Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government The Internet United States Politics

Watch the FCC Vote On Net Neutrality Live At 10:30am Eastern 90

Posted by timothy
from the now-now-now dept.
New submitter giltwist (1313107) writes "Very shortly, the FCC will begin its vote on proceeding 14-28 regarding Chairman Wheeler's highly contentious Net Neutrality proceeding. Senator Al Franken called Net Neutrality the free speech issue of our time. The vote begins at 10:30am Eastern time today. Make sure to watch it live at the FCC's live stream." "A particularly full agenda" is right; it's a rambunctious crowd, too.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Watch the FCC Vote On Net Neutrality Live At 10:30am Eastern

Comments Filter:
  • Irony? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by NuAngel (732572) on Thursday May 15, 2014 @10:35AM (#47008797)
    Ironically, without net neutrality, I imagine the FCC's website would be in the slow-lane and we wouldn't all be able to stream this at the same time. Just sayin'.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Chris Mattern (191822)

      Ironically, without net neutrality, I imagine the FCC's website would be in the slow-lane and we wouldn't all be able to stream this at the same time. Just sayin'.

      Nonsense. The cable companies have always known that the minor expense of giving the politicians favored access to the media is well worth it. Exhibit A: C-SPAN.

      • Re:Irony? (Score:4, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 15, 2014 @10:50AM (#47008951)

        That's entirely secondary to keeping the public uninformed. It is not in their interests to accelerate any of the arguments to be presented into the public discourse.

    • by kesuki (321456)

      for live events there is this neat thing called 'multicast' where you beam the same stream in one broadcast signal to as many customers as needed. multicast is way underutilized but it does get used for the big live streams. live streams can only be paused if buffering on the client end allows it. streams from non live media use a lot more bandwith as each user needs to hold open a stream can pause it (though with flash the stream will time out) etc. but flash only has a 10 megabyte buffer and defaults to

  • by Anonymous Coward

    I'll be able to watch the Internet die in real time? Good to know...

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Fork it.

  • Interesting? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by denmarkw00t (892627) on Thursday May 15, 2014 @11:02AM (#47009073) Homepage Journal

    So far it's not bad, but a lot of people advocating for congress to step in instead. Not sure how I feel about that vs unelected people making decisions - if only there were some way for the common people to decide what we should do...

    • Re:Interesting? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by FlyHelicopters (1540845) on Thursday May 15, 2014 @11:14AM (#47009211)

      What is a shame is that Congress doesn't make decisions based on what is in the best interest of the general public.

      If it comes down to it, a single large company making another billion in profit or millions of people getting better and lower cost internet access, I vote for the millions of people.

      Shame Congress doesn't vote that way.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Sarten-X (1102295)

        Congress votes for what it thinks is in the best interest of the general public.

        The symptom you see is a result of corporations coming in and saying "we have 250,000 employees, and they benefit from this", which is then weighed against your one signature on a petition. There's also the bias in that no politician wants to be the guy who pushed a major employer out of the region, so there's a lot of pressure to accept the lesser of two evils between "my constituents lose their jobs" and "everybody (mostly out

        • by Aryden (1872756)
          No, that's not what is happening at all. Comcast doesn't go to Congress with "oh but our 250k employees benefit from this" they go in with "This is how you benefit from this, while we rape our customers"
    • by fche (36607)

      "if only there were some way for the common people to decide what we should do"

      That's called the free market.

      • Re:Interesting? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by PvtVoid (1252388) on Thursday May 15, 2014 @11:45AM (#47009489)

        "if only there were some way for the common people to decide what we should do"

        That's called the free market.

        If it were left entirely to the free market, net neutrality would have been gone years ago. Careful what you wish for.

        • by JeffOwl (2858633)
          There is no such thing as a free market when there are government granted monopolies.
          • by Delwin (599872)
            There is no such thing as a market without government enforced contracts. Therefore without government there is no market.

            Ergo there is no such thing as a free market. Period.
            • by fche (36607)

              Sophistry. Enforcement of contracts is different from dictating contractual terms. Heck, even enforcement of contracts is possible without government, just more messy (witness the criminal underworld).

              • by Rinikusu (28164)

                The criminal underworld also have governments with rulers who pass down law, albeit with their own code and ethics. These can be removed, via force, for the new guys with their own sets of rules which are then enforced.

                • Your wreaking his Libertarian Dream. Truth be known, the "Free Market" is a logical obstraction used to make math easier, it is impossible to acheive a "Free Market", and no sane person would want to live in that system, where everyone is guarenteed to make zero. Adam Smith called for the need for Government intervention into markets in the Wealth of Nations. Further, these "Government Granted Monopoly" folks are ignoring even more present problems, such as without the government creating the markets the

        • If it were left to the free market I would have long ago dug up the coax that the cable company laid down on my property and is not paying me for. Also in a free market, if they were paying for it to transit my property, they would have had to replace the grass that they destroyed last year when they had to do some work instead because it is on the government granted easement I am stuck dealing with it.
        • by fche (36607)

          " left to the free market, net neutrality would have been gone years ago"

          Well, maybe, maybe not. But if you're so afraid of this possibility, then don't claim to be speaking for the common person to decide. You want the state to decide.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        "Free" markets only stay free as long as everyone works to keep them that way. It is never in the self interest of companies like Comcast to let the market stay free. They will always try to control and capture the market, unless stopped.

    • by mellon (7048)

      The whole point of what that person was saying is "please do not make a decision. Please do _anything_ other than make a decision. The longer you can avoid making the decision, the more likely we can finally put a stake into Netflix, those evil vampires."

  • I count a lot more just on these 2 screens
  • Vibrant! (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 15, 2014 @11:04AM (#47009093)

    Comissioner Pai believes the Clinton administration and congress at the time's decision to allow the free market to allow internet growth through "unfettered and vibrant competition" was the correct one.

    Vibrant competition. His words, not mine.

    • Re:Vibrant! (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Anubis IV (1279820) on Thursday May 15, 2014 @11:12AM (#47009189)

      Yeah, I got a laugh out of that too. Even so, at least he dissented, though at the end of the day, it sounds like the vote will be 3-2 in favor of passing it, with both dissenters doing so because they believe it should be left to Congress to decide, and they both seem to be in favor of eliminating net neutrality.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        You guys all have to remember that back when Clinton and Congress made that decision we were using dialup and broadband was barely even getting started. Back then there were literally hundreds of ISPs to choose from, since 90% of your home traffic went over a phone line. Odd that Ma Bell and AT&T didn't hardly get their knickers in a twist over that. Although congress was in the process of breaking them up at the time, so they probably had better shit to worry about.

        But now we're all fucked because y

      • Re:Vibrant! (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Bob9113 (14996) on Thursday May 15, 2014 @12:13PM (#47009723) Homepage

        with both dissenters doing so because they believe it should be left to Congress to decide, and they both seem to be in favor of eliminating net neutrality.

        Don't kid yourself. The dissenting votes were theater, just like Mignon Clyburn and Jessica Rosenworcel saying they favored net neutrality. If Clyburn and Rosenworcel had voted against and the two R's had voted for, it would have broken the "along partisan lines" story that our one political party relies on. This is the only way the vote could go to achieve the three goals:

        1. Kill net neutrality.
        2. Maintaining the pretense that Obama and the dem's are fighting for net neutrality.
        3. Maintain the "bitter partisan divide" story that keeps the one party (the D's and R's) from having any competition.

        I wanted to believe in Rosenworcel and Clyburn. I posted here in support of them. But they are as full of shit as Obama. The Republicans are worse, because they don't even claim to support non-discriminatory communication networks, but they are all selling our future down the same river.

  • That even they don't seem to support all of this BS.
  • Woman in pink (Score:2, Interesting)

    by killfixx (148785) *

    She had the best idea in the room, and the biggest balls!

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Is the proposal they are considering on-line somewhere?

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      It was just approved:
      http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6017589503

  • Well, we've had a good ride, guys.
    • by giltwist (1313107)
      I think Commissioner Wheeler's final comments provide hope. "It's not about whether the internet will be open, it's about how and when rules protecting openness will be in place." He also specifically namedropped Netflix and commented that ISPs should not be double-dipping.
      • by cdrudge (68377)

        I think Commissioner Wheeler's final comments provide hope.

        He offers no hope. He's a CableCo stooge. He gave opponents a slight glimmer to make them think they have a chance but there's nothing there. He might as well have just said "It's not about whether the internet will be open, it's about how little it will be open and when rules protecting my former employers will be in place.

        You're hope is like Lloyd's. [youtube.com] Statistically possible, but realistically impossible.

    • Re:It passed. (Score:4, Informative)

      by interkin3tic (1469267) on Thursday May 15, 2014 @11:48AM (#47009521)
      Don't act as if the war is over just because this battle is lost. This wasn't a resolution "Forever and ever for the rest of time the end." It wasn't even a real fight anyway, the outcome was already known. The "chairman" of the FCC is a lobbyist for the cable industry remember. This was just a show to make it seem like the issue was considered fairly and openly. The first real chance at correcting this is congressional action.

      And before any other cynics pipe up, cram that defeatist talk about lobbyists and partisan politics up your ass. Yes, that will add to the difficulty, it might delay it, but no, that will not forestall any possible action on it. The real barrier is public apathy. Your mother doesn't know what net neutrality is or how it will affect her. And cynically telling yourself it's an impossible fight is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Have you called your congressman? Don't say it's a lost cause just as an excuse not to try to win.
      • by bmo (77928)

        Your mother doesn't know what net neutrality is or how it will affect her

        It has taken me years, sometimes, to convince various people in real life that the "big blue E" is not "the internet" nevermind trying to convince them that network neutrality is not "socializum."

        And the only politicians that get this are people like Jared Polis or Zoe Lofgren, and they are as scarce as fucking hen's teeth. The rest are either willfully ignorant/stupid technophobes or just paid-off and in the pockets of the industry i

  • by Anubis IV (1279820) on Thursday May 15, 2014 @11:31AM (#47009373)

    11:30am EST, it passed the vote, 3-2.

    • by Aelanna (2695123)
      I think I missed the actual vote, can anyone confirm?
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Aelanna (2695123)
        Ah, here it is: http://www.reuters.com/article... [reuters.com]
        • Yep, it's the Democrats who have killed the Net Neutrality !

          All 3 commissioners who voted to allow Internet service providers charge content companies for faster and more reliable delivery of their traffic to users are DEMOCRATS !!

          • Yes. They're not our friends...

            But a little perspective - the Republican members want to eliminate even a pretense of net neutrality.

            It's like a choice between one group thst wants to shoot your dog in the leg, and the other who just wants to put him in the wood chipper.

            • by Anonymous Coward

              Yes. They're not our friends...

              But a little perspective - the Republican members want to eliminate even a pretense of net neutrality.

              It's like a choice between one group thst wants to shoot your dog in the leg, and the other who just wants to put him in the wood chipper.

              And here, once again, we see the Democrat supporters using their same tired refrain of "but, but, TEH EVUL REPUBLIKKKANS!" Here we have a clear case of Democrats showing their ass, and all their supporters can do is bleat about how "teh repukelikan fascist dick-taters are worser!!!!1!!!111!!!"

              When will you realize that nobody in power gives a shit about you, and trying to turn everything into a "your team is worse than my team" argument is how they KEEP themselves in power? How about holding these clowns

          • Stop turning this into a partisan argument. I listened to it live, and it was clear the Republicans weren't friends of ours or net neutrality. One Republican made it clear that he wanted to kill the very idea of net neutrality and didn't think this measure went far enough, the other used weasel words to claim he was pro-freedom on the Internet, while wanting to toss the final decision to the firmly-in-the-telecom-industry's-pockets Congress.

            The only reason these Republicans voted the way we want is because

    • by QuietLagoon (813062) on Thursday May 15, 2014 @11:43AM (#47009479)
      Wow, what a surprise.

      .
      This was destined to pass from the day it was first proposed. All the public commenting was merely window dressing to make it appear as if there were public involvement. The ISPs control the Internet (and apparently the FCC) in the United States, and this is their way of assuring they will continue to do so and profit handsomely in the process.

      • by organgtool (966989) on Thursday May 15, 2014 @12:12PM (#47009715)
        On the plus side, the money this brings in will allow the ISPs to back off their threat to stop innovating!
        • On the plus side, the money this brings in will allow the ISPs to back off their threat to stop innovating!

          Unfortunately, they already spent that money on lobbying the FCC. So they still can't innovate without a government grant.

          • They'll innovate new ways to lobby congress and the FCC. It's like you're not even paying attention.

      • Wow, what a surprise.

        . This was destined to pass from the day it was first proposed. All the public commenting was merely window dressing to make it appear as if there were public involvement. The content/broadband providers control the Internet (and apparently the FCC) in the United States, and this is their way of assuring they will stomp out any hint of real competition in the content creation/distribution markets and continue to do so ad infinitum and profit handsomely in the process.

        There. FTFY.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      fuck this shit, I'm going to the moon.

  • by symbolset (646467) * on Thursday May 15, 2014 @12:09PM (#47009691) Journal
    Now would be a great time for Google Fiber to announce their nationwide rollout. "If the FCC won't fight for a free and open Internet then we must."
    • Google is only installing fiber in major metropolitan areas. They have a few thousand people served. At best you'll see major markets like New York, Chicago, Austin, etc...

      Most places in this country will literally never get fiber. ISPs are slowing deployment of it due to expense. I suspect the ISPs are concerned a wireless tech breakthrough could torpedo their business... and they very well may be right.

      • by stdarg (456557)

        I'm not sure about that. Kansas City where they started is not a major metropolitcan area. Austin is. What seems to be the common thread is that local governments are willing to play ball to get it done.

        Google is interested in the city I live in (Raleigh, NC), but also several of the smaller cities nearby, including Durham (pop: 240k), Cary (150k), and Chapel Hill (60k). One reason is that these cities (and a few more) got together and came up with their own plan to introduce gigabit internet, called the "N

    • Several NSA members work at Google and serve on their board. The plan is make the current internet so bad forcing you on Google's infrastructure which has every surveillance subsystem you can think of and some you don't even know exist. Google is still collecting data, which is a violation of the 4th Amendment, and they continue to do so.
  • Media fail (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jfern (115937) on Thursday May 15, 2014 @12:15PM (#47009743)

    The media said that "net neutrality" fast lanes passed. Morons. We need media neutrality, too.

    • This is status quo as to what I've seen so far about this. People who don't know what they're talking about are actually describing both sides with the wrong terms. This happens to be a topic I know a lot about, and I see how they get it wrong; it scares me to think about their reporting of stuff that I don't know a lot about.
  • Didn't the FCC vote on net neutrality some time back and get slapped down by the courts saying they didn't have the authority to impose this?

    I know what they are doing now is the opposite of net neutrality, but wouldn't the court say the same thing? (Somehow I doubt it actually)

    • Didn't the FCC vote on net neutrality some time back and get slapped down by the courts saying they didn't have the authority to impose this?

      What the court ruled [uscourts.gov] is that since broadband providers are not classified as "common carriers," the FCC can't impose net neutrality rules on them. The solution (or at least part of the solution, cf. my post in another, related discussion [slashdot.org]) is, of course, to reclassify ISPs and broadband providers as "common carriers." Well, good luck with that. Although lobbying dollars would be more useful than luck. I've got a jar full of silver change, if that helps.

    • To provide a bit more detail to what NotSanguine said, there was some legalese in which the FCC classified broadband as an "Information Service" as opposed to a "Communications Service" back in 2002. The court then recently said that the FCC could apply Net Neutrality regulation on a Communications Service but not an Information Service, but the FCC and Congress are refusing to reclassify even though there is nothing legally stopping them (as far as I am aware). I do not understand the distinction between t

  • Does anyone have a transcript, or is it posted somewhere, of the speech the chairman is giving (gave) after the meeting? He makes it sound as though the internet is more "open", now, free from the "rules" of net neutrality imposed on it. It's absolutely riot inducing.
  • "I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on lobbyists â" and won. They have not funded my campaign, they will not run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president."

    -- Barack Obama, Speech in Des Moines, IA
    November 10, 2007

Work is the crab grass in the lawn of life. -- Schulz

Working...