House Democrats Shelve Net Neutrality Proposal 221
crimeandpunishment writes "A compromise on net neutrality appears to be as likely as Google and China becoming BFFs. House Democrats have pulled the plug on efforts to work out a compromise among phone, cable, and Internet companies. House Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, who shelved the proposal late on Wednesday in the face of Republican opposition, said, 'If Congress can't act, the FCC must,' and called this development 'a loss for consumers.' Internet companies and public interest groups say the new regulations are needed to keep phone and cable companies from playing favorites with traffic, while those companies insist they need flexibility so high-bandwidth applications don't slow down their systems." The net neutrality debate seems to have fallen victim to the extreme polarization evident in the larger political culture.
I'll Say It Again ... (Score:5, Insightful)
It would really, really help if we'd explain to my conservative friends just what "Net Neutrality" is. They are convinced that it's some form of Fairness Doctrine for the Web that will limit content.
(The fact that such a "fairness doctrine" might limit Mother Jones and Salon just as much as it does FrontPageMag and World Net Daily, depending on the party in power, doesn't seem to occur to them, either.)
I try to explain to them that it simply means that, if I visit YouTube, I don't want my ISP to limit their bandwidth because Microsoft (or someone else) has paid a premium for priority for *their* bandwidth.
We geeks have several flaws, and one of them is our love of catchphrases and acronyms. We just *assume* that everyone knows what "free software" and "net neutrality" mean. But when you start dealing with the Body Politick At Large(tm), that's not necessarily so. A few minutes to carefully explain just what we're actually talking about will go a long way ...
They're doing it wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
"pulled the plug on efforts to work out a compromise among phone, cable, and Internet companies"
That right there is a perfect example of what's wrong with Washington. This debate, like so many others, doesn't consider the interests of the public, but simply the interests of the industry players directly affected by the new law.
There is absolutely no legitimate reason why the US government should be negotiating with AT&T (or Time Warner, or Comcast, etc). None. If the US government wants AT&T to do something, they can pass a law and/or issue a regulation that says AT&T has to do it. No negotiation required - if AT&T doesn't do it, the US government can then bring them to court. That's what makes the government different from a corporate partner of AT&T, and AT&T is subject to the government of the US as long as it's operating in the US.
However, there's an illegitimate reason why the US government negotiates with AT&T: AT&T is in the running at least for largest campaign contributor [opensecrets.org] in the country.
Re:My first "bump" where this law could help (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:My first "bump" where this law could help (Score:5, Insightful)
Watch it when you mention "backroom deals." Those things are what got us the 1976 copyright extension act, 1998 Mickey Mouse/Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act, DMCA, DMCA2, ACTA (thankfully not ratified yet but just watch them slip it through in the dead of night).
We can just bet that the real reason this is being "delayed" is that the Senate right now is busy passing the "Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act" (aka the "Fuck Consumers In The Ass Act") under a "fast-track" by the corrupt party in power (as opposed to the corrupt party OUT of power).
They want to have the authority to shut down any website they see fit by accusing it of "piracy." Not only that, they want the ability to order US ISP's to "black out" access to overseas websites they accuse of "piracy."
How long till this starts to be a tool for political repression? Seems the Democrats have taken a page from their funding backers over in China. [google.com] Maybe in a few years rather than needing Tor to get news out to people inside China, we'll be needing it just to survive the Great Firewall of America...
So let me get this straight (Score:2, Insightful)
We have asshole Republicans who only care about trying to keep their grip on power, and then we have spineless Democrats who can't even achieve their agenda while maintaining a majority and the White House.
Awesome.
Re:Bandwidth hogs should pay more.... (Score:2, Insightful)
There's no justification to charge a company that is providing the value you sell. If customers want a higher percentage of your network traffic, charge them for it.
Re:Bandwidth hogs should pay more.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Fine. Let them charge the content producers by bandwidth.
You must own an ISP, because that idea is bullocks. I pay my ISP to pipe content from my provider to my computer. If the content provider is paying, why should I?
If your system doesn't have the bandwidth to serve your customers, you need to invest in infrastructure. If you can't get a return on your investment you need to get the hell out of the business.
The phrase "taking you coming and going" springs to mind. This kind of nonsense really pissses me off. IMO the "troll" mod should have been "flamebait", but at least it's a downmod.
Dear Congress (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay, everyone in Congress NOT owned by corporations and rich interest groups please step forward. ...Whoa, not so fast Democrats
Re:My first "bump" where this law could help (Score:3, Insightful)
The deal as it is with Xbox live ESPN3 is entirely with your ISP licensing the content, no choice for consumer. If it was a consumer option I would have opted out of paying for it in liue of the price hikes.
Re:Bandwidth hogs should pay more.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah but the point is that you didn't PUT the content on the net did you, you just consumed it. People like you shouldn't have to pay, and THAT'S what the FCC needs to regulate.
The point is, I used the bandwidth.
Re:I'll Say It Again ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bandwidth hogs should pay more.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I'll Say It Again ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:My first "bump" where this law could help (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it falls into the gray area of net neutrality because it takes away the choices consumers should have and makes them superficial to actually being on the internet. So broadband isn't broadband if your carrier is responsible for chosing what services you can use on it. I mostly made my statement to get people to think about these "outside of the box" issues.
Re:They're doing it wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
There is absolutely no legitimate reason why the US government should be negotiating with AT&T (or Time Warner, or Comcast, etc). None.
Sure there is. The US is a democratic republic.
Yes, but corporations don't have suffrage.
Re:Run away! Run away! (Score:2, Insightful)
For you maybe. People in my pay range ($70-95K) are looking at Federal tax increases of over $2,000. Might be chump change to you, but not to me.
No surprise at all (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'll Say It Again ... (Score:3, Insightful)
You have mixed it up a bit, it's a great society for billionaires and everybody who enjoys being corporate cattle right now.
Unless you've been in hibernation for the past 100 years, the gov't has increasingly been on the path of taking away your freedoms and liberties, while providing them to the corporations and now they are openly bailing out the monopolies they have created. Unless you've been asleep for the past 100 years, you should have noticed the corporate welfare that turned the people into that cattle.
People used to be called pioneers, now they are just consumers.
Re:You? Why TF should they care about YOU? (Score:1, Insightful)
DEMOCRATS have destroyed the middle class? BWAHWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH.
You should do stand up.
Re:Bandwidth hogs should pay more.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Because *you* are using bandwidth. If *you* use more bandwidth than the guy next to you, it's reasonable to think that *you* pay more. Not because you used the wrong protocol, no. Not because you went to Youtube, when your ISP has a deal with Hulu, no. But because you used more resources than your neighbor, sure. Net Neutrality has nothing to do with whether you're charged for speed, total bandwidth used, or both. It's about preventing you from being charged extra to use certain protocols or access certain destinations
And you know what? Very few people have a problem with that. A bill to accomplish ONLY that would be what, maybe 10-20 pages at most? Why does it take X*thousand pages?
The problem, dear poster, is that the government insists on passing another HUGE freaking piece of government-expanding legislation that does a whole metric crap-ton of things that have NOTHING whatsoever to do with the nuts-and-bolts of "net neutrality" as discussed here. Most of which gives the government even more control over the intertubes and YOU, thus removing freedom, while causing costs to skyrocket for ISPs and consumers. The "net neutrality" part of the legislation is but a tiny fraction, and would probably be hard to even find if it is even still present at all by the time it's passed.
Strat
Re:You? Why TF should they care about YOU? (Score:3, Insightful)
You got that one wrong, you meant to write Republicans (homophobic, racist, anti-middle class...).
As opposed to Democrats, who keep people in what is basically slavery, lie about trying to "improve education" while doing their best to make sure it is never improved for their voting base, tax the fuck out of people to pay for deadbeats (my city is now 13bn in the hole thanks to demofucks on the city council and the mayor's office not doing shit to get the Katrina Debris out: those lazy assholes are STILL demanding government payouts and housing/welfare checks with no plan to ever go home) and endorse the evisceration of the First Amendment, Second Amendment, and anything else in that pesky "Constitution" thingy that gets in their way?
Who voted against the repeal of DADT? Republicans
Also most of the joint chiefs of staff... who are not republicans.
Who voted against a more comprehensive anti hate crime law?
I believe the word you really mean is "thoughtcrime law", which many of us of a libertarian bent view as a Bad Thing.
Who sleeps with the religious right bowing to its will? Republicans.
Funny. Ever seen black preachers in action, poverty-pimping the slaves back to the Democrat for another round of uninformed, uneducated, "voting"?
Who voted against tax breaks for small businesses 2 weeks ago? Republicans.
What else was in the bill? Oh yeah, another round of TARP-crap that would have been WORTHLESS to small businesses. But you're too busy being a partisan fucktard to notice.
Who voted against tax breaks for corporations who keep jobs in the U.S. less than a week ago? Republicans.
See above...
Who created a $13 TRILLION hole in the government finances? BUSH thank you very much, he's a republicans.
Who voted for every bit of that spending legislation? Oh yeah, the DEMOCRATS... including Obama, every time since 2004...
As for the last 30 years, actually I beat you, let's do 60 years, under Democrats the income of the middle class has steadily increased by 3%/year and that of the upper class by 2%/year, under Republicans the increase has been around 1% for both.
Do you mean under a Democrat president or Democrat congress? Because the two are fundamentally different due to the lack of a line-item veto. The strongest growth was actually 1994-2000, when it was Clinton in the President's chair (holding the Republicans in check when he wasn't too busy getting blowjobs from interns) but the Republicans at least being sort-of fiscally responsible in the spending bills which Clinton only got a veto/pass vote on.
If we had a line item veto, I'd say fuck it, just make sure that no party gets hold of House, Senate, and Presidency all at once. As it stands, I'm more comfortable with a Republican congress and a Democrat president to hold them in check, thanks.
The problem is NOT one side or the other. The problem is Americans are too fucking stupid and uneducated these days to recognize that in order for our system to work, we have to have some goddamn checks and balances. The system, as stated, is not to rely on the goodness of men, but rather, ambition must be made to counteract ambition [constitution.org].
If there's a Democrat in the oval office, I vote Republican for congress. If there's a Republican in the oval office, I vote Democrat for office. Every time we've had one party controlling it all - Carter, Clinton's first two years, Bush's first six (and fuck it, his last two as well, since he was a wimpy-ass lame-duck RINO retard who didn't veto even ONE THING that Pelosi and Reid sent his way in 2006-2008), America suffered for it.
That's the reality. Now grow up and get your partisan head out of your partisan ass.
Re:Run away! Run away! (Score:2, Insightful)
Greedy asshole. I would give $2000 more to be 'burdened' with that tax bracket. Like about 75% of Americans, I make less than that.
Why don't you WORK for it instead of expecting it to be GIVEN to you?
No one but YOU is stopping you from improving yourself.
And calling someone who who wants to keep the fruits of their labors a "greedy asshole" just demonstrates what a petty, jealous, infantile, GIMMEEE GIMMMEEE GIMMMEEE jackass you are.
Re:So let me get this straight (Score:3, Insightful)
It's like I was saying yesterday...both parties have proven many times over that they can't be trusted.
Re:My first "bump" where this law could help (Score:3, Insightful)
>>>That's just ESPN locking their site/services to those _providers_ willing to pay them
It's an issue due to the lack of internet choice. If my provider (Comcast for example) decides to pay ESPN360 plus DisneyConnection plus FXextra plus all those other "paywall" sites, then that means my internet cost will gradually climb higher, just as Comcast TV gradually climbed from $25 to $65 when CATV channels increased their rates from ~25 to ~75 cents per home.
Unfortunately I have no other choice. I either pay the monopoly, or I get no internet.
NOW if the republicans would get off their ass, and revoke Comcast's exclusive license, I'd be able to choose somebody else like Cox, or Cablevision, or Time-Warner, or whoever. But the republicans don't seem to understand that the market is a monopoly. They can't get their head around the idea, and keep falsely calling it a "free market" when it isn't.
Note I don't think the Democrats have the right idea either. :-|
They too want to allow Comcast to keep its monopoly.
Re:You? Why TF should they care about YOU? (Score:3, Insightful)
As opposed to Democrats, who keep people in what is basically slavery
What? That's absurd. Who keeps voting against minimum wage laws? Who keeps voting against worker safety laws? Who keeps voting against extended unemployment benefits? How by any stretch of the imagination are Democrats keeping people in "virtual slavery"? If anyone, it's the Republicans keeping workers in virtual slavery.
lie about trying to "improve education" while doing their best to make sure it is never improved
The clusterfuck "No Child Left Behind" was a Bush initiative. Are you from Bizarro World?
tax the fuck out of people to pay for deadbeats
I guess you never heard of PWARA? It ended AFDC during the Clinton administration.
my city is now 13bn in the hole thanks to demofucks on the city council and the mayor's office not doing shit to get the Katrina Debris out
I don't live in Louisiana, and neither do most Americans. Just because the idiot on your city council are Democrats doesn't mean all Democrats are idiots.
those lazy assholes are STILL demanding government payouts and housing/welfare checks with no plan to ever go home
News flash: Again, PWARA. Look it instead of listening to Limbaugh and cure your ignorance if you dare.
Also most of the joint chiefs of staff... who are not republicans.
I fail to see your point. Oh, you didn't have one.
I believe the word you really mean is "thoughtcrime law", which many of us of a libertarian bent view as a Bad Thing.
Well thank you for finally saying something that didn't sound retarded.
Who sleeps with the religious right bowing to its will? Republicans.
Funny. Ever seen black preachers in action, poverty-pimping the slaves back to the Democrat for another round of uninformed, uneducated, "voting"?
Any poor person, white or black, who votes Republican is even more stupid than a rich man voting Democrat.
But you're too busy being a partisan fucktard to notice.
Says the guy who demonizes Democrats.
If there's a Democrat in the oval office, I vote Republican for congress. If there's a Republican in the oval office, I vote Democrat for office.
That's damned hard to believe considering the rest of your comment. Myself, I'm either voting for Rich Whitney or Lex Green for Illinois Governor this election, haven't made up my mind which yet. The reason? Both of them want pot legalized, while the Democrat and Republican are aghast at the idea. Only a moron votes for a candidate who wants him in jail. Plus, legalized pot would go a long way to clearing up our fiscal problems.
Re:Run away! Run away! (Score:5, Insightful)
No, what he's saying is that if you make >$75K and you're whining about being asked to contribute +$2K, then you perhaps need a little more critical perspective because, get this, you're already quite rich in relative terms.
He's not expecting to be given extra earnings, he's saying you should count yourself lucky that you are making more, rather than making $40K or less instead of expecting sympathy from the majority of society because you're so hard done-by. As a more wealthy person you, by default, use and benefit more from society, so you, as the the more wealthy person, should foot more of the bill for it.
Don't like it? Want to keep all your money? As tired a cliche as it is, perhaps you should move the Somalia? That way you'll only ever have to pay for your own needs, such as the private police force you'll require to maintain the law and order that allows you to keep the money you make.
Re:You? Why TF should they care about YOU? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bandwidth hogs should pay more.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Because *you* are using bandwidth. If *you* use more bandwidth than the guy next to you, it's reasonable to think that *you* pay more.
But that's not what network neutrality is about. I would think anyone at /. would understand that. It's not about charging all their customers the same, it's about KICKBACKS. It's about MS paying your ISP to give you faster search results than Google (or vice versa).
Net neutrality essentially would outlaw kickbacks. Kickbacks are generally illegal in any other endeavor.
Re:You? Why TF should they care about YOU? (Score:3, Insightful)
The facts are that the meltdown was caused by eight years of a President who only cared about the uber-rich. The Dems have only been there two -- you expect Obama (who's certainly not the best President we ever had, but head and shoulders above the guy before him) to fix eight years of Bush overnight?
Have a look at this graph [wikipedia.org]. Poverty rose from 1972 until shortly after Clinton was elected (with a slight decrease in poverty after Reagan left office), when it fell precipitously. It started rising shortly after the Bush tax cuts for the rich.
But, please, don't let facts fuck up your delusions.
Re:I'll Say It Again ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Except when gridlock is stopping important, good things.
There's opposition and then there is obstruction in order to make the opposition look incompetent. That's sabotage not opposition. The trouble is we now have to have a super majority in the senate to make any progress. That is an unreasonable demand.
The conservatives are blocking every bill (even tax cuts) in an effort to reinforce their campaign motto that government can't and shouldn't do anything. There has to be compromise in any opposition group. You might not get exactly what you want but you can extract bits and pieces. That's not what's happening. The conservative "oppposition" is saying "start over and throw it all away or we won't vote for it." That's unreasonable. The Republicans could have gotten tort reform out of the healthcare bill if they had 'sold out'. But they decided that they were going to go for all the marbles and they ended up getting none of their priorities.
What frustrates me most of the the GOP right now isn't that they're opposing the DEMs it's that they aren't putting up a real opposition. The only real opposition is coming from right of center democrats because they're actually willing to eventually vote and can extract demands as a result. When you have no vote to offer then you don't have a bargaining position.
Re:I'll Say It Again ... (Score:4, Insightful)
I would argue that even from the most hard-right libertarian point of view, the only job of the government is to ensure that markets stay free.
And I would argue that the only job the government has concerning the market at all is to defend the powerless from the powerful. Cops are there to attempt to keep you (and bankers) from being robbed. The FDA is there to make sure that your drugs are the right strength and your food isn't poisoned (protecting you from the drugmakers and food warehousers). The EPA is there to make sure you can breathe (protecting you from the likes of Monsanto). Regulations on monopolies ensure that your electric company that has no competetion doen't screw you over.
The Libertarians, unfortunately, want government out of their hair so they CAN screw you over.
Re:I'll Say It Again ... (Score:4, Insightful)
To me it's rather funny, how well the free market has worked...
Funny, didn't we *just* have an article about the dangers of antibiotic resistance in factory farming? Ahh, but I suppose that doesn't count as a failure for some reason, 'cuz otherwise your little absurd pet theory might not be correct... pesky cognitive dissonance.