Democrats in the U.S. Congress plan to unveil legislation on Wednesday to reinstate “net neutrality” rules that were repealed by the Trump administration in December 2017, House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi said.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The Federal Communications Commission repealed the rules that bar providers from blocking or slowing internet content or offering paid “fast lanes.”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
Related Stories
Submitted via IRC for SoyCow1984
FCC Chairman Pai celebrates Congress failing to bring back net neutrality
As one Congress ends and another begins, many are looking forward to a rebalancing of power — especially in the House of Representatives, which Democrats handily retook in November. But FCC Chairman Ajit Pai is more pleased with what the House failed to do — namely, roll back his repeal of net neutrality rules.
To be fair, he does have reason to celebrate; no one likes to see their work undone. But a statement issued today tells a very selective message about congressional opposition to his master plan.
"I'm pleased that a strong bipartisan majority of the U.S. House of Representatives declined to reinstate heavy-handed Internet regulation," Pai said. The "heavy-handed" remark is the usual boilerplate in reference to 2015's rules, which used what the current FCC calls "depression-era" regulations to exert control over internet providers. That aspersion doesn't really make sense, as I've noted before.
And the "strong bipartisan majority" bears a bit of explanation as well. Indeed, the Democrats fell about 30 short of the votes they needed to put the Congressional Review Act into effect and undo the FCC's order. But that was only after the Senate, by a similar "strong bipartisan majority," as Pai would no doubt put it, voted for the rollback. No mention of that in his statement.
Submitted via IRC for SoyCow1984
It's Now Clear None of the Supposed Benefits of Killing Net Neutrality Are Real
Network investment is down, layoffs abound, and networks are falling apart. This isn't the glorious future Ajit Pai promised.
In the months leading up to the FCC assault on net neutrality, big telecom and FCC boss Ajit Pai told anybody who'd listen that killing net neutrality would boost broadband industry investment, spark job creation, and drive broadband into underserved areas at an unprecedented rate.
As it turns out, none of those promises were actually true.
Despite the FCC voting to kill the popular consumer protections late last year, Comcast's latest earnings report indicates that the cable giant's capital expenditures (CAPEX) for 2018 actually decreased 3 percent. The revelation comes on the heels by similar statements by Verizon and Charter Spectrum that they'd also be seeing lower network investment numbers in 2018.
It's not expected to get any better in 2019. According to analysis this week by Wall Street research firm MoffettNathanson, capital spending among the nation's four biggest cable providers (Altice, Comcast, Charter Spectrum, CableONE) is expected to decline upwards of 5.8 percent this year.
Submitted via IRC for SoyCow1984
A Federal Communications Commission lawyer faced a skeptical panel of judges today as the FCC defended its repeal of net neutrality rules and deregulation of the broadband industry.
FCC General Counsel Thomas Johnson struggled to explain why broadband shouldn't be considered a telecommunications service, and struggled to explain the FCC's failure to protect public safety agencies from Internet providers blocking or slowing down content.
Oral arguments were held today in the case, which is being decided by a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. (Audio of the four-hour-plus oral arguments is available here.) Throttling of firefighters' data plans played a major role in today's oral arguments.
[...] The lawsuit seeking to overturn the net neutrality repeal was filed by more than three dozen entities, including state attorneys general, consumer advocacy groups, and tech companies such as Mozilla and Vimeo.
Submitted via IRC for SoyCow1984
Ajit Pai's rosy broadband deployment claim may be based on gigantic error
Ajit Pai's latest claim that his deregulatory policies have increased broadband deployment may be based in part on a gigantic error. Pai's claim was questionable from the beginning, as we detailed last month. The Federal Communications Commission data cited by Chairman Pai merely showed that deployment continued at about the same rate seen during the Obama administration. Despite that, Pai claimed that new broadband deployed in 2017 was made possible by the FCC "removing barriers to infrastructure investment."
But even the modest gains cited by Pai rely partly on the implausible claims of one ISP that apparently submitted false broadband coverage data to the FCC, advocacy group Free Press told the FCC in a filing this week. Further Reading Ajit Pai says broadband access is soaring—and that he's the one to thank
The FCC data is based on Form 477 filings made by ISPs from around the country. A new Form 477 filer called Barrier Communications Corporation, doing business as BarrierFree, suddenly "claimed deployment of fiber-to-the-home and fixed wireless services (each at downstream/upstream speeds of 940mbps/880mbps) to census blocks containing nearly 62 million persons," Free Press Research Director Derek Turner wrote.
"This claimed level of deployment stood out to us for numerous reasons, including the impossibility of a new entrant going from serving zero census blocks as of June 30, 2017, to serving nearly 1.5 million blocks containing nearly 20 percent of the US population in just six months time," Turner wrote. "We further examined the underlying Form 477 data and discovered that BarrierFree appears to have simply submitted as its coverage area a list of every single census block in each of eight states in which it claimed service: CT, DC, MD, NJ, NY, PA, RI, and VA."
In reality, BarrierFree's website doesn't market any fiber-to-the-home service, and it advertises wireless home Internet speeds of up to just 25mbps, Free Press noted.
Related: Just How Rigged is America's Broadband World? A Deep Dive Into One US City Reveals All
FCC Chairman Ajit Pai Proposes Raising Rural Broadband Speeds
Speedtest.net Report Concludes That Broadband Speeds in U.S. Are Improving
It's Now Clear None of the Supposed Benefits of Killing Net Neutrality Are Real
FCC Struggles to Convince Judge That Broadband Isn't "Telecommunications"
Democrats To Push To Reinstate Repealed 'Net Neutrality' Rules
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday March 10 2019, @05:08AM (25 children)
I have to agree with the Democrats. Like any stopped clock, they are right from time to time. I've often stated that I want a genuine accounting for all the billions of dollars in tax money that the telecoms have pocketed to build that "last mile". We've seen some headlines, explaining that those last miles the telecoms claim to have built are bogus.
Bottom line, we the people have paid for a pig in a poke, and we haven't even received the damned poke. Telecoms, ISP's, and even the advertising industry, all lay claim to ownership of the internet, but it belongs to US, the people who have paid for it several times over. Between tax money and over inflated bills, we've paid for a system that should rival any system in any nation in the world. Instead, we have a crap system over which we have zero control.
The state of the internet in the US is a damned good argument AGAINST capitalism.
(Score: 2, Informative) by LVDOVICVS on Sunday March 10 2019, @06:02AM (5 children)
And the Republicans, like a stopped clock, are wrong almost all the time.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday March 10 2019, @06:44AM (4 children)
I think that I've suggested as much. I despise both parties, I just despise the Dems more than I despise the Reps. Thank you for your seeming agreement.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 10 2019, @06:48AM (3 children)
Have it ever occurred to you how Ajit Pai reaches his decision compared to other Republicans? Pretty fuckin' similar.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Sunday March 10 2019, @07:22AM (1 child)
Uhhhmmm, yes, it has. In general, R's worship the Almighty Dollar. Not all, but it seems the majority of them do. The acquisition, possession, and control of money in large sums makes them a "success". The larger the sums of money, the greater a success a person is. It is the "duty" of R representatives to pass more laws to favor "successful" people, so that they can become ever more successful.
One of the most successful people in the world today is a person we all love to hate here. Bill Gates. That man figuratively stuck knives into the backs of more people than any of us will ever know. But, because he was successful, he was protected by any number of people who held power, including George Bush and his administration. Because Gates is so very successful, he couldn't have possibly been guilty of fraud, conspiracy, or any of those other terrible crimes which the other party might accuse him. Success has it's benefits, you know.
The worst of the R's operate under the ideology that money justifies the means. Much the same as the ends justifies the means, which many Dems operate under.
That doesn't mean that there aren't any good, decent people in either party. It does mean that both parties are contemptible, and you have to question the morals of anyone who professes to believe in either of the parties.
Now, do you agree with me that both parties are despicable? Of, would you rather argue that one is good, and the other bad?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by LVDOVICVS on Sunday March 10 2019, @06:01PM
Your argument that for your stated reasons x is bad, therefore y is also bad is illogical. But thank you for agreeing that Republicanism is a dying philosophy.
(Score: 3, Funny) by realDonaldTrump on Monday March 11 2019, @12:26AM
Possibly you don't like Ajit. And, a lot of folks don't like him. I don't like him either. Not because he did the Repeal of Net "Neutrality." We need that badly, we were loosing many people to the internet, to I.S.I.S.. Then Ajit did the Repeal and -- with some help from our brave soldiers in Middle East -- I.S.I.S. is almost defeated. Because now we can take down the Recruiting "pages" & Videos. So that was a smart move and it's done a lot to Make America Great Again.
The reason I don't like Ajit is because he TORPEDOED the Sinclair-Tribune "merge." Very important deal that would have created a much needed conservative Voice. I call it the Voice of the People. Ajit sent that one to the administrative "law" Judge. He didn't tell them "no." The Judge maybe will tell them "no." And maybe will say "yes" -- after 10, 20 years. When we're living in a totally totally different world. With the graphene modems and the everything else.
Look, I didn't "appoint" Ajit. He was "appointed" by Cheatin' Obama. At the request of Mitch McConnell (Koch addict). And I put him in charge, unfortunately, of our F.C.C. People told me, Ajit is different, he has a great sense of humor. I met him and he seemed like a great guy. Very funny guy. And after all those years with Crooked H & Cheatin' O running the show, we could use a good laugh. They say "laughter" is the best medicine -- and the Dems have made our Country very sick. Very sick. So I put Ajit in charge of F.C.C., big mistake. Sorry folks, we try to put in the best people. But, it's hard to get good people. He seemed like a good guy, he's not a good guy. And maybe you know someone better. We have Ajit for 3 more years, nothing I can do about it. Although, the Second Amendment people, maybe there is. I don't know. Those people have tremendous power because they are so united. apply.whitehouse.gov [whitehouse.gov]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Sunday March 10 2019, @07:15AM (12 children)
The state of the internet in the US is a damned good argument AGAINST capitalism.
No it isn't. It's a demand FOR voter oversight of its government. We make the world we live in.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday March 10 2019, @07:34AM (11 children)
Apologies. I've used the term "unrestrained capitalism" in the past. In reality, capitalism is good, but it must be properly restrained to be good. Left under the control of greedy capitalists who fail to understand that some things are more important than money, it gets pretty fucked up, really fast. Money is important, but it has to be put in it's proper place. The lefties and the greenies have the right idea that the ecology is more important than a little more profit. Well, a lot of people understand that, but too many of the people who actually control corporations don't understand that. Crooked SOB's are happy to dump hazardous materials anywhere at all. They don't CARE that they might poison people's water, or make land unliveable, or kill people with untested medicines, or . . . fill in your favorite abuse by the superwealthy.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday March 10 2019, @11:12AM (9 children)
Nah, you're buying into the socialist line of thinking rather than using your own brain there. Yes, capitalism needs managed but only so far as to eliminate monopolistic abuses and encourage competition. It also needs anyone selling special favor to a person or entity put up against a wall and shot repeatedly. It does not need managed "because some things are more important than money". We already have laws against poisoning people and such, they just need to be enforced fully against anyone and everyone who makes a decision to do so instead of simply fining the companies they work for.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by stormreaver on Sunday March 10 2019, @01:20PM (6 children)
1) Needs to be managed.
2) Needs management.
3) Needs managing.
1) Need management.
2) Need to be managed.
3) Need managing.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday March 10 2019, @05:38PM (5 children)
I'm American. The right to abuse the English language as we see fit was part of what we got for kicking the shit out of the Brits in the war of 1812.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday March 10 2019, @06:01PM (4 children)
Did we win that one?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday March 10 2019, @06:31PM (3 children)
We got our Capitol set on fire, so I'm not sure we did.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Sunday March 10 2019, @07:32PM
Nah, that was just Major-General Robert Ross and Sir George Cockburn doing a bit of slum clearance to help with the redevelopment of the city.
You're welcome.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday March 10 2019, @10:08PM
Depends on who had the marshmallows.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday March 11 2019, @12:56AM
Didn't seem to matter really. they signed a contract, and it was back to regular business, whatever it was. But I don't believe we *kicked the shit out of the Brits*.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by helel on Sunday March 10 2019, @03:47PM (1 child)
"We already have laws against poisoning people and such..."
A law saying you cannot poison people would be a form of managing capitalism. If the only management were to break up monopolies and stop bribery then poisoning people would have to be perfectly legal, else how can I run my "poisoning people for hire" small business.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 10 2019, @04:13PM
Or selling coke as a cure all. "Wow, I DO instantly feel better!"
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday March 10 2019, @05:58PM
People will naturally do what they can get away with. We are the watchdog. We just have to be a bit more active if we are to expect any improvement. Without the power of the wallet, we have to use our power of the ballot. If we fail, and we keep on reelecting crooks, all bets are off.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(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.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 10 2019, @07:03AM (1 child)
Nothing of consequence has changed, and nothing will. The sooner you folks stop crying WOLF!, the better off all of us will be.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 10 2019, @04:01PM
If you've been around since the beginning, the only way you wouldn't notice the differences is if you completely lack self awareness. Which is the case for a lot of folks, most generally don't advertise it.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 10 2019, @02:53PM (1 child)
It was Ofucka's A shit Pie that did this.
(Score: 2) by Nobuddy on Monday March 11 2019, @02:50PM
Ajit Pai is the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. He was designated Chairman by President Donald J. Trump in January 2017.
Obama had him in the FCC as an employee on the board. Trump gave him the lead position.
But go ahead and tell another lie to protect your Dear Leader.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 10 2019, @03:56PM
All it does is rescind part of Ajit Pais repeal of Wheelers rules. And I'm not sure it even does that, it is two pages of double spaced congress-speak that says pretty much: "yeah that thing Pai did, don't do that.". It doesn't institute any laws or rules at all.
"Save the Internet act"? You must be fucking joking. CA enacted a proper bill and It is the model the whole union should use. All this act is, is a rotten chicken bone thrown out to try and win back a few progressives that they've alienated by becoming the anti-white-devil party.
If you aren't considering third parties you aren't considering democracy.