Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Republicans The Internet Network Networking Technology

Senate Republicans Introduce Anti-Net Neutrality Legislation (thehill.com) 224

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Hill: Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) introduced a bill Monday to nullify the Federal Communications Commission's net neutrality rules. "Few areas of our economy have been as dynamic and innovative as the internet," Lee said in a statement. "But now this engine of growth is threatened by the Federal Communications Commission's 2015 Open Internet Order, which would put federal bureaucrats in charge of engineering the Internet's infrastructure." Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), and James Inhofe (R-Okla.) co-sponsored Lee's bill. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai introduced his own plan last week to curb significant portions of the 2015 net neutrality rules that Lee's bill aims to abolish. Pai's more specific tack is focused on moving the regulatory jurisdiction of broadband providers back to the Federal Trade Commission, instead of the FCC, which currently regulates them.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Senate Republicans Introduce Anti-Net Neutrality Legislation

Comments Filter:
  • by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Tuesday May 02, 2017 @08:05AM (#54340129)

    I have no idea what party the one belongs to that issued this letter here [senate.gov]. But it was the first time I saw a senator actually write something sensible about "this computer stuff".

    Clean up your own act before you try to mess with the rest of the internet, will ya?

    • by Fire_Wraith ( 1460385 ) on Tuesday May 02, 2017 @08:13AM (#54340159)
      That would be Ron Wyden, a Democratic Senator from Oregon. He's been consistently very good when it comes to issues regarding the internet, privacy, and putting the needs and rights of users ahead of corporate (or government) ones, or at minimum on an equal footing (which feels like 'ahead' these days).
      • by Thud457 ( 234763 ) on Tuesday May 02, 2017 @08:19AM (#54340195) Homepage Journal
        huh, with the exception of Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), none of these jugheads are from what I would consider in any way a tech state, that might have a chance of knowing what the fuck they're talking about. Sad.

        I see a lot of failed red states with Republican governors that receive more money from the federal government than they submit in taxes on that list.
        • by Oswald McWeany ( 2428506 ) on Tuesday May 02, 2017 @08:26AM (#54340235)

          huh, with the exception of Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), none of these jugheads are from what I would consider in any way a tech state, .

          I don't think there is a state in the union where every member is well versed in tech, nor a state where no member is. I don't think you can judge a senator's tech-savviness based on his home state. I'd bet 95% of politicians are not tech-savvy. They tend to be older individuals, and also come from backgrounds not dependent in tech. There are exceptions, but most of them aren't tech savvy.

          • by Joce640k ( 829181 ) on Tuesday May 02, 2017 @08:30AM (#54340259) Homepage

            I'd bet 95% of politicians are not tech-savvy. They tend to be older individuals, and also come from backgrounds not dependent in tech. There are exceptions, but most of them aren't tech savvy.

            That doesn't mean it can't be explained to them: http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net... [theoatmeal.com]

          • by Mitreya ( 579078 )

            I'd bet 95% of politicians are not tech-savvy. They tend to be older individuals, and also come from backgrounds not dependent in tech.

            No, please stop saying that.
            I actually bet that 95% of politicians know exactly what they are doing. They might not be tech-savvy, but they are smart and someone could easily explain to them what they don't know. Or sometimes the aides or lobbyists writes the laws for them anyway.
            They are just not working for us. Please don't explain it away by "they don't know what they are doing".

            • I didn't say they didn't know what they were doing, I was saying they probably aren't Tech Savvy.

              Net neutrality is a simple enough concept you don't need to be technically gifted to understand. However, as easy as it would be to explain. Have you ever tried explaining anything to an ideologue, and most politicians are ideologues. Capable of understanding something and willing to understand something are two different things.

              I make no presumptions though as to whether these senators know what horrific thi

          • by knope ( 4837449 )
            i would argue that 0% are tech savvy
        • You do know that these bills aren't actually written by the Senator, right? They will tell some aides to mark something up, and then they go over it and give the aides changes while they go and sell the idea to other Senators to get their votes, and get it through committee.

          He's a manager - he needs to understand the 20,000 foot view. Unfortunately, these guys don't seem to even get that. This bill was probably written by lobbyists and given to the Senator with a nice big contribution check to his re-ele

          • by Jawnn ( 445279 )

            He's a manager - he needs to understand the 20,000 foot view. Unfortunately, these guys don't seem to even get that. This bill was probably written by lobbyists and given to the Senator with a nice big contribution check to his re-election campaign.

            Jeez... Ya think?
            Seriously, campers. This is how it works. In the U.S. Senate, campaign contributors are the constituents, not the voters. You can fix this, but you have to start getting involved and supporting candidates who will support a Constitutional amendment that will remove corporate money from U.S. politics. https://movetoamend.org/ [movetoamend.org]

        • What qualifies as a "Tech State" in your opinion? Because most would consider Utah and Texas to be very strong tech centers.
          • Texas has tech pockets.

            Utah? Novell...they are less tech than Kansas, Olathe has as much tech as all of Utah.

            • If you think Novell is all that Utah has tech wise, you have zero clue what you are talking about. Google "Silicon Slopes."
              • Silicon prairie. Silicon gulch. Silicon Slopes. The only thing they all have in common is they are bullshit.

        • by mishehu ( 712452 )
          Texas has Austin. But that said, Texas is heavily loyal to AT&T. I'm pretty sure that Cornyn and Cruz could only resort to describing the Internet with dump trucks and tubes analogies. So who do you think actually wrote this legislation with all the cute marketspeak?
    • by Joce640k ( 829181 ) on Tuesday May 02, 2017 @08:16AM (#54340181) Homepage

      "this engine of growth is threatened by the Federal Communications Commission's 2015 Open Internet Order, which would put federal bureaucrats in charge of engineering the Internet's infrastructure."

      What a load of doublespeak bollocks.

      Either the person who wrote that is lying or they have no idea what the Internet is.

      http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net... [theoatmeal.com]

      • None of them seem to understand what it is they're talking about very well, and what they do probably understand they're paid to lie about.

        Looking at campaign contributions for those on the list, it's not really hard to figure out why. The link you provided is a perfect place to start, and none of the others on the sponsorship list are any better than Cruz.

        • by Gr8Apes ( 679165 ) on Tuesday May 02, 2017 @08:57AM (#54340431)
          I'd say that every single one of those sponsors, and Ajit Pai specifically, should be recused from anything touching technology and the internet. They are either so woefully ignorant of all aspects related to technology that they are similar to an orangutang performing brain surgery, or they are attempting to criminally line their pockets. There does not seem to be a middle ground that explains their stance.
        • by thule ( 9041 )
          Most people don't understand how the Internet works, even people on slashdot. I've been pointing out for years that peering could be pulled into Net Neutrality discussions. Either people didn't understand what I was saying or the idea seemed to stupid to believe. But look where we are now. People seem to think that the government should get involved with Netflix, Cogent, and ISP's. It wasn't required, Once Netflix fired Cogent as a CDN, things improved dramatically. The whole thing was easy to understand if
      • "this engine of growth is threatened by the Federal Communications Commission's 2015 Open Internet Order, which would put federal bureaucrats in charge of engineering the Internet's infrastructure."

        What a load of doublespeak bollocks.

        Either the person who wrote that is lying or they have no idea what the Internet is.

        The "engine of growth" he's talking about is the growth of his personal bank account.

      • What makes you think it has to be "either - or"?

      • by thule ( 9041 )
        Considering that many people think that peering should be covered by Net Neutrality, yes, that would make bureaucrats in charge of Internet engineering. Even WITH Net Neutrality in place, I do NOT like the FCC getting involved with peering. It would turn business negotiations into government negotiations, and we all know how well that goes.

        The FCC has received plenty of complaints about Net Neutrality violations, were any valid?
  • by H3lldr0p ( 40304 ) on Tuesday May 02, 2017 @08:05AM (#54340135) Homepage

    Up is down! Left is Right! Freedom is servitude!

    Again, this is another case where these people are being paid to misunderstand the situation because it profits someone else much more if they do. The sad part is that they've been put in a position of power. Hopefully this bill never makes it out of committee, let alone gets scheduled for a vote.

  • by TimothyHollins ( 4720957 ) on Tuesday May 02, 2017 @08:17AM (#54340191)

    Sounds like Ajit wasn't invited to the latest meeting at Mt. Doom.

  • by WheezyJoe ( 1168567 ) <fegg.excite@com> on Tuesday May 02, 2017 @08:21AM (#54340207)

    Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) [says] "...now this engine of growth is threatened by the Federal Communications Commission's 2015 Open Internet Order, which would put federal bureaucrats in charge of engineering the Internet's infrastructure."

    What a heaping pile of horseshit, afloat in a vat of raw sewage. Did the good senator's staff come up with this on their own... or did they perform a ritual sacrifice to enlist assistance from the Demon? Show me their hands... this statement was written in blood and one of Lee's staffers is missing a finger.

    Let's try and fix this, shall we? Now this engine of growth is threatened by would-be monopolists and their crony politicians who would put marketers and profiteers in charge of monetizing the Internet's infrastructure to squeeze the highest prices from users of the Internet in return least possible investment .

    • If the early hominids had seen where evolution was taking them they'd have downed tools and gone back to the trees
      • "I'll tell you one thing. If the primates that we came from had known that someday politicians would come out of the gene pool, they'd have stayed up in the trees and written evolution off as a bad idea!"
    • by thule ( 9041 )
      What do you call FCC oversight of peering? Peering wasn't even mentioned when the topic of Net Neutrality first came up years ago. Even when I did bring it up, people just said, "As long as the packets are not prioritized or blocked." Then the Netflix thing happened and now people seem to think it is a good idea to get the FCC involved with peering agreements. Even with Net Neutrality, I'd say NO to FCC oversight of peering.
  • MAGA (Score:4, Funny)

    by Dog-Cow ( 21281 ) on Tuesday May 02, 2017 @08:29AM (#54340253)

    Because the US already leads the world in broadband, right? Have to make it better!

    Tee hee.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02, 2017 @08:34AM (#54340285)

    The ISPs are messing with the Internet. Net neutrality is about regulating the ISPs and Carriers to not "shape" traffic. There is no regulations on the Internet, until they enter this legislation.

    Tell everyone, keep congress out of the internet.

    • by thule ( 9041 )
      Can you give me an example of an ISP shaping traffic? The Netflix example is not valid because there was no shaping. Any other examples?
  • by Gravis Zero ( 934156 ) on Tuesday May 02, 2017 @08:40AM (#54340321)

    The bill is unlikely to receive support from Democrats in the Senate.

    [...]

    A full repeal of the rules would be a worst case scenario for Democrats.

    The whole point is that a full repeal would be the worst case scenario for everyone except extortionist ISPs.

    I find it disappointing that the actually matter at hand isn't being addressed in anything but vague quotes.

  • by hey! ( 33014 ) on Tuesday May 02, 2017 @08:48AM (#54340371) Homepage Journal

    For centuries the intellectual basis for conservatism has been set, not by Jesus, or Adam Smith, but by Edmund Burke, whose philosophy could be summed up this way: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

    Burke was the kind of man who could defend the monarchy while despising monarchists: he thought the notion that monarchy was an ideal form of government was fatuous twaddle. But he thought all grand, all-encompassing theories were foolish, so he wasn't any more enthusiastic about pure democracy. Burke preferred a monarchy restrained by a democratically elected parliament not because it was the best system, but because it worked, experience showed that men could be tolerably free and prosperous under such a system.

    So the notion that we need to "fix" an innovative segment of the economy to be more like what our theory of what an innovative industry should look like is about as un-conservative as you can get. It is, in fact, radicalism of the sort Burke detested.

  • The trouble with something like this is that once ISP's start collecting income this way, building entire business models on charging web sites to send data over their networks - it'll be hard for future (saner) governments to reverse. Passing laws that cause businesses to fail is a tough call.

    But this is a truly crazy, irresponsible piece of legislation.

    The idea that allowing this makes the Internet more free shows a TOTAL lack of understanding as to what makes it tick.

    Ask yourself: How will WIkipedia p

  • by Anonymous Coward

    The only thing that will make people pay for fast lanes is a painfully slow lane. So how does a lack of net neutrality incentivize broadband investments?

    It's like getting rid of traffic jams by selling left lane access separately.

  • Look, the internet had functioned quite well for 30 years. The U.S. economy as we know it and for that matter, that of much of the developed, world exists because of it. Ergo, it wasn't broken. Government, on the other hand, has been broken (and broke) for a lot longer than that. What better way to "engineer" a bailout of government than to suck wealth out of the most prosperous segment of the economy. You wouldn't realize that you've been screwed until long after that "engineering" has been entrenched

  • That's the Age of the Internet we're now entering: The Nostalgia Age, when we look back at how great it used to be during it's Golden Age, before the fucktarded politicians, corrupt governments, greedy corporations, and criminal organizations ruined it for everyone. We've reached Peak Internet; it's all downhill from here, the Internet we knew is like a massive oak tree that's rotting and dead on the inside. Wonder what'll be the next big thing, and how many years it'll last before it gets all fucked up, to

Real programmers don't comment their code. It was hard to write, it should be hard to understand.

Working...