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

[Stella]

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".

Its always possible to twist things in favour of your beliefs. The above is a great example.

The larger ISPs are far more likely to screw over their customers by not having NN. Throttling competing services, such as tv / movie, music streaming and favouring their own services at greater speeds.

Innovation is not finding ways to nickel and dime your customers, or degrading competing websites and services.

 

[JeffyTheQuik]

I'm just glad this is where it belongs, in the Legislative Branch, rather than the Bureaucratic Branch, which appears where in the US Constitution?

Oh yeah... the "Let's kick it over there so we're not accountable" clause.

 

[BornAgainMac]

I just want a law to end spamming.

 

[nylonsteel]

go net neutral

 

[Huntn]

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".

I think most informed people regard net neutrality as a regulated situation ensuring fairness, equality, and equalized access to the net.

 

[PlainviewX]

You obviously didn't read it.
[doublepost=1526518378][/doublepost]

See above.

Read what, your post? You claimed in your post that "With or without it there's no big deal." This is a massive deal. Thinking otherwise is foolish and detrimental to society. Everybody should see this is a big deal.
[doublepost=1526567494][/doublepost]

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".

You are wrong all over the place.

 

[brendu]

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.

And that’s why telecoms will do it slowly and insidiously. They know they can’t change this stuff overnight or people will flip. But a small charge here and a little few there and hey why not buy out some more competition and make our movie service the only one you have access to. After awhile people won’t even realize what has happened or what they lost and they will be so invested in the system they are forced into they won’t care about what they don’t have.
[doublepost=1526567978][/doublepost]

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.

In a few years many people will be streaming movies in 4K. Low bandwidth won’t suffice. And your suggestion that there is competition is laughable. Tens of millions of Americans have no choice in broadband provider. Maybe 5G wireless will change that but I doubt it.

 

[AmazingRobie]

It's articles like this which make me wonder why anyone thinks Obama was a good leader at all. It seems everything he implemented is getting repealed. Net neutrality, forced healthcare, carbon emissions rulings. Why does everyone continue to harp on about how great of a president he was...it sounds like he was a jerk.

 

[Markoth]

And that’s why telecoms will do it slowly and insidiously. They know they can’t change this stuff overnight or people will flip. But a small charge here and a little few there and hey why not buy out some more competition and make our movie service the only one you have access to. After awhile people won’t even realize what has happened or what they lost and they will be so invested in the system they are forced into they won’t care about what they don’t have.
[doublepost=1526567978][/doublepost]

In a few years many people will be streaming movies in 4K. Low bandwidth won’t suffice. And your suggestion that there is competition is laughable. Tens of millions of Americans have no choice in broadband provider. Maybe 5G wireless will change that but I doubt it.

True, but as I said, 99% of websites will likely never have any reason to stream in 4K. Do you think every website has the same bandwidth requirements as Netflix? Not even close. Sure, they'll all try to use whatever bandwidth is available, but sites such as Wikipedia which are mostly text, and maybe an occasional audio or low-quality video file, will never use much bandwidth at all.

 

[BoneHead001]

It's articles like this which make me wonder why anyone thinks Obama was a good leader at all. It seems everything he implemented is getting repealed. Net neutrality, forced healthcare, carbon emissions rulings. Why does everyone continue to harp on about how great of a president he was...it sounds like he was a jerk.

Obama was a HORRIBLE president.

 

[supercoolmanchu]

Whoa-- just wait a sec! This is Congress trying to pass a law. The gist of the objection to FCC regulations on NN by Ajit Pai is that it should be implemented by the people's elected representatives, not an unelected body such as the FCC. The FCC can regulate such if Congress so decides. Your objection to Congressional action is off-the-wall, and provides evidence to support the claim that opposition to NN is not based on sound governance, but just pandering to ISPs.
[doublepost=1526513773][/doublepost]

It's to get individual members of Congress on record, so that the voters can make an informed decision in November. What's wrong with that? Seems a pretty good use of time by a Congress which otherwise gets little done.

This Congressional action is just an attempt to reinstate the misguided and incorrect FCC Title II measures. This will not get the net neutrality that people want. Claiming otherwise is a cheap political scam.

If you don't want to be charged differently for the same bits of data, go to the FTC, because net neutrality as its been described is a classic example of a fair trade issue. Or Congress can pass a real net neutrality law, rather than giving an unelected goon squad of political appointees over reach into far more than how data is categorized by ISPs.

Net neutrality supporters love their buzzwords and catch phrases, but clearly haven't spent an actual moment thinking about the issue. You don't use the fire department to write speeding tickets, the army to drive submarines, the IRS to deliver packages, etc. Take some time and learn the differences between the FCC and the FTC, and maybe also stop calling 911 with those Taco Bell drive-thru order complaints.

Net neutrality is doomed if people like you keep paying cheap lip service without real thinking or genuine effort.

Now if what you really want is Title II classifications, you should stop being intellectually dishonest, and just own up to it. However, you're going to have a lot tougher time selling that to people interested in things like an open internet, freedom of speech and expression, etc.

 

[VulchR]

It's simple - ISP's that support net neutrality should just embargo – or, even more deliciously, slow down access to a soul-destroying crawl – the web pages, Twitter accounts etc. of any US Congress Critter® who voted in favor of net neutrality.

 

[brendu]

True, but as I said, 99% of websites will likely never have any reason to stream in 4K. Do you think every website has the same bandwidth requirements as Netflix? Not even close. Sure, they'll all try to use whatever bandwidth is available, but sites such as Wikipedia which are mostly text, and maybe an occasional audio or low-quality video file, will never use much bandwidth at all.

I agree. I however want to see us set the internet up such that it remains equal for all players big and and small over the next 20+ years.
[doublepost=1526573879][/doublepost]..

It's simple - ISP's that support net neutrality should just embargo – or, even more deliciously, slow down access to a soul-destroying crawl – the web pages, Twitter accounts etc. of any US Congress Critter® who voted in favor of net neutrality.

...but ISPs don’t support NN. it doesn’t matter what they say publicly, their bribing of politicians proves they do not want NN.

 

[VulchR]

...
...but ISPs don’t support NN. it doesn’t matter what they say publicly, their bribing of politicians proves they do not want NN.

Ah, very true. Perhaps the tech companies could take some action - if Google embargoed representatives who voted against net neutrality, or perhaps displayed an emblem of shame beside their search results, that might have quite an impact.

 

[brendu]

Ah, very true. Perhaps the tech companies could take some action - if Google embargoed representatives who voted against net neutrality, or perhaps displayed an emblem of shame beside their search results, that might have quite an impact.

I actually find it interesting google or Apple support NN. As far as they are concerned, from a business perspective, not having NN is good for them. A few million to the right people and they can keep their dominance in certain areas.

 

[supercoolmanchu]

Enough with that “they’re all the same” garbage. This wouldn’t be happening under Democratic leadership.
[doublepost=1526514573][/doublepost]
And yet only 3 Republicans in the senate voted to restore net neutrality. You have to be purposely blind to insinuate that both parties are the same.

You should probably think more clearly about what it is you actually want. But since you've gone straight to political team tallies, it's kind of a give away that the petty partisan sport is more important to you than the actual ideal.

You see nothing wrong with Democrats in Congress trying to give a Republican appointee controlled FCC, Title II power over ISPs, and call it 'net neutrality'? Why would Democrats do that? If you think they're on your side, remember they are on team politician long before team average joe.

For 'net neutrality' Democrats: There are going to be more Republican administrations who will politically antagonize people and institutions using the FCC if they have this power. Which is no kind of net neutral solution, but that's what you're asking for?

For 'net neutrality' Republicans: There are going to be more Democrat administrations who will politically antagonize people and institutions using the FCC if they have this power. Which is no kind of net neutral solution, but that's what you're asking for?

For 'net neutrality' independents: There are going to be more Democrat & Republican administrations who will politically antagonize people and institutions using the FCC if they have this power. Which is no kind of net neutral solution, but that's what you're asking for?
[doublepost=1526576222][/doublepost]

I think most informed people regard net neutrality as a regulated situation ensuring fairness, equality, and equalized access to the net.

No, I think it's the lazy solution that's presented to them by political hacks.


Congress could pass a two sentence data privacy act, that gets everyone the net neutrality they actually want and fixes the even bigger issue.

What the FCC did under Obama wasn't net neutrality. Putting features up one's butt, does not actually make them a chicken. Calling something net neutrality, doesn't make it so. Beware those political talking points, try to think more critically.

 

[chrisbru]

Bernie says internet is a God given right! So are food, water, housing, healthcare, and cellphones! Vote for Bernie! Free stuff!

You joke, but we're at a point where a cellphone and access to the internet are essential - for education, for job searching, for communication. Sure, they are below water, food, housing, and healthcare, but they are essential services.

 

[lunarworks]

Congratulations on having the first name calling post in the thread. Your mother must be so proud of you.

My mother is proud that I can properly identify name-calling.

Now, it may have been name calling if I'd written "Keep drinking that, kool-ade", but that's a strange name to call someone.

 

[supercoolmanchu]

You joke, but we're at a point where a cellphone and access to the internet are essential - for education, for job searching, for communication. Sure, they are below water, food, housing, and healthcare, but they are essential services.

The internet is useful, hardly a necessity or essential. Some people also think TV is essential too, but any way you slice, that's just an entertainment product.

 

[DaveP]

Ever since "Net Neutrality" was repealed, Safari seems less snappy.

 

[Mac 128]

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.

You mean unlike the way mobile phone companies throttle bandwidth for those who exceed their monthly allotment? it's all well and good when I can switch to another company that doesn't throttle my service, but much more problematic when there are few providers offering services in my area. One of Trump's "initiatives" is to make sure his rural base has access to the broadband internet. Chances are, it will be one service provider, and that provider without NN will be able to throttle any websites that don't serve up the political message it prefers, or the message it's largest investors prefer. Local customers won't have any options. And then the political narrative can be controlled for entire regions of the country. China can basically do this now -- simply shut off access to websites which don't offer an acceptable message. Here, an ISP can literally hold a website hostage for money. This has all happened before -- Microsoft was hauled to court for throttling the performance of other browsers on it's Windows OS in the 90s. This is just a different version of the same problem, and leaving it up to the marketplace to make the best decisions in the interests of its customers, particularly in areas of limited options has been generally proven to be a bad idea.

 

[Hedwigg]

My mother is proud that I can properly identify name-calling.

Now, it may have been name calling if I'd written "Keep drinking that, kool-ade", but that's a strange name to call someone.

Arguing semantics is the sign of someone who knows they're in the wrong.

 

[lunarworks]

Arguing semantics is the sign of someone who knows they're in the wrong.

I don't consider myself wrong. Opposing net neutrality is blindly carrying water for gigantic corporations.

 

[CartoonCat]

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]
When did I mention the GOP? Or Ajit Pat? The Dems and the Repubs are equally deficient. Only in different ways. If we had good market competition, net neutrality would not need to exist. Net neutrality existed because of government trying to make up for lack of competition. I assume you belong to the "D" tribe and not the "R" tribe? Good luck fighting with the man in the mirror.

 

[Edsel]

I think most informed people regard net neutrality as a regulated situation ensuring fairness, equality, and equalized access to the net.

Your assumption, with respect to how the FCC was drafting "net-neutral" regulations, was not neutral. It was biased towards contemporary big bandwidth internet companies.
[doublepost=1526591220][/doublepost]

Read what, your post? You claimed in your post that "With or without it there's no big deal." This is a massive deal. Thinking otherwise is foolish and detrimental to society. Everybody should see this is a big deal.
[doublepost=1526567494][/doublepost]
You are wrong all over the place.

Be specific or I'll simply assign you to the

Its always possible to twist things in favour of your beliefs. The above is a great example.

The larger ISPs are far more likely to screw over their customers by not having NN. Throttling competing services, such as tv / movie, music streaming and favouring their own services at greater speeds.

Innovation is not finding ways to nickel and dime your customers, or degrading competing websites and services.

Innovation and new technology happens at a far faster pace than does government bureaucracy. I've worked in IT for 35 years and I've worked in government. If the FCC becomes our internet gatekeepers, be prepared for a lot of political lobbying, public hearings, lengthy govt studies, and FCC board reviews to keep up with our industry.