SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Democrats in the U.S. Congress plan to unveil legislation on Wednesday to reinstate “net neutrality” rules that were repealed by the Trump administration in December 2017, House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi said.
Pelosi told lawmakers in a letter that House Democrats, who won control of the chamber in the November 2018 elections, would work with their colleagues in the U.S. Senate to pass the “Save The Internet Act.”
The text of the proposed legislation has not been released.
The Federal Communications Commission repealed the rules that bar providers from blocking or slowing internet content or offering paid “fast lanes.” The repeal was a win for providers like Comcast Corp, AT&T Inc and Verizon Communications Inc, but was opposed by internet companies like Facebook Inc, Amazon.com Inc and Alphabet Inc.
The Senate, which is controlled by Republicans, voted in May 2018 to reinstate the net neutrality rules, but the House did not take up the issue before Congress adjourned last year.
A U.S. federal appeals court last month held lengthy oral arguments in a legal challenge to the FCC’s decision to repeal the net neutrality rules.
In its 2017 decision, the Republican-led FCC voted 3-2 along party lines to reverse the net neutrality rules. The agency gave providers sweeping power to recast how users access the internet but said they must disclose changes in users’ internet access.
A spokeswoman for FCC chairman Ajit Pai did not immediately comment on Monday.
Related:
FCC Struggles to Convince Judge That Broadband Isn't "Telecommunications"
It's Now Clear None of the Supposed Benefits of Killing Net Neutrality Are Real
FCC Chairman Pai Celebrates Congress Failing to Bring Back Net Neutrality
(Score: 1) by RandomFactor on Sunday March 10 2019, @03:31PM (5 children)
I don't necessarily agree. What this view doesn't take into account, is density.
The economics of running fiber a mile to a farmhouse in Iowa for one family, is significantly different than the cost of hooking to homes in a high density country the size of a small North Eastern state to begin with.
Not saying cable companies don't suck, don't gouge, or don't shirk their obligations, but the U.S. compares far better when you compare against similar scale and density.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday March 10 2019, @04:05PM (3 children)
While true that it may not be economically feasible to run fiber to every home in the US, it is certainly economically feasible to run broadband internet to every home. And, 56k, 2MB, or even 10MB don't count as "broadband" these days. The FCC's current definition of broadband is 25MB. https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/faster-internet-fcc-sets-new-definition-broadband-speeds-n296276 [nbcnews.com]
Those telecoms simply aren't willing to extend the fiber out into the country side, where it might be tied into existing ISP's which can then provide more bandwidth to more customers. Or, that fiber might feed several DSL servers, which can then provide internet where there is none. Those same ISP's are unwilling to build out more cell towers, in areas where wireless internet is out of the question today. More traditional PBX and T1 lines would go a long way toward expanding broadband, but the telecoms won't build them.
The telecoms need not spend multiple millions on each remote customer, to provide improvements to us. They can, however spend lesser amounts of money, and improve customer's lives by the hundreds, or by the dozens.
I might not be so adamant about this issue, if those same telecoms hadn't pocketed billions of tax dollars, that Congress had earmarked for the purpose of expanding broadband coverage. Had the telecoms not stolen our tax money, my complaints would be far less justified. But this is where we are today - we, taxpayers, have already paid for those expansions, and we'll never see them unless we kick the telcoms in their asses.
(Score: 1) by RandomFactor on Sunday March 10 2019, @04:48PM (2 children)
Agreed. We paid for improvements that have not been provided.
But that's not a capitalism problem per se. If you don't enforce contracts and obligations, you can't really have capitalism at all.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday March 10 2019, @06:10PM (1 child)
If you don't enforce contracts and obligations, you can't really have capitalism at all.
I wonder how badly the economy would collapse if we did enforce our contracts and laws. And really, what are laws, but a pirate's code, you know, where everybody outside the border is fair game?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by RandomFactor on Sunday March 10 2019, @06:20PM
I have a vague memory of a book about how it was impossible to go through a single day without breaking the law.
Flushing a toilet put you in violation of environmental laws.
Another classic being walking in Texas with wirecutters in your pocket (dating from the cattle/sheep rangewars)
But basically yes, what you imply is true, everything would shut down.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 10 2019, @04:14PM
No, it doesn't, because even many people in big/medium-sized cities with high population densities are getting ripped off by ISP monopolies and duopolies.
Also, many places want - and have tried to create - municipal ISPs, but have been blocked by state laws that were created because giant ISPs bribed politicians.