U.S. Senate Votes to Restore Net Neutrality, Now Expected to Face Major Hurdle in House

[CartoonCat]

Kind of a waste of time, but the Dems don't have much else to do with their time other than hate on Trump. The real problem isn't net neutrality, it's lack of competition regarding ISP's. If there was real competition in that market there would be no problem. Just think if you had a choice between 5 or 6 different ISP's all looking for your business. For high speed internet I have one choice. Spectrum. Next year I'll find out whether they jack up my price. Odds are yes, and I have no other choice except really slow speeds from AT&T.

 

[Tech198]

Repeal the FCC order, in order to restore net neutrality.

Something everyone should be in agreement with, regardless of your political beliefs.

I always found this bit of be a bit wired..

Net Neutrality was never in law ..... so how can you repeal something that never passed in the first place ?

I prefer the term "Repeal the FCC order *full stop* less confusing that way

 

[FrankieTDouglas]

If the government is deciding it can regulate private businesses who provide internet services, then I hope they don't stop at the internet providers. Set the sights on social media companies, next. If the net should be neutral, then the largest distributors of internet content should also be neutral. They're just transporting the data, they shouldn't get a say in what content they're transporting.

 

[miniyou64]

If the government is deciding it can regulate private businesses who provide internet services, then I hope they don't stop at the internet providers. Set the sights on social media companies, next. If the net should be neutral, then the largest distributors of internet content should also be neutral. They're just transporting the data, they shouldn't get a say in what content they're transporting.

This line of thought is exactly why the government shouldn’t be involved in any of this.

 

[asiga]

Neutrality? You cannot be neutral in this life. Being neutral means allowing both A and B, and not favoring A nor B, and that's plain impossible in the important decisions in this life. Even if you try to "do nothing", then you are still choosing A or B (if you can avoid that somebody is killed and you do nothing, you're choosing death, if you try to avoid the kill, you choose life... it's just not possible to be neutral). So, here we go... "neutrality"... the new euphemism when you thought no more euphemisms could arrive.

 

[blackfox]

wow. All Net neutrality does is give an even playing field. How anyone could oppose this concept is odd. Yet, i've had this talk already...so, we'll see how this bill fares.

 

[alexgowers]

Meanwhile the rest of the world is laughing. America always limits itself and puts barriers and 3rd party corps in weird places to suck more money out. If net neutrality isn’t a thing, America will be behind everyone else online. It’s not even a political issue, it’s cutting your nose off to spite the face!

I’m certain any other administration will reverse but the damages being done are only hindering the US and it’s relevance in the world.

 

[hagar]

Neutrality? You cannot be neutral in this life. Being neutral means allowing both A and B, and not favoring A nor B, and that's plain impossible in the important decisions in this life. Even if you try to "do nothing", then you are still choosing A or B (if you can avoid that somebody is killed and you do nothing, you're choosing death, if you try to avoid the kill, you choose life... it's just not possible to be neutral). So, here we go... "neutrality"... the new euphemism when you thought no more euphemisms could arrive.

What are you on about? Do you know what Net Neutrality means? It essentially reduces ISP's to what they should be: data carriers sending data from point A to point B, and they should treat all data equal, or neutral. They should not block data they don't like, or prioritise data they can make more money off. And clearly they don't like that, because it reduces their power and the way they can cash in on your behalf.

Net Neutrality is actually something very basic and simple. But by politicising it, Americans tend to make a big emotional drama out of it. Just like they did with Climate Change and so many other issues.

 

[JGRE]

I wish I could be more optimistic about this... But this will never pass the House in this current administration.

Wait till after the mid-term elections......

 

[applebro]

Hope a miracle happens and a couple of replebicans defect away from the corruption this one time

 

[jdsingle]

The real problem isn't net neutrality, it's lack of competition regarding ISP's. If there was real competition in that market there would be no problem. Just think if you had a choice between 5 or 6 different ISP's all looking for your business.

This is the root of the issue. In a lot of areas there are only two or three ISPs. If we want a free market then we need more than two to three options. Concentrated power (partially funded by the government) doesn't enable us to believe they would follow through on keeping things "fair."

 

[ThatGuyInLa]

Before Obama took office the internet was pretty different. Back then almost no one streamed video, now almost everyone does. It is evolving rapidly and we need to protect it from a small number of telecoms having ultimate say over it, especially when in large areas of the country there isn’t any competition.

??? YouTube exploded in 2007. Netflix was streaming in 2008. The web, "as we know it today", was completely in place when the Obama law was passed. It was only three years ago buddy. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/node/323681

 

[cosmichobo]

Gerrymandering. Hence the only 3 votes from the GOP in support.

(Also to any posts that follow, please know what ISOC/IANA/ICANN are before you post in this thread).

Oh - I didn't realise there were sanctions imposed on posting.

Perhaps you could be so kind as to explain those acronyms for us all, rather than being so pompous?

 

[gnipgnop]

Kind of a waste of time, but the Dems don't have much else to do with their time other than hate on Trump. The real problem isn't net neutrality, it's lack of competition regarding ISP's.

Do you think Ajit Pai actually cares about that? Or the GOP? Their excuse for ending net neutrality was that it's a "burden" on the ISPs, so they obviously aren't motivated by concerns for customers.
[doublepost=1526556163][/doublepost]

If the government is deciding it can regulate private businesses who provide internet services, then I hope they don't stop at the internet providers. Set the sights on social media companies, next. If the net should be neutral, then the largest distributors of internet content should also be neutral. They're just transporting the data, they shouldn't get a say in what content they're transporting.

The government can regulate any business. It's in the Constitution. The government is not supposed to regulate speech. That's also in the Constitution. Private companies, on the other hand, are not required to provide a free speech platform as part of their products/services.

 

[brendu]

??? YouTube exploded in 2007. Netflix was streaming in 2008. The web, "as we know it today", was completely in place when the Obama law was passed. It was only three years ago buddy. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/node/323681

Yeah, YouTube and Netflix weren’t nearly as big back then and you know it. Don’t pretend the internet hasn’t been evolving. The number of people not signing up for cable tv has been decreasing over the past ten years. That has cable companies scrambling to figure out ways to box you into their services on the internet. Without some form of NN or classifying internet as a title 2 utility you will see things like Comcast blocking Netflix unless you pay comcast for access to Netflix on top of paying for Netflix. I am not a big supporter of government regulation. Mostly I think they need to stay out of peoples lives but these telecoms who control our access to the internet have done absolutely nothing in the past 30 years to make me think they will support an equal and open internet. Slowly but surely the big companies have bought all of their competition. Now if your internet company starts to nickel and dime you, well tough ****. You don’t have any other choice.

 

[PG(Austin)]

Who's on first?

 

[JeffyTheQuik]

Gerrymandering. Hence the only 3 votes from the GOP in support.

(Also to any posts that follow, please know what ISOC/IANA/ICANN are before you post in this thread).

You do know that the US Senate, gerrymandering looks like this:

[doublepost=1526557118][/doublepost]

I'd say 90% or more of issues Americans feel strongly about. They know little or nothing about.

I think that 645% of Americans are in favor of Internet Statistics by at least 178%.

 

[jscooper22]

"AT&T has not and does not plan to block websites, censor online content, or throttle, discriminate, and degrade network performance...". Nooo, we would NEVER do what we invested millions to be allowed ... to ... do.

 

[TheTruth101]

I wish I could be more optimistic about this... But this will never pass the House in this current administration.

I am not optimistic... but wait when the changes start to take effect and THEN you will see the people reacting. Internet is a social addiction AND is the premium platform for marketing.

Imagine that tomorrow you wake up and all of the sudden you have to drive on the other side of the street and everything becomes metric system and now your president is Nicolas Maduro. THEN is when people is going to get it.

 

[zooby]

Once again, why are democrats the ones who voted in favor of net neutrality? Stop saying they’re all the same when voting records say different.

I agree. This "both are the same / both are just as bad" BS is what led to his election... You wouldn't believe the people who said this then went on to criticize Trump after he was elected.

Also, I saw this staunch Trump supporter the other day whining about how we need to help keep Net Neutrality on Facebook. Like, really?

 

[JeffyTheQuik]

The government can regulate any business. It's in the Constitution. The government is not supposed to regulate speech. That's also in the Constitution. Private companies, on the other hand, are not required to provide a free speech platform as part of their products/services.

Where, exactly, is it in the US Constitution that the government can regulate any business?

I can see Commerce among the States in Article I, Section 8, but what about a business that doesn't do anything across state lines. Among being the operative word, meaning member or members of a larger set. The operative word would be "within" if it mean to regulate in a single state.

To me, I read the US Constitution how it stands, and not some cockamamie case of a person growing food to feed my livestock in Ohio affects the price of feed in the other states because I'm not buying it, therefore what I do on my farm is Interstate Commerce, so that can be regulated. (Wickard v. Filburn, 1942) uhhh.... what?

Speaking of that, the government does regulate firearms, and that is explicitly prohibited in the 2nd Amendment. No other part of the US Constitution says, "shall not be infringed," yet infringing goes on all over the place "for the children..." (gotta be 18/21, magazine sizes, can't saw off the end of a shotgun, background checks, blah blah blah, some of which I do agree with, but just because I agree with something doesn't mean it passes Constitutional restrictions on the government imposing them.)

 

[Edsel]

I'm disappointed with how so many people think "net-neutrality" means free and open. It doesn't. It means government, through FCC regulation, will parse out bandwidth according to how the FCC bureaucracy deems it "fair". This will embolden large bandwidth companies like Netflix and Facebook but stifle small innovative internet startups.

It's amazing how people grasp onto a term (net-neutrality) and believe it to be true. This is like government calling taxes, "investments"or, calling weapons of mass destruction "peace-keepers".

 

[BoneHead001]

Donnie, the moron in the White House, will not sign any legislation to overturn the FCC's repeal of net neutrality because it represents one more success of President Obama, and he is so vindictive over the birther issue that he will do his darnedest to remove / overturn everything President Obama did.

No, the moron is President Trump's predecessor. MAGA.

 

[Markoth]

People seem to forget that this all started when certain companies were being given "fast lanes", so their websites would be faster than everyone else's, also forgetting that 99% of websites hardly use any bandwidth at all, and even slow broadband is more than fast enough.

In short, most companies don't need the extra performance. There never was, and I suspect never will be an ISP who actually slows down their own customer's connection. There's actual competition in that market, so they'd just lose business.

 

[Judo]

I'm disappointed with how so many people think "net-neutrality" means free and open. It doesn't. It means government, through FCC regulation, will parse out bandwidth according to how the FCC bureaucracy deems it "fair". This will embolden large bandwidth companies like Netflix and Facebook but stifle small innovative internet startups.

It's amazing how people grasp onto a term (net-neutrality) and believe it to be true. This is like government calling taxes, "investments"or, calling weapons of mass destruction "peace-keepers".

"will parse out bandwidth according to how the FCC bureaucracy deems it "fair""
What do you mean by this?

From where I'm reading from, it looks like you see less government as being a more free, open and better society. Free and open isn't binary, and aren't very helpful terms to use I find. I think fair and beneficial are more appropriate terms to use, but like you mentioned, it's easy for people to grasp on to buzz words.

When we live in a society where people depend on certain services and living conditions, regulation becomes necessary to protect peoples livelihood. Without regulations there's a good chance we wouldn't even have the internet (see Carterfone).