Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
U.S. Senate Votes to Restore Net Neutrality, Now Expected to Face Major Hurdle in House
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The "net-neutrality" proposed by the FCC in 2015 proposed a three tier bandwidth system. This would favor companies like Netflix and Facebook but could create roadblocks to smaller internet companies trying to grow their business. Washington bureaucracy is huge and slow and ponderous. It takes forever to make small changes and this could easily thwart technology growth.
The internet is not TV. And internet is not exclusively entertainment. It is essential, especially in developed countries. The internet is the main way to search for a job and email is the preferred method of communication during a job search. For education, even elementary students need access to the internet to complete their homework these days.
The internet is as essential to living in the modern world as electricity.
I don't know for sure, but I think you'll survive having your internets a little bit slower due to passing a limit they set for unlimited users. It's really their fault for calling it unlimited, but oh well. This too shall pass, fear not. I know it's traumatic, but I have faith in you. You'll persevere in the face of this great obstacle in life!
/sarcasm
Oh good lord people, slow internet? Really? A national issue? Give me a freakin break. It's not even actually happening, beyond cell companies trying to keep their networks from getting overloaded, which makes the whole thing even more ridiculous. I think the time has come to say it: Americans are spoiled children.
What part of "OWNED BY DIFFERENT CORPORATIONS" do you not get? Different corporations want different laws. I'm not talking about ONLY TELCOs. That's why I said DIFFERENT CORPORATIONS.
Try expanding your understanding a little.
Sure. But this is tangential to net neutrality. If there is any crossover, it's that the lack of net neutrality will further entrench the conglomerate ISPs...
[doublepost=1526601592][/doublepost]The basic argument I'm seeing here is government vs free market. I'll set aside several points about missing the forest for the trees and say: if I had to choose between the two options at the beginning of my post...I'll choose bureaucracy over predatory capitalism every time.
And if they truly understood the issue, they still wouldn't support net neutrality.
But with that assumption, if they understood net neutrality, they would have to be informed on a vast amount of topics and we would be in a better political state today.
I don't understand why people are asking for net neutrality when the real problem is that select companies with special privileges are allowed to maintain monopolies and NOBODY is talking about it, instead opting to make the issue about "net neutrality".
[doublepost=1526621726][/doublepost]
Because self interest and free markets are so evil bringing those nasty horrible iphones to everyone's pockets.
[doublepost=1526622141][/doublepost]
Bernie wants guaranteed free college and guaranteed government jobs. He fundamentally does not understand markets and incentives.
Look, I can see YOU mean well and are being reasonable though that does not make Bernie Sanders and many of his socialist supporters reasonable.
Even if we did cut all wasteful spending and government handouts to those who don't deserve it (corporations and welfare abusers alike), that money should be returned to the people, not re-directed back to another form of a government meat grinder. Government can't do k-12 right, why let them do college. Government can't keep efficient processes or employees, so why let them employee more people.
Would rather have more government meddling in your life than less? What is wrong with people and their love for the state? I'll pass.
A lot of people are idiots. Look who they voted into office, that should explain itself
But historically that has been the case. It was only in the Bush43 days that people were concerned about some of the bills and actions coming out of the Senate. Many hideous bills that have come out in the dark of night from the House end up DOA at the Senate. We have the richest, wealthiest Congress in history, and it shows. Making poor people have to work for Medicare? Making people 'pull themselves up by their bootstraps' when they don't have the money to even buy boots! When this really hits his base, and drives them into the ground, they will realize they have been suckered by the long con. But someone said, over a year ago now, that as long as his 'base' thinks minorities are getting it worse, they will be happy. What a way to run a country. American democracy is all but dead. It would seem, historically, that all they need is another attack, and what remains of the once proud nation will be lost...
[doublepost=1526647715][/doublepost]
Killing net neutrality substitutes corporations for government. I do NOT trust corporate America. IF corporate America were a real person, they would be serving overlapping life sentences for premeditated murder and being a general menace to human life. The crimes against humanity would be enough to get most corporations a death penalty! Most corporations are schizophrenic at best, and wildly homicidal at worst. I watched a documentary called The Corporation, and it was shocking, the crazy crap they get away with. That they literally OWN politicians is a large part of why this country is dying.
I thought for sure you were going to write regulation can be a catch 22. Because the utilities industry is so heavily regulated but they buy politicians so they can get the okay to charge more to Joe Public.
People need to be careful of what they wish for. Every new regulation on an industry creates another barrier to competition. True open competition in the market place is what is best for the end user. As a society we have accepted regulated monopolies for utilities. It should end there.
And throw in 'throttling', and it becomes about more than just paying more. It's in effect, network 'racism', or elitism.
Imagine that Ford buys a major highway. They declare that Ford vehicles don't have a speed limit. An F10 can go down their road at 120mph if they wish. Then they say that Chevy's have a max of 45mph, and Chrysler's have a max of 20mph, and all foreign brands are limited to 5mph.
Or imagine that they also have agreements with a few retail and restaurant outlets. You get to drive whatever speed you want if you are going to a McDonald's, but Burger King, you have a max speed of 35mph. Oh, and Walmart traffic doesn't have to stop every mile, but Costco and Whole Foods have to stop for 1 minute every mile, and are limited to 35mph.
Imagine that on their highway, they require everyone carrying a red head to stay in the right most lane, while drivers with blue eyes get to drive in the left. And bald people have to wait until night to get access to certain parts of the highway.
How many people would cheer those kinds of rules?
Still in favor of corporations deciding what you get that you already paid for?
[doublepost=1526648792][/doublepost]
That statement is laughable... I don't trust government, but I trust corporations a hell of a lot less...
And the same crowd who complain about Trump, also argue in support of more government overreach. Go figure that one out.
Source?
I'll tell you my source. I read it.
Cut your ********, read it. You seem really smart, I'm sure you could probably get through both in a few hours.
Here's the "Restoring Internet Freedom Order" https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-releases-restoring-internet-freedom-order
Here's the "Net Neutrality". https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...c-publishes-full-text-of-net-neutrality-rules
It's amazing what companies like Google, ATT, Verizon and Apple do to push their Net Neutrality agenda. I, as a consumer, am sick of it.
[doublepost=1526690156][/doublepost]
Hee hee it's so funny, "I hate trump, let's grind the country into the ground!!" WTF? Really?
How? Check this out! My brother called me panicked because he can't find his birth certificate, and the military hospital he was born in closed decades ago, and no one can tell him where to get a copy. He has to renew his license, and the secretary of state in 'one tough turd's' state is saying that he has to produce an embossed original of his birth certificate, or he is relegated to 'second class citizen' status. Not able to fly, not able to enter government buildings, not able to get served in bars.
You want to know how bad this is? The Nazi's demanded to see any German citizen's 'papers' at any moment, at any place. If you couldn't produce your 'papers', you were jailed until someone could show up and provide them. If any of your 'papers' were not in order, you were also jailed. Many people were murdered by the Nazi government for not having their 'papers'. It wasn't just Jews either. Many were swept up into the concentration camps and slaughtered for a bureaucratic issue with their 'papers'.
Watch this video for a clue to the power of despotism and how this 'Real-ID' **** it blatantly unconstitutional.
I don't understand this issue. How was there a problem with internet before 2015? Everyone acts as if the world will end if net neutrality isn't enforced. Considering this was an Obama policy, I would say there is a 1% chance I could possibly agree with it. I don't believe in regulation. I believe in competition.
I have clearly stated that I don't know much about what this is all about. I do know that SINCE 2015 my ISP is getting away with murder, and there are lots of BS things they have been doing. So if they are allowed to do what they have been doing under net neutrality, I am certainly not in favor. Internet was much more affordable before net neutrality.
The last thing you want is government involved in anything. Nothing works correctly if the gov't intervenes. There is also the guarantee of unintended consequences with gov't intervention and side-skirting of anything not covered in a written law which cannot account for every conceivable circumstance.
See the poster above me for a perfect example of why you don't want the gov't in charge of anything.
I don't remember this being something most people were in favor of. Now everyone is on the bandwagon somehow that Net Neutrality is our only hope??? What? How has this been spun over the last few years? Net Neutrality is a way for the FCC/gov't to get their mits on the internet since they have no ownership to regulate it. NO THANKS!! How could anyone want that???
[doublepost=1526830604][/doublepost]
The people who voted him in office want LESS gov't meddling in their lives.
I have clearly stated that I don't know much about what this is all about. I do know that SINCE 2015 my ISP is getting away with murder, and there are lots of BS things they have been doing. So if they are allowed to do what they have been doing under net neutrality, I am certainly not in favor. Internet was much more affordable before net neutrality.
The last thing you want is government involved in anything. Nothing works correctly if the gov't intervenes. There is also the guarantee of unintended consequences with gov't intervention and side-skirting of anything not covered in a written law which cannot account for every conceivable circumstance.
See the poster above me for a perfect example of why you don't want the gov't in charge of anything.
I don't remember this being something most people were in favor of. Now everyone is on the bandwagon somehow that Net Neutrality is our only hope??? What? How has this been spun over the last few years? Net Neutrality is a way for the FCC/gov't to get their mits on the internet since they have no ownership to regulate it. NO THANKS!! How could anyone want that???
[doublepost=1526830604][/doublepost]
The people who voted him in office want LESS gov't meddling in their lives.
Last edited:
If you don't know what Net Neutrality is, then why do you have an opinion about it? Why don't you try educating yourself an the topic, and then draw a conclusion for yourself.
There are plenty of examples in this thread on what was wrong with the internet before net neutrality was enforced. And competition without regulations is an illusion: you need to establish and enforce rules so everybody plays by the same standards. Or would you like it if your ISP decides to block FaceTime because it has a competing technology? Or block all pro-Republican websites because it got a donation from the Democrats? Or slow down all sites that are critical of the government? Well, I'll go to another ISP then, you'll say, because it's all about competition. Well, you can't because you live in a village with only 2 ISP's, and the other one is blocking or slowing down even more sites.
Clearly, ISP's wouldn't go so far (at first) but they can do a million other less obvious things manipulating your internet connection. It's unclear to me why you would want to go down the rabbit hole of censorship and blocking free speech. Unless you want to give ISP's more power so they can earn more cash.
You don't want the paper boy to cut out some articles from your news paper? Then why would you allow your ISP to manipulate your internet connection?
What makes you think the gov't wouldn't censor it either. I know that companies like Facebook are the ones suppressing things that they don't agree with under net neutrality. SO how has that worked out? Don't get me wrong, I am in no way a fan of corporations either!!
I don't know much about the issue because I wasn't having any of the theoretical things that were described happening. I educated myself little when it was first announced and my opinion came from that. I had no problems before NN but i see there have been many since. I admit I have not been following the issue closely. I think there may be a lot of misinformation regarding this issue and somehow it has become a political issue also. The solution should be easy, no company or gov't should be allowed to alter, throttle, or regulate internet. None of them own it. You get what internet bandwidth you pay for.
[doublepost=1526832422][/doublepost]
I don't understand why the ISP would care, it would mean less customers for them and less money. Their job is to provide internet and not care what i do with it end of story. Now there should be some regulation as far as what they could charge, because they have been getting VERY carried away the last few years. It wasn't an issue before NN it seems. Broadband should be getting cheaper, not more expensive.
Last edited:
That is a common fallacy of the oppenents of NN.
It's not about companies like Facebook, Google, Apple, etc. It's about ISP. And making sure they treat every bit like every other bit.
I'm not sure how it is in the US, but here in Canada, our major ISPs also own media companies. They have their own services competing with the likes of Netflix. Ones that don't do so well. But they tried. At one point, they were zero rating the mobile data usage for their own service.
NN is not about ISPs not being allowed to create different speed and/or data caps tiers. It's about not messing with the traffic on those connections.
Netflix is always brought up as a case of high usage. I pay my ISP for a package that has the speed and data usage that fit my needs. Those needs include Netflix. On the other end, Netflix pays they providers for sufficient bandwidth to service their customer base. So everybody pays for access. I don't want my ISP to tell me what I can or can't access.
That IS exactly what NN is: a rule making sure you get the bandwidth you pay for and that ISP’s don’t mess with your internet data.
There are millions of reasons why they could make money by messing with your data. Coca Cola paying them to block Pepsi adds, helping the political party that has their back, forcing customers to use their streaming service instead of that of the competition, ...
Governments censoring the internet is indeed a very serious treat but not related to NN. Facebook, google, ... doing that is also a problem but again unrelated. They are services on the internet, you can choose to ignore them.
If your connection is manipulated behind your back, that’s a completely different story. And the government must say no to that. At all times. Even if ISP’s want to do it to make more money.
And the reason why prices are going up? Monopolies, duopolies, ... the government should intervene here and make sure the free market can function properly.
You do know that the US Senate, gerrymandering looks like this:
![2016-04-18-1460989137-5126383-ThinkstockPhotos499004040.jpg]()
[doublepost=1526557118][/doublepost]
I think that 645% of Americans are in favor of Internet Statistics by at least 178%.
I assume everyone knows how the senate map is. We aren't talking about the Senate though. This will not make it through the House.
[doublepost=1526931949][/doublepost]
Fair point, I crossed streams when I shouldn't have. I meant that it will not "pass" to the POTUS because of gerrymandering and that the GOP votes in the Senate are indicative of such, even though it is the house that is gerrymandered. Thanks for keeping me to task!
[doublepost=1526932115][/doublepost]
House Districts. Things go to the House to die and the Senate GOP follows the lead of the House in most things these days, which is a shame for what used to be our nation's bipartisan institution.
The House has passed 400 (or so) bills that have died in the Senate. They used to be two separate places where these bodies reported to, but with the passage of the 17th Amendment, there are now two Houses of Representatives. One, where the members are accountable to the People every two years, and the other, where the members are accountable to the People every 6 years.
The Senate used to be accountable to the States (well, the State Legislatures), and that was a good thing. This way, the Senate would be the brakes on things that the House wanted (such as unfunded mandates). This is akin to putting a12 volt battery in your iPhone, thinking that it will solve the problem with the battery going dead, but causing other issues along the way.
As for the House being the nation's bipartisan institution, the House has, for the most part, been the more tumultuous body, as they are accountable to the People, and folklore would have said...
The “Senatorial saucer” conversation between George Washington and Thomas Jefferson is part of U.S. Senate legend. Jefferson had returned from France and was breakfasting with Washington. Jefferson asked Washington why he agreed to have a Senate.
“Why,” said Washington, “did you just now pour that coffee into your saucer before drinking it?”
“To cool it,” said Jefferson; “my throat is not made of brass.”
“Even so,” said Washington, “we pour our legislation into the Senatorial saucer to cool it.”
“Why,” said Washington, “did you just now pour that coffee into your saucer before drinking it?”
“To cool it,” said Jefferson; “my throat is not made of brass.”
“Even so,” said Washington, “we pour our legislation into the Senatorial saucer to cool it.”