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: 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!@!