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: 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