Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Democrats Government United States Politics

US Democrats Introduce Bill To Restore Net Neutrality 535

Posted by Soulskill
from the doubtful-prospects dept.
New submitter litehacksaur111 writes "Lawmakers are introducing the Open Internet Preservation Act (PDF) which aims to restore net neutrality rules enforced by the FCC before being struck down by the DC appeals court. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) said, 'The Internet is an engine of economic growth because it has always been an open platform for competition and innovation. Our bill very simply ensures that consumers can continue to access the content and applications of their choosing online.' Unfortunately, it looks unlikely the bill will make it through Congress. 'Republicans are almost entirely united in opposition to the Internet rules, meaning the bill is unlikely to ever receive a vote in the GOP-controlled House.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Democrats Introduce Bill To Restore Net Neutrality

Comments Filter:
  • by ZorinLynx (31751) on Tuesday February 04, 2014 @03:29PM (#46153205) Homepage

    ...to see just how in the pocket of huge corporations the GOP is, and yet people continue to vote for them, against their own interests.

    What will it take to wake people up? I fear it may not happen until it's too late, if not already.

    • by jeff13 (255285) on Tuesday February 04, 2014 @03:32PM (#46153249) Homepage

      Propaganda works. Sorry.

    • by Kenja (541830) on Tuesday February 04, 2014 @03:33PM (#46153259)
      It's simple, while I may not be rich now, tomorrow I could be! And then I won't want my hard earned money going to poor people like I was.
      • by dkleinsc (563838) on Tuesday February 04, 2014 @03:49PM (#46153505) Homepage

        And then I won't want my hard earned money going to poor people like I was.

        Also, if the government didn't force me to give any of my money to those people, then I'd be rich.

        (Seriously, a lot of people think that this is the only effect of government programs designed to help poor people, even when they know people who are benefiting from those programs.)

        • by Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) on Tuesday February 04, 2014 @04:34PM (#46154141)

          Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.

          ~ John Steinbeck

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by stenvar (2789879)

          Ah, the typical left-wing straw man: "Republicans and the wealthy are greedy and don't want to have their money taken away to help the poor".

          However, the actual argument many Republicans make is completely different, namely that these government programs actually hurt people. That is why Republicans oppose government programs even if they know people who are receiving money from them. Heck, many Republicans oppose government programs that they themselves receive money from.

          If you objectively look at the kin

          • by ColdWetDog (752185) on Tuesday February 04, 2014 @04:54PM (#46154441) Homepage

            That is why Republicans oppose government programs even if they know people who are receiving money from them. Heck, many Republicans oppose government programs that they themselves receive money from.

            Right. Those nice Republicans somehow manage to not support things like forcing NASA to build test facitilities that they don't need (because they are in the congressman's district). Or forcing the Pentagon to build out weapons systems that they don't need (because they are in the congressman's district).

            If only.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      Wouldn't it largely be huge corporations benefiting from so-called 'net neutrality'? If it is going to be required that owners of private property charge the same price to all-comers, then it is going to be more difficult for small businesses to compete with large businesses, no? It seems true net neutrality would be allow anyone to compete as they see fit - if a company is going to 'over charge', then another company should be allowed to come in and 'under charge'.
      • by i kan reed (749298) on Tuesday February 04, 2014 @03:47PM (#46153471) Homepage Journal

        Not really. Net neutrality removes a barrier to entry for the market. One that doesn't exist yet, "pay off local ISPs to allow traffic" would be a necessary step for starting a new web-based business.

      • by lexman098 (1983842) on Tuesday February 04, 2014 @03:49PM (#46153509)
        It gets more complicated when your "private property" is a bridge that leads to somewhere really important.
        • It seems like those replying to my argument are using some version of this argument, but as I state, wouldn't someone just come in and build a new bridge? Or, if the bridge truly is that important, it must be difficult and costly to build, thus wouldn't this legislation increase the price the people on the other side of the bridge will be paying, given that the investors in the bridge are expecting a certain level of return?
          • Maybe the expectation of a "certain level of return" is the problem to begin with. After all, we don't allow corporations to own real bridges to important places.
            • Ambassador Bridge (Score:5, Informative)

              by Valdrax (32670) on Tuesday February 04, 2014 @05:55PM (#46155389)

              After all, we don't allow corporations to own real bridges to important places.

              I know that a lot of people diss both Detroit and Canada, but I think any bridge that transports 25% of all merchandise trade between two first-world nations is pretty important. [wikipedia.org]

              Now, the Ambassador Bridge is a good illustration of your point in spite of this, since it's a good example of why we shouldn't. While it has some competition from a tunnel which is owned (via a shared LLC) by the two city governments that it connects, that hasn't stopped it from fighting tooth and nail to prevent any other, better bridges from being built to compete with it. [wikipedia.org]

              The owners have poured money into the hands of legislators and opposition candidates and into ballot initiatives to try to stop the bridge, have run political scare ads, and have tried to tie up the project in the courts for years -- to the point that the head of the company was put in jail for a short while for contempt of court for failing to obey court orders related to the construction contracts. All to protect a bridge that ends in surface streets on the Canadian side over a bridge that would directly link two highways.

              Just a modern day baron trying to protect his inefficient little fief at the expense of the public.

          • by mattack2 (1165421)

            While it's not quite the same as using public airwaves, to 'build a new bridge' (new cabling), wouldn't you have to (1) use public land AND (2) likely pass over private land, even that of non-subscribers?

            For #2, you could pay them (like for cell phone towers). For #1, what do you do? Pay the government (which is us)?

      • by ADRA (37398) on Tuesday February 04, 2014 @04:04PM (#46153693)

        None of what you say matters. Basically all providers besides very few number of high density area ISP's are huge and effectively Oligopolies, which means 'some small company coming in and selling bwelow cost' doesn't happen. Additionally, the idea of Net Neutrality means that in this limited marketplace, we as conbsumers have no information of what kind of extortion that their companies are putting on the internet services that we use. Would you support an ISP that charged excessively high rates on a site you frequent regularly (like slashdot)? Would you ever know? How much do you want to bet that fees will be doubled+ if its publically disclosed?

        I say screw it. Have the gov take pack the lines they laid and introduce a non-profit entity who's only job is to maintain the architecture and push costs on the content / service backbone carriers.

      • by spitzak (4019)

        Different charges will only benefit small business if the charge is *smaller* for them than for large established companies. If it is *larger* then it hurts small companies. There is a large bridge in Brooklyn I need to unload quickly, and anybody who believes the charge will be smaller for small businesses is probably an ideal owner, so please make an offer.

    • by Carcass666 (539381) on Tuesday February 04, 2014 @03:37PM (#46153333)

      ...to see just how in the pocket of huge corporations the GOP is, and yet people continue to vote for them, against their own interests.

      What will it take to wake people up? I fear it may not happen until it's too late, if not already.

      I don't buy that the GOP is necessarily in bed with corporations any more than the Democrats, it's just more of a position of political posture. The GOP takes care of their corporate masters by fighting against regulations, while the Democrats handle the tax breaks, subsidies and programs that ensure their campaign contributors are happy.

      The anti-regulation dogma of the GOP is disheartening because while I agree with a decent number of GOP principles around spending restraint, tax reform, etc.; I don't agree that the free market can be trusted to handle finite public resources like spectrum and last-mile connectivity. This is especially troubling given the nature of the last-mile providers (COX, Time Warner, AT&T, etc.) who have vested commercial interests in maximizing their bandwidth performance at the expense of others (Netflix). It's too simplistic to say that all regulation is "bad", just as it's too simplistic to say that any social or green energy program is "good".

      • by thaylin (555395)
        umm, the GOP handles "tax breaks, subsidies and programs that ensure their campaign contributors are happy" as well, just look at NC, our GOP overlords want to drop the corporate tax rate to like 3%,less than individual tax by almost 50%.
        • by CanHasDIY (1672858) on Tuesday February 04, 2014 @04:04PM (#46153689) Homepage Journal

          umm, the GOP handles "tax breaks, subsidies and programs that ensure their campaign contributors are happy" as well, just look at NC, our GOP overlords want to drop the corporate tax rate to like 3%,less than individual tax by almost 50%.

          If you think that sort of behavior is exclusive to the GOP, you don't pay attention to campaign finances. Obama's top donors were almost identical to Romney's, with few exceptions.

          Judging by that metric, Goldman Sachs runs America, regardless of who gets elected.

          • by thaylin (555395)
            I never said it was exclusive to the GOP, if you actually read the comment I was replying to they said Dems were the ones doing that, where I pointed out the Repubs do it AS WELL, not exclusively.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by icebike (68054)

      ...to see just how in the pocket of huge corporations the GOP is, and yet people continue to vote for them, against their own interests.

      What will it take to wake people up? I fear it may not happen until it's too late, if not already.

      Its even more infuriating when people don't understand that there is a huge difference between this bill and the one the Republicans voted for in 2011. And its yet more infuriating when some biased blog doesn't even mention the regulations the FCC was trying to impose in 2011 were things that a lot of people here on Slashdot were complaining about vociferously back in 2011. Those regulations went way past what the common man understands as "net neutrality". Those regulations essentially made the interne

      • Its depressing to see how many people automatically think that if a Democrat authors a bill its automatically good for the people. Have you learned nothing in the last 8 years?

        Well sure! We've learned how to be even more divisive and vitriolic, we've learned how to subjugate others via insults and marginalization, and we've learned that, right or wrong, we must defend the party line to a T.

        Oh, you meant "have we learned anything useful in the last 8 years..."

        Debatable.

      • by spitzak (4019)

        Those regulations essentially made the internet like a telephone carriers or tv station, which would need FCC licenses just to operate.

        Care to explain this, in detail with reference to the actual items in the bill?

  • Wrong fight (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Registered Coward v2 (447531) on Tuesday February 04, 2014 @03:32PM (#46153253)
    It's not Net Neutrality, but "Republicans want to take away your Netflix..." People dislike losing something tangible much more than gaining some important, but hard to quantify item. Change the debate; just like the natural food industry who says "The government wants to take away your vitamins..." to the opposing argument of "We want to be sure you aren't getting ripped off by spurious claims..." Guess which one wins?
    • Tastycrats and Fingerlicans alike seek to maximize their popularity (voting numbers) by selecting the side of any given issue which most appeals to their voter base. In most cases, this results in diametrically opposed highly polarized conditions with each party going to the extreme and laboring to show how it is different (and superior) to the other party. In the final analysis, I don't believe the Democrats care one jot or tittle for Net Neutrality; but if the Republicans are against it, the Democrats w
    • Call it the "Save Netflix Act" or the "Internet Video Protection Act." Nobody outside of /. understands what "net neutrality" means, but "neutral" sounds like you're some kind of pansy. What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were they just born with a heart full of neutrality?

  • by DeadDecoy (877617) on Tuesday February 04, 2014 @03:37PM (#46153335)
    Just reclassify ISPs as common carriers. Creating a separate bill would probably open up the doors for more abuse, not less.
  • Needed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JWW (79176) on Tuesday February 04, 2014 @03:41PM (#46153393)

    What is needed is not a reestablishment of the "rules" the FCC set up for what they called "net neutrality", what we need is for the FCC to declare the internet common carrier and to make all ISP's honor that.

    This bill not that. When these policies were in place at the FCC before being struck down, there were huge loopholes that companies (especially wireless) could drive giant trucks full of money through.

    We need the internet classified common carrier now!

  • Business sat down and discovered it had a big lump in its pocket, upon inspecting the pocket found it contained the GOP.

    Nothing new here.

  • by roccomaglio (520780) on Tuesday February 04, 2014 @03:45PM (#46153439)
    If this is purely a Republicans versus Democrats issue as it presented here, then how come the Democrats did not pass it from 2008-2010 when they controlled the presidency, house of representatives, and the senate (by filibuster proof majority). They could have passed it without a Republican vote.
    • If this is purely a Republicans versus Democrats issue as it presented here, then how come the Democrats did not pass it from 2008-2010 when they controlled the presidency, house of representatives, and the senate (by filibuster proof majority). They could have passed it without a Republican vote.

      Because had they done that, they would not be able to use this bill as a weapon against the party they'll be running against.

    • by fodder69 (701416)

      Because there was an existing classification that covered it so it wasn't needed.

    • by Vanderhoth (1582661) on Tuesday February 04, 2014 @03:54PM (#46153579)
      I don't think it was as big a deal five years ago. I certainly would have given them props for being so forward thinking in bringing up what was a non-issue at the time, but I imagine it would have been spun as they're wasting time on something no one cared about, so it's really lose-lose for them isn't it?
    • The DC circuit court just recently struck the FCC ruling down. Previously the FCC ruling enforced net neutrality so no legislation was needed at the time.
    • by Insightfill (554828) on Tuesday February 04, 2014 @04:50PM (#46154371) Homepage

      and the senate (by filibuster proof majority).

      This idea that the Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority from 2008-2010 is a myth.

      I believe that the problem is that Al Franken wasn't sworn in until well after that session was well under way, Senator Ted Kennedy was missing for many votes due to his brain cancer, and Arlen Specter didn't switch sides until much much later. There were a few other Democratic Senators who were either out or "Blue Dog" and "DINOs". The Democrats had the seats, perhaps, but nothing more, for a total of 72 days. [sandiegofreepress.org]

      Add in the wrinkle that the Republican definition of "compromise" (as a sibling post notes) became "my way or the highway" - candidate Richard Mourdock of Indiana as a vocal, but failed, example of that. Republicans who followed him went on the record unwilling to take even $1 of new taxes for $10 of cuts, and the Speaker of the House is generally unwilling to bring a bill forward until he has a majority of his party behind it - aka "The Hastert Rule", which Dennis Hastert himself disavowed.

    • by Ksevio (865461)
      Might remember that Democrats only had a filibuster proof majoirty in the senate for a few months: From July 7th 2009 when Al Franken was finally sworn in to August 25th when Ted Kennedy died (Kennedy was terminally ill for much of that), then from September 24th to February 4, 2010 which includes the largest amount of holiday time for the Senate.

      With the health care law being a priority, small items like Net Neutrality (which there was already an FCC rule for) weren't a priority.
  • Whitehouse petition (Score:5, Informative)

    by TopSpin (753) on Tuesday February 04, 2014 @03:45PM (#46153447) Journal

    A petition [whitehouse.gov] of the White House to `Restore Net Neutrality By Directing the FCC to Classify Internet Providers as "Common Carriers" just attained the 100k signatures required for a response.

    I'm sure a number of you would have liked to have known about that and signed it at the time... but the story submission was declined. Guess there were too many terribly important climate change stories or something.

    • by SirGarlon (845873)
      The editors probably dismissed that story because so many of the Obama administration's "responses" to the petitions are some low-level staffer writing a condescending 200-word essay explaining why the government won't take action on that issue. Yeah, that's a technically a response, but if it keeps up, some day people might start to think the President is not serious about these petitions!
  • Remember when the GOP stood for unfettered liberty, not only for economy but also for you, when your personal liberty was paramount?

    Today, it's a breeding ground for cronyism, where the ancient creed of the free market has been replaced by a corporate mantra of "who pays the most can have the most rights". Mix in a bit of backwards conservativism without substance (aka "new stuff - bad") to appeal to the change fearing mouth breathers and, well, there you have it.

    I kinda wish some of the old GOP heads were

  • AT&T and other ISPs have been greasing those wheels with flatbeds of lobbying(bribing) money for far too long. Net neutrality was the single largest issue that made me turn from the Republican party in disgust. They crap all over the free market in the name if the free market and endanger free speech in the name of free speech. It's pure madness.
  • To any congressman, Congressman's aid, or anyone sleeping with a congressman. Here is the solution to net neutrality.

    Append a rider to an existing bill that modifies the Telecommunications Act and redefines a data provider as a common carrier.

    • Append a rider to an existing bill that modifies the Telecommunications Act and redefines a data provider as a common carrier.

      I think that's the best idea posited so far, one that ensures neutrality and access to most if not all Americans.

      Which means that it's against the interests of someone who can afford to bribe Congresscritters, both D and R, which means it's not going to happen.

  • If it's not fixed in congress or elsewhere such as using common carrier status regulation, entrepreneurs will "vote" with their feet...

    • by gstoddart (321705)

      How, someone is going magically create a separate ISP in areas where the cable-coms essentially have a monopoly? Where they'll sue the city if they try to set up free wifi they get sued?

      Sorry, but from what I can tell the major ISPs often have no competition, and enjoy the use of public easements nobody could compete against.

      As long as the cable companies can simply decide what they want to carry and what they don't, there can't be network neutrality.

      These things need to be deemed common carriers so they n

  • Misinformation (Score:5, Insightful)

    by neonv (803374) on Tuesday February 04, 2014 @03:52PM (#46153549)

    Being someone who usually votes conservative, I find that net neutrality among conservatives is largely misunderstood. I continually hear that it requires content to be neutral. Meaning that if one opinion is present on a web page, all opposing opinions must be present as well to maintain neutrality. Everyone here should understand that is false. The source of that misinformation seems to be that the bill could be interpreted to let the FCC dictate content requirements. If the FCC were to do something crazy like that, it wouldn't hold up in court due to free speech, so it's not a reasonable concern.

    To prevent misinformation, here are the two views to net neutrality.

    1) Pro Net Neutrality: Internet Service Providers (ISP) should not dictate which data sources are allowed, how much bandwidth is allowed from each data source, or charge differently for data sources. For example, Netflix creates up to a third of internet traffic in the evening hours. As a result, ISP's are temped to reduce bandwidth allowed from Netflix to free up resources. Net neutrality would not allow this. This is usually the consumer point of view.

    2) Anti Net Neutrality: The ISP's own their equipment, pay for their bandwidth, and can do what they want with it. If they want to shape network traffic to make overall service better, it's their right. This is usually the business point of view.

    There are lots of details associated with either option. There can be a hybrid approach taken by the FCC as well. For example, if YouTube traffic gets so bad that I can't load a web page in a reasonable amount of time, then limiting YouTube would be in my best interest. In the rare cases such as that, bandwidth limiting is a good idea. Illegal activity such as child pornography could reasonably be blocked as well.

    Here's the wikipedia article [wikipedia.org].

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      2) Anti Net Neutrality: The ISP's own their equipment, pay for their bandwidth, and can do what they want with it. If they want to shape network traffic to make overall service better, it's their right. This is usually the business point of view.

      and if you could freely choose which ISP you want to connect to, that would be fine. but most of the time, there is ONE choice for internet and so you can't take your business elsewhere! ie, there is no competition and whoever services your area is who you can buy

      • by Laxori666 (748529)

        2) Anti Net Neutrality: The ISP's own their equipment, pay for their bandwidth, and can do what they want with it. If they want to shape network traffic to make overall service better, it's their right. This is usually the business point of view.

        and if you could freely choose which ISP you want to connect to, that would be fine. but most of the time, there is ONE choice for internet and so you can't take your business elsewhere! ie, there is no competition and whoever services your area is who you can buy from and that's it.

        this is why they don't deserve to control the network traffic. we are forced into a monopoly (effectively) and so this HAS to be a common carrier arrangement.

        give us choice in carriers and we can talk about letting them throttle. until then, they dont deserve to be able to control us like that!

        You're right, but the better solution isn't to build up extra regulation, it's to remove the barriers to allowing competing firms from entering the market.

    • by mmell (832646)
      So you'll be pleading guilty as charged on one count of disseminating false information? You appear to be demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of both the intended function of QoS/traffic shaping/traffic throttling as well as the related concept of 'Net Neutrality'. It's not whether my opinion posted on some blog somewhere is being censored, as I can certainly express my opinion somewhere that's not being throttled. No, the problem is that when Facebook decides that the competition over at Visage
    • by Zalbik (308903)

      You miss a very important point on both sides. Let me reword that for you:

      1) Pro Net Neutrality: Internet Service Providers (ISP) should not dictate which data sources are allowed, how much bandwidth is allowed from each data source, or charge differently for data sources. For example, streaming video creates up to a third of internet traffic in the evening hours. As a result, ISP's are temped to reduce bandwidth allowed from streaming to free up resources. Net neutrality would allow this.

      Net neutrality w

    • Re:Misinformation (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Bob9113 (14996) on Tuesday February 04, 2014 @08:32PM (#46157235) Homepage

      For example, Netflix creates up to a third of internet traffic in the evening hours.

      Netflix does not create any traffic. ISP customers create the traffic by telling the Netflix servers to send them a stream.

  • by SuperCharlie (1068072) on Tuesday February 04, 2014 @03:56PM (#46153603)
    Marketplace monopoly is the problem. When the majority of access is controlled by a handful of ISP's there is no option to simply "Go somewhere else". It's a moot point tho, as the money flows, so shall the votes.
    • Indeed. I loathe Comcast, and after their latest attempt to cheat me by charging me rent on a cable modem I own I searched for alternatives.... and there are none. Not even satellite is available here. I'd have to go with dial-up.
  • In a grocery store, the store makes the manufacture pay for product placement. If you want your product to get placed in the middle of a shelf, you have to pay the store money for it.

    Without neutrality, the Internet will be the same way--those that cut sweet deals with the provider (cut him in), will get the best bandwidth for their services.

    We need non-discriminatory municipally owned cable. Such a service NEEDS to be content-neutral, because of the constitution.

  • Should have called it the Net Equality bill. Then if Republicans dare oppose it, Democrats could roast them for opposing equality. Neutrality doesn't have the same ring to it.
    • Why would you think that when Republicans have been openly opposed to equality since the civil-rights movement? I know there's a movement afoot to pretend that 21st century Republicans are the Republicans of Lincoln's day, rather than a mob of creationists, confederates, racists, homophobes, and generally terrible people, but it's just not remotely true.
  • by matthaak (707485) on Tuesday February 04, 2014 @04:28PM (#46154043) Homepage Journal
    I believe Network Neutrality legislation will do more harm than good. Quality of service and IP transit costs are governed by complex market forces today. It is easy for individuals and organizations connecting to Internet edge networks (most of us) to take these forces for granted and get swept up in language about fairness and capitalism and equality. In reality, as you move to the core of the Internet, there already is no such thing as network neutrality and to try and 'preserve it' is meaningless. ISPs, Tier 1s, and major content providers already enter into peering arrangements, both paid and unpaid, that improve end user experience and help drive down IP transit costs. Depending on the ISP you use, you obtain the benefits of their peering arrangements, which are as strong as the number of eyeballs they have and their negotiating skills. Some ISPs have better peering than others and so in reality there is no such thing as a 'neutral ISP'. The concept of an ISP 'holding their users hostage' as they try to obtain concessions from content providers is not unique to Comcast. Everyone in the space is playing the same game of leveraging the strength of their numbers and their negotiation and personal networks to get any advantage they can. The decisions about 'who should peer with who' are and should continue to be governed by organizations freely entering into paid or unpaid agreements with one-another. As soon as the emotional/idealistic notion of 'neutrality' is stipulated, then the technical reality of peering and the unplanned forces governing the core of the Internet will begin to centralize and calcify. What will be unfortunate is when this slows or even reverses the dramatic deflation in IP transit costs we have seen over the last 15 years, going from well over $1200 per megabit to under $1 in some regions. I highly recommend 'The 2014 Internet Peering Playbook' by William B. Norton.
    • by c0lo (1497653)

      I believe Network Neutrality legislation will do more harm than good. Quality of service and IP transit costs are governed by complex market forces today.

      You may be or may not be right about the complexity. However... as a paying customer for Internet service, why should dealing with this complexity be my concern?
      You really think Network Neutrality will destroy the Internet? I'm rather inclined to think that there are technical solutions and there will be carriers willing to implement them and continue to survive.

      I highly recommend 'The 2014 Internet Peering Playbook' by William B. Norton.

      Maybe, just maybe... it is actually the carriers that should read it and find the solutions the consumers need/want?

  • by MaWeiTao (908546) on Tuesday February 04, 2014 @05:50PM (#46155303)

    Net neutrality as it's described here seems like a good thing. Net neutrality as the government would implement it is not necessarily a good thing. From day one I've found the whole thing to be murky and have trouble understanding why it's inherently a good thing. The impression I get is that one group of corporations profits from it going one way and another group profits from it going the other way. If we operate from the assumption that they're all looking out for their own bests interests, then the people are screwed either way.

    The ridiculous thing I'm seeing here on Slashdot is the persistent claim that ISPs are exclusively in the pockets of Republicans. They're equally strong supporters of Democrats. Late last year a Comcast executive held a fundraiser for Obama, which he attended and gave a speech at. Doesn't seem like Comcast is a company afraid they won't get their way. And typically contributions fluctuate between whichever party is in power. Only the ignorant masses, who also feel betrayed when an athlete leaves their favorite team, remain fiercely and irrationally loyal. It's fascinating how effective propaganda in America actually is.

  • by kenh (9056) on Tuesday February 04, 2014 @07:10PM (#46156407) Homepage Journal

    All it does is restore the rules the court struck down until such time as the current appeals process completes...

    In other words, the things the district court struck down will be re-instated until the Supreme Court determines the the district court was right, and the 'net neutrality' laws will be struck down again.

    This bill is just an example of stupid politicians pandering to the electorate - relief from the court's decision is easy, and it was even described in the district court's decision (which everyone, on both sides of the case expected)... The FCC simply needs to decide that broadband carriers are 'common carriers' not 'information services' and then their attempts to force net neutrality will become legal/enforceable. The court said that since the FCC ruled that broadband carriers were not common carriers, they could not be regulated like common carriers.

    The Democrats simply want to legislate that the FCC ignore the District Court's decision until such time as the Supreme Court rules on this case's ultimate appeal.

A method of solution is perfect if we can forsee from the start, and even prove, that following that method we shall attain our aim. -- Leibnitz

Working...