ruling to other privacy regulations...but frankly, this thing is getting a bit too dense for me to parse properly at the moment.
It appears that you would also need to review the text of the 2015 "Open Internet Order" (FCC 15-24) [fcc.gov], as that was repealed by 17-166, and therefore repealing 17-166 would bring that back into effect. Perhaps that has something about surveillance? That's another 400 pages. And in these pages I DID find some text stating that broadband providers are required to comply with FISA for example, although I think that does generally involve a "warrant"...but there's also a sentence in the same section referencing continuation of the 2010 Open Internet Order (FCC 10-201) [fcc.gov] and in this order I did notice that it explicitly states that they considered, but rejected, the idea that broadband providers should only provide information to law enforcement where required by law, and instead they wrote the regulations such that the providers are not restricted from providing data to law enforcement as they choose. See page 59 and 60 of that document. It certainly *enables* warrantless wiretapping and similar behavior, although there is a distinction between allowing that behavior and actually requiring it, and I haven't yet seen anything which requires it. But that's a hell of a lot of text to go through...
(Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Tuesday April 09 2019, @05:15PM
That's a reasonable point. I was unaware of H.R. 1006 or any other similar bills until I saw this hearing which happened yesterday [c-span.org], after posting the comment to which you replied. Apparently, in addition to H.R. 1006, two other bills were also submitted by Republican members as well.
The network management section of HR 1006 is very similar to that in the 2015 order. I find it interesting that you equate "public safety" with "law enforcement", as those, while not necessarily mutually exclusive, are not the same thing.
As for the rest of the network management stuff, that's all pretty boilerplate. It allows networks to prioritize voice traffic *within their own networks*, block persistent spammers, re-prioritize/re-route traffic under high loads and/or link outages and stuff like that. all of which (as someone who has managed large networks) is essential to ensuring decent performance.
IIRC, the 2015 order doesn't include any references to warrantless wiretapping or setting peering charges, and I spent quite a bit of time with that document back in 2015.
Your comment got me to go and look for the other two bills (plus HR 1006) mentioned in the linked hearing above by Rep. Latta.
They appear to be:
H.R. 2136 [govtrack.us] for which no text is available, and;
H.R. 1101 [govtrack.us] which modifies the relevant law [cornell.edu] as follows (there are other changes, but these appear to be the closest to what GP was talking about:
I suppose that *could* be interpreted to mean the warrantless wiretapping/metadata collection that GP mentioned, but it does not require any *new* behavior from ISPs, just that these changes don't impact current requirements. As such, saying that the bill includes *new* requirements for that is a pretty big stretch, IMHO.
But AFAICT, there's absolutely nothing about setting peering charges anywhere. I suppose that there may be some verbiage in Title II [cornell.edu] of the relevant law.
A brief search of the 'net for H.R. 1101 didn't bring up any stories about the items (see below) mentioned by GP.
Please understand that I'm not questioning GP's recollection. Rather, I was attempting to discover what he might have been talking about, as I hadn't heard anything about it. And given that opponents of net neutrality have repeatedly made ridiculous claims about Title II classification, I was understandably suspicious.
Thanks for doing some work and getting me to do some more as well. The more we understand about what's going on, the better we can make decisions about making noise and deciding who our representatives should be. It's appreciated.
And to Snotnose [soylentnews.org] (the GP in question), if it was H.R. 1101 that was being discussed, then while you may not have been lied to, but you were certainly given misleading information. Regardless, mea culpa.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by saturnalia0 on Monday April 08 2019, @10:21PM (1 child)
Surely that will end the predicted internet-apocalypse we're all living in right now.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 09 2019, @12:19AM
You are right.
If you need to pay an extra $50 a month, it's not an "internet-apocalypse."
If the next Amazon, Netflix, Youtube, Google (including maps), Uber, Facebook, eBay, craigslist, huffingtonpost, breitbart, New York Times's website, or any other new Internet companies is never created because ISPs are now allowed to double-charge them or more and the extra cost is too expensive and makes the venture too risky, it's not an "internet-apocalypse."
Regardless, I still think both situations are morally wrong and much worse than the alternative.
You are right that there has been no sudden overnight change in the US Internet. By the same token, were you around when they started introducing commercials to cable TV? "It's just one commercial, nothing to really get worked up over, right?"