Democrats Will Introduce Bill To Bring Back Net Neutrality (thehill.com) 291
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Hill: Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced Monday that Democrats will introduce a net neutrality bill to replace the open internet rules that were repealed in 2017. In a letter to her Democratic colleagues, Pelosi said a bill called the "Save the Internet Act" will be unveiled Wednesday and will be introduced in the Senate as well. The text of the legislation has not been released, and it's unclear what will be included in the bill. Democrats have railed against the Trump administration's Federal Communications Commission (FCC) vote to repeal the net neutrality rules, which happened more than a year ago. The 2015 regulations prohibited internet service providers from blocking or throttling websites or creating internet fast lanes.
Should of done it this way in the first place (Score:2, Interesting)
Should have been law in the first place, not policy decided by 5 unelected guys in a closed room. Trump himself even said so much.
Now, the problem with the Democrats doing it is the bill will probably be 5000 pages long and include all kinds of other bullshit having nothing to do with net neutrality.
Re: (Score:2)
Congress gave the FCC power to make rules. Including rules on net neutrality.
If you want to strip the FCC of that power, what's the point of having an FCC?
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to strip the FCC of that power, what's the point of having an FCC?
So they aren't busy making rules that have nothing to do with technical standards or coordinating the use of limited resources like radio frequencies. So the FTC can make the rules regarding trade issues.
Don't jump the gun and assume this new NN law is going to be a solution to any perceived problems. It's very likely that you'll find that the law that Pelosi doesn't want you reading to see what it contains will contain things like California's NN law that defines broadband Internet to be anything except d
Re: (Score:2)
It's very likely that you'll find that the law that Pelosi doesn't want you reading to see what it contains will contain things like California's NN law that defines broadband Internet to be anything except dialup. Is that the kind of technical law you like?
Hmmm...it sounds like you think it would be better Net Neutrality regulations were made by a technically-savvy body with open rule-making policies.
Like the FCC.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
When you start putting words in my mouth, I stop talking to you.
You do realize that the text indented with the little vertical line is a quote, right?
You decried rules being made by non-experts, in secret. There's an alternative where a technically-savvy entity could make those rules, and they are required to do so in public. Which would fix exactly what you described as bad. But they're bad because......well, you didn't really bother to say. (The FTC does not have the FCC's required level of public rule-making, btw. Which would make them seem a bad alternative if
Re: (Score:2)
The Republicans being different from the Democrats doesn't mean that if one is bad the other is good. They represent different power blocks. Neither represents the citizenry, because elections are too expensive. The House is more representative than the Senate, because it's cheaper to run for Representative. (Except in places like Rhode Island and Vermont, where the state's small. *THEN* it becomes a timeliness factor.)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
My paycheck grew, so whatever was in the tax cuts worked for me.
The clown and his circus fucked with withholdings to trick the masses into assuming it was tax cuts.
Tax day rolls around and millions are pissed they either get to pay or their refund is crap. LOL suckers.
Re: (Score:2)
to trick the masses into assuming it was tax cuts.
It was a tax tax cut and an increase in standard deduction. "Fucked with withholdings". They took less out because tax rates went down. If your HR fucked with your withholding that doesn't have much ado about the government or tax cut.
Tax day rolls around and millions are pissed they either get to pay or their refund is crap
Why would you want a return? That means you had the government take too much money. That means you coudn't use that money or save that money and earn some kind of interest in a savings account (any interest rate is better than what the government gives) or invest it (any retur
Re: (Score:2)
That's because people have had less withheld throughout the year. Your refund doesn't tell the whole story in what your total taxes were. In truth, only about 9% of wage-earners will have a higher (total annual) tax bill.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bu... [sfchronicle.com]
Re: (Score:2)
So, what you've just told all of us is that you don't understand tax witholdings and returns.
I don't think I would have told that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your paycheck is affected by your withholdings more than the tax rate,
Withholding is directly affected by the tax rate. You can choose to withhold more, of course, if you want to loan your money to the government at zero interest.
if your payroll department is good you will get a similar refund to last year
If your payroll department is really good you will get no refund. Getting a refund, while it is psychologically satisfying, means you are losing money in the long run. It may seem like you are "sticking it to the man" by getting the IRS to send you a check -- HA HA! Bite me suckers!-- but it's really not a smart way to manage your money.
The title of the bill is the opposite of what .... (Score:2)
If there is anything I've learned about these types of bills, the title is the opposite of what the bill is intended to do.
So this bill should be titled, "Stopping Net Neutrality"
What if the Democrats ...... (Score:4)
What if the Democrats actually "got smart" and were trying to woo the tech community back into the fold with real net neutrality legislation?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I do not think "false equivocation" means what you think it means señor anonymous coward.
You might find this website useful: https://www.cjr.org/language_c... [cjr.org]
I know that terms like equivocation, equivocate, and false equivocation are used with little understanding in the media world, so it is understandable that you are confused.
Also, don't hide behind the AC, be bold.
Do you do run around in the real world wearing a bandana over your face?
Pointless as usual (Score:2)
This is just another "appeasement" gimmick. This does nothing to harm the monopolies and unless it has been changed still allows for Zero Rating so no... its more like net neutrality wannabe while people that support it act like its any kind of a solution and cheer.
Destroy the monopolies, stop trying to manage them, they only buy your regulators in a tug of war that keeps you busy fighting for crumbs instead of having choice. Both parties have gotten good at mouth breathing how much they care about you...
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. Not being sarcastic when I say that the local governments should have total control of any network that requires imminent domain to implement. That would include roads, railways, and communication networks. If it is important enough to the community for government to forcefully take someones property for it, it should be important enough for the government to retain control of it.
Pelosi wants to save the Internet? (Score:2)
Questionable... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If Progressives aren't on board with it (AOC, Ro Khanna, Sanders, etc), then it's going to be a load of corporate horse crap.
And if "progressives" are on board with it, then it's going to be a load of warm-fuzzy feel-good virtue-signaling technobabble that imposes social sanctions on technical problems.
Read it and weep (Score:5, Insightful)
I do hope everyone here will read what the bill ACTUALLY SAYS, rather than merely the claims that are going to be made about the bill...
Re:Read it and weep (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, this is true. It's a safe bet that it was written by lobbyists for their corporate masters, and that the American public will get totally and thoroughly screwed. I mean, I could be wrong, but statistically speaking, I'm probably not.
Re: (Score:2)
I do hope everyone here will read what the bill ACTUALLY SAYS, rather than merely the claims that are going to be made about the bill...
With Pelosi sponsoring the bill, no doubt you'll only be able to read it after it's been signed into law.
m
Historical Precedent (Score:2)
That's always a good idea, but do you have any complaints right now, are you just insinuating?
Of course I have no complaints now, there is not yet a bill to read.
I am extrapolating, not insinuating. History has shown us almost no-one who wanted network neutrality read the original 30 page FCC regulations. Especially in the age of the hot take, is it so unreasonable to expect many people will complain about, or support the bill based merely on a summary they read on Buzzfeed? No, that's about par for the
Re: (Score:2)
a summary they read on Buzzfeed
I didn't read what you wrote but I read what others wrote about you. I do not approve of the things they said you wrote!
Day 268 of the post-Title II era (Score:2)
The Internet is free and open.
If you ever wondered how anyone will continue to believe in doomsday cult after supposed day of rapture come and goes with nothing happening, just look at "net neutrality" folks still bravely fighting to save the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the un-title-II'ing went into effect far after the official FCC vote. So your day count is off.
Also, the ISPs are aware of the public relations disaster that awaits them if they exploit the new rules at this moment. So they're not dumb enough to do much yet.
when the republicans vote against this (Score:2)
can we forever dispense with the "both parties are the same" nonsense ?
my guess is not.
and BTW, if you give a shit about the environment, they are most definitely not the same.
Re: (Score:2)
"Both parties are the same" is required to maintain the status quo. It also makes being a pundit way easier since it sounds intelligent and informed. You don't have to actually understand any issue, you can just type up a "both sides!!" op-ed and move on to the next cocktail party.
You don't want those poor pundits to miss their cocktail parties by actually understanding the issues they cover, do you?
Doesn't solve the problem (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Doesn't solve the problem (Score:5, Interesting)
For the majority of the country, the monopoly is, indeed, a natural monopoly. The average lifespan of a second cable company in most of America is measured in single-digit years. We've seen it time and time again. A new company comes in because the old cable company is charging extortionate prices. The existing company drops their prices, undercutting the new company and preventing them from getting enough subscribers to pay off the interest on their physical plant (all those cable lines). After three to five years, the newcomer gives up and sells off its assets to the incumbent, who gets a new (often government-subsidized) network infrastructure at a fraction of the cost of building it themselves.
A local government can "require" two cable companies all it wants to, but in practice, the only way that is ever going to happen is if that government steps in and pays for the cost of running the cable lines. Otherwise, there is way too much first-mover advantage for a second company to ever succeed. And this is true very nearly everywhere, with the possible exception of major cities.
And if the government is building out the infrastructure anyway, then doing it for a for-profit company is just corporate welfare. Why not instead create competition the right way — by leasing the use of that infrastructure non-preferentially to any competitor that wants to do business in your community? This approach, unlike competing wire providers, actually works in practice.
Re: (Score:2)
The ISPs do not have natural monopolies. They have government-granted monopolies.
For the majority of the country, the monopoly is, indeed, a natural monopoly. The average lifespan of a second cable company in most of America is measured in single-digit years.
You make the same mistake of jumping from "ISP" to "cable company". Cable television infrastructure is just one way of delivering Internet services. If you want to talk about monopolies for ISPs, stick to ISPs. Then count the number of ISPs there are and see if "a lot more than one" doesn't put a crimp in the claim that there is any monopoly for ISPs.
The OP makes the mistake of ignoring that there are NO government-granted monopolies for ISPs. Not a single one. There USED to be "exclusive franchises" for c
Re:Doesn't solve the problem (Score:5, Interesting)
You're viewing this to narrowly. Yes the ISP's monopoly is government granted, but it is also most definitely natural. Being an ISP has an incredibly expensive cost of entry which creates the natural monopoly. How do you fix that by legislation? You can't legislate a company into existence. Mandating competition where naturally none exists doesn't work. The only alternative is for the government to enter the field directly and pay for the infrastructure which is how countries get into this situation in the first place when the result gets privatised.
There's a word for that: Duopoly and it's no better than a monopoly.
Re: (Score:2)
Local loop unbundling (LLU). The company that owns the infrastructure is required by law to make it available to other ISPs at the same price it charges itself.
LLU has worked in a number of countries. For example in the UK you have a choice of ISPs using BT's copper phone lines. Your ISP of choice installs their own hardware at the local exchange or in the cabinet near your house.
It's far from perfect and there can be issues with the infrastructure owner not investing enough in the network (BT is definitely
Re: (Score:2)
LLU is not a silver bullet. It's a bandaid for a horrible situation. LLU reduces the incentive for any investment while at the same time creates a situation where the local loop is slowly left to rot. You can see that in Australia where they introduced LLU in the mid 00s only to steadily drop in world rankings for internet connection quality to say nothing of the brief drop in price which has now crept up way higher than it was when Telstra had their monopoly in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
The issues with lack of investment can be fixed by requiring a certain proportion of the fees to be used for investment, or better yet by forcing the fees on old technology down while keeping them higher for new stuff, creating an incentive to upgrade speeds and infrastructure.
Re: (Score:2)
At what point do you stop throwing regulation at it and just nationalise the infrastructure? After all you're suggesting the government should run it as it is. Throwing money at the problem while being run by private companies hasn't worked in the USA or Australia in the past, what makes you think the future looks any different?
Plus careful. If you use that "R" word here the republicans may lynch you.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes the ISP's monopoly is government granted
No, it isn't.
Cable TV monopolies were granted by many municipalities in the 1970s and 1980s. Almost all of those monopolies had expiration dates that passed by 2000.
Also, a cable TV monopoly is not an Internet Service monopoly. You can tell this because both the cable company and the phone company are offering to sell you Internet service.
You can't legislate a company into existence
Sure you can. [tva.gov] The TVA is a corporation created by the government. The government owns the company via being the primary (only?) shareholder.
Re: (Score:2)
No it isn't but yes it is?
A government granted monopoly doesn't just expire if the result is that the recipient of it retains a natural monopoly as a result. It is still very much government granted. Also you're missing the last line of my post. Just because another alternative exists doesn't mean everything is magically okay. Having a duopoly between a cable provider and a phone based ISP is not much better than having a monopoly.
Sure you can. [tva.gov] The TVA is a corporation created by the government. The government owns the company via being the primary (only?) shareholder.
That's not legislating a company into existence. That's the government using
Re: (Score:2)
They have government-granted monopolies.
No, they don't.
Local governments granted cable TV monopolies in the 1970s and 1980s to spur the rollout of cable TV. Almost all of those monopolies had expiration dates, and those dates have passed.
Also, a monopoly for cable TV does not grant a monopoly for Internet service. You can tell this by the fact that both the cable TV company and the phone company are offering you Internet service. If the old cable TV monopolies applied, the phone company couldn't offer you service.
The "last mile" is the expensi
Re: (Score:2)
Almost all of those monopolies had expiration dates, and those dates have passed.
The "monopolies" did not have expiration dates; the franchises had expiration dates. Had there not been federal law prohibiting exclusive franchises more than two decades ago, it would have been possible, and likely even, for those existing exclusive franchises to have been renewed as exclusive franchises. They could not legally be renewed as such, and so the "government-granted monopoly" status died with the renewed non-exclusive franchise.
No one does it because the incumbent's natural monopoly will make it a money-losing proposition.
It's not just the natural monopoly from being an incumbent that lim
Dumb acronym (Score:2)
Does it cover 5G wireless? (Score:2)
Same song and dance to nothing (Score:2)
Do people think this bill has any chance of passing if it's simply the same thing the FCC removed? Of course it won't! So this is just a political game. Dems will cry: Look the other guys don't want net neutrality!! The Republicans will cry: We want net neutrality, we just don't want it implemented the way it is. And the argument goes round and round. It's simply about D vs R. Nothing more. NEITHER care a bit about net neutrality. (sorry I'm sure there is a few in there but I'm a bit jaded)
I have
Re: (Score:2)
I have an idea: Stop pushing legislation that is DOA and find some common ground and do some work.
What, exactly, is the common ground between putting an immigrant child in a cage and not putting a child in a cage?
What, exactly, is the common ground between government control of every woman's uterus and believing women are adults with the ability to make decisions?
What, exactly, is the common ground between going to war and not going to war?
There are very large differences in the beliefs of our two parties. Common ground is not possible on many of those differences. The "middle" of the policy differenc
TelCo's Need American Help?! (Score:2)
Regardless of whether it is a good idea or not (Score:2)
This is how it should be done -- supine, cowardly Congress changing the law rather than letting unelected regulators arrogate control of a trillion dollar industry based on phone control wording from the 70s.
You know, the same casting off of other powers to the president you bitch, rightly, about now.
Smells. (Score:2)
Noble, but It's such a lightning rod issue, and voting against it looks so bad that they will sneak all sorts of ugly into the bill. It's just too perfect an opportunity to slip in something for Safe spaces, Bullying, or ID politics.
There's also the spooky way that the phrase "Legal Content" always gets used. I can't help but imagine the different ways this can be used to enable mass censorship of the net just by declaring such-and-such discussion illegal. An easy precedent would be 3d printed firearms.
At t
Trump overruled by the Senate already. (Score:2, Insightful)
Net Neutrality has something like 80% + positive support among voters. Trump is already having the GOP Senate OVERRIDE his emergency order, if he picks another losing position before the election like vetoing what people want he's just risking more of the moderates he desperately needs having another irrefutable example that he's all swamp, in the pocket of big money and not doing his job of protecting them. Not all Republican voters are completely stupid. Just most.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Using Obama as an excuse to defend any and every action by Trump is not working.
I voted against Obama twice. I suspect die-hard Trump supporters were too busy watching reality TV in 2008 and 2012 to even know there was an election.
And while Obama did have his pen and phone, Trump is signing EOs at a faster pace and Obama never signed an EO or declared a national emergency just to bypass the power of Congress to control the purse strings.
which allows Trump to do that and more
Oh really? So, eventually you expect us to devolve into a dictatorsh
Re: (Score:2)
It's a trap, the bill is not meant to pass, the whole idea is to run the bill as a distraction for two years. Forget all other corporate favoriting over the majority economic policies, this will be a distraction. Of course they will block it and of course it will hang around for two years, pay attention to this and forget everything else sheeple, that is the game. You have to remember what Trump did only favoured a hand full of companies and made thing worse for every other company, like 99.99% of companies
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nobody called anyone a racist (excepting internet trolls) just for criticizing Obama
I remember the very next day after Obama was elected in 2008, I was watching CNN and someone said to the effect of: "What we learned last night was that there were not enough racists to beat Obama."
Forgive me, but Obama and the media were happy to pull the racism card on anything.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember the very next day after Obama was elected in 2008, I was watching CNN and someone said to the effect of: "What we learned last night was that there were not enough racists to beat Obama."
So they were saying fewer people than some pundits expected were racist? As in voters are less racist than assumed?
Even when they are saying you aren't racist, you play the accused-racist card.
Re: (Score:2)
Even when they are saying you aren't racist
I didn't vote for Obama in 2008 so I must be a racist is what was implied.
you play the accused-racist card.
I didn't know there was such a card to play. Do you have examples of it being used? Let me know about it the next time it's used as a get out of criticism tactic. Much like the "anyone who disagrees is racist" card. Because obviously calling out CNN and others that race bait and bully for a party under the guise of "that's racist to disagree" is totally just "play the accused-racist card". Whatever "play the accused racist card" means
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't vote for Obama in 2008 so I must be a racist is what was implied.
Only in your head. Keep pushing that victim narrative.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh wow I didn't know you were there and saw the same thing! Obviously you understand what was said 10 years ago on a CNN panel from a paraphrased sentenced. Should we use a more recent example? How should I interpret: "Trumps victory is a white lash.". I would love your interpretation. I wait with bated breath.
It sounds like you are trying to defend race baiting partisan "journalists". It sounds like you are defending the "journalism" that has led to the spectacular embarrassments of Jussie Smollett and Cov
Re: (Score:2)
I think the rationale there is that Donald Trump is uniquely unqualified to hold public office. Historically, presidents have had at least some thin veneer of record of public service, or patriotic service in the military, or other qualifying history of politics. Trump has none of these things, in fact, he publically sneers at these things. Coupled with him choosing issues of race and religion (mexicans and muslims) as the primary focus of his campaign, and his publicity stunt birtherism prior to his cam
Re: (Score:2)
uniquely unqualified to hold public office.
He is 35 and a natural born citizen, no?
Historically, presidents have had at least some thin veneer of record of public service
So? The point of the US is that anyone can be president or a senator or anything. I think the fact that he wasn't a politician before speaks to the American system. I guess we could follow China's example and only those that have been prepared by The Party get office.
Coupled with him choosing issues of race and religion (mexicans and muslims) as the primary focus of his campaign, and his publicity stunt birtherism prior to his campaign, I'm sure you can see how people might assume he was connecting with, if not outright courting, a racist backlash.
Is a border wall racist? Asking for a friend. When fighting a terrorist group called "Islamic state" it is racist to mention the "Islamic" part? Barring travel from countries that do not have any reportin
Re: (Score:2)
You are being willfully ignorant, and it is fooling precisely no one. Acting as if it's not unusual that the least qualified candidate, on criteria of both experience and morality, got the nomination of a major political party. Or that the only things he ever said about race and muslims were his desire to build a wall and his mention of a islamic terrorism and not, say, his highly publicised proposal to outright ban all muslims from coming into the country. Your cherry-picking is reaching the point of m
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to spend some time reflecting on why you are trying so hard to defend this man.
Perhaps you should reread my comments in this thread again before you start frothing at the mouth. What comments are you talking about that were made before Nov 9 2016 would be the justification in describing Trumps victory as a "white lash"? Are comments from Trump enough to justify his victory as a "white lash"? Is race the only reason he won and it was because of pissed off white racists that is best described as a "white lash"? Do you understand why I am asking about "white lash"? Why did you bring up T
Re: (Score:2)
Obama signed 13 EOs for national emergencies. I bet you couldn't name one without googling.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I can. The flu epidemic, for one. That was easy. Of course, it's harder to remember Obama's because NONE of them were in the least bit controversial.
I recently reviewed them ALL as declarations of national emergencies have been a subject of the news recently and it WAS covered by the Fake News MSM .
NONE of those national emergencies were used as a means of subverting the will and power of Congress.
Most of them actually simply froze assets of bad actors in countries like Yemen or the Central African
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Perhaps if Congress would have done it's job instead of playing political games. The Democrats don't want to fix immigration because they'd give up one of their talking points. A talking point they've heavily invested in and that they believe gives them ownership of an entire demographic. Fixing things just isn't good for elections.
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps if Congress would have done it's job instead of playing political games.
Congress is doing it's job. There is no crisis on the border and what issues that are at the border are not affected by a wall.
First, border crossings are way, way, way down.
Second, Drugs and immigrants would not be stopped by a wall, because those are coming through the official ports of entry. Drugs are smuggled in other shipments (or using things like tunnels that aren't affected by a wall). The immigrants are refugees, and federal law (and treaty obligations) require that we let them into the country
Re: (Score:3)
All illegal drugs come thru legal ports of entry. Right, the cartels think it's easiest to send containers of drugs into the hands of customs and border patrol agents than to, say, loadvit on a boat and have cigarette boats go off-shore and get the drugs to bring it in.
That isn't according to me. That's according to the Trump administration. The vast majority of illegal drugs are smuggled within legitimate shipments. The second most common method was via tunnel.
You'll note that neither of these are affected by a wall.
You'll also note that your fantasy of using "cigarette boats" would not be affected by a wall either. It also can't deliver the required volume of drugs, which is why they smuggle through ports-of-entry.
(Btw, they weren't named cigarette boats because of
Re: Trump overruled by the Senate already. (Score:2, Interesting)
Do we have to put up with this crapflooding forever? Can't a few choice keywords like 'faggot' and maybe 'traitor' trigger an automatic downmod? This is pure unadulterated crapflooding, and extremely uninteresting to need to skip over.
Re: (Score:2)
I say fighting is bad, but you punch me in the face anyway. Is it hypocrisy when I fight back and beat you down?
You set the rules. You started this war. Stop the whining.
Re: Trump overruled by the Senate already. (Score:5, Informative)
Never really used it??? Try 364+291+276 times!
# - President - Total Executive Orders - Order Number Range - Years in Office - Executive Orders Per Year - Period
41 George H. W. Bush 166 12668–12833 4 41.5 January 20, 1989 – January 20, 1993
42 Bill Clinton 364 12834–13197 8 45.5 January 20, 1993 – January 20, 2001
43 George W. Bush 291 13198–13488 8 36.4 January 20, 2001 – January 20, 2009
44 Barack Obama 276 13489–13764 8 34.6 January 20, 2009 – January 20, 2017
45 Donald Trump 97[1] 13765 and above 2.12 45.8 January 20, 2017 – present
Re: (Score:2)
Why does the total number matter when talking about executive overreach through E.O's? Wouldn't you care about substance than number?
An executive order giving federal employees a day off for a holiday is not the same as declaring DACA.
Counting raw numbers equates those two E.O. when they are very very different in substance.
Re: (Score:2)
Cohen!? Why are they letting you post on Slashdot?
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that people tend to become more conservative with age. There are plenty of articles you can find on the topic.
Re: (Score:2)
The interesting thing about those "plenty of articles" is that they only deal with Baby Boomers, the most drug-addled and entitled generation. The same shift to conservatism with age has not been shown in other age cohorts. You can look it up.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Does anyone think Trump will allow this to pass?
After all, he did put Patel in to power. Would he sign a bill that disagrees with Ajit's position?
Actually, Obama put him into power May of 2012.
Re: (Score:2)
No, Obama put Pai into one of the Republican FCC seats in 2012.
Trump appointed Pai as Chairman.
Pai was around for the previous FCC ruling, demonstrating he wasn't exactly "in power".
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be too quick to jump given just the title of the law. Those are often highly deceptive, and even the summary says that the proposed text of the law (even before any amendments) is not available for review.
I *HOPE* it will be a decent law. That's not the same as saying I expect it to be a decent law. And evaluation has to await someone who can understand legalese interpreting it. The devil is in the details.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you think Trump would support prison sentence reform? Did you think Trump would be so strong about pulling our troops from foreign territories?
Will Trump sign this? Wait while I flip this coin.
Re: (Score:3)
Pai is Constitutionally correct.
The constitution makes it clear that only congress can make laws. They do not have the power to create a law making agency. They can only create agencies to enforce law and that's it.
Re: (Score:2)
The Constitution says a lot of things that courts have ruled on and it really only matters what the courts decide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
No, Congress passed a law giving Pai the power. That's why the FCC gets to make rules at all.
Re: (Score:2)
We never would have gotten rid of AOL
Interesting, there are still a lot of folks with AOL email addresses, including my wife. Mine would work too if I ever bothered resetting the long forgotten password.
As a Democrat I completely disagree (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
What, specifically, did not fit?
And "POTS is old!" is not specific.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Considering that they consistently have worked against your interests for the last 50 years, how do you motivate still calling yourself a Republican?
Against my interest? How is having the federal government take over every aspect of my life so that I can be as equally poor as you in my interest? How do you even know what my interests are? How is guaranteeing a living wage to people who can't work, or don't want to work in my interests? How in ruining the greatest healthcare system and the greatest economy in the world in my interests?
You are a willfully blind idiot that can not see how great the country you live in truly is. Please leave at your ea
Re: (Score:2)
Then, why did you respond? So that we could all see how advanced your TDS is?
Re: (Score:2)
Any bills that were not passed by both houses become void at the end of each Congress (The current one ends in January 2021 after the 2020 elections). So if this passes the House and the Senate does nothing with it, it can't be passed without a new vote in the House.
Re: (Score:2)
So don't get me wrong, the GOP is totally bought off - but the FCC Net Neutrality that is likely to get restored by the courts will probably be much better than what
Re: (Score:2)
Both are at fault. ISPs spent over $100M on donations to both parties, with the Rs getting a bit more ($55M v. $45M), most likely be cause there were more of them in office.
https://www.theverge.com/2017/... [theverge.com]
Re: (Score:3)
I still don't understand Net Neutrality.
Does this mean that companies cannot deplatform websites and people?
Does it mean that companies must treat all data as the same? (So data from an email and a netflix video must be treated the same?
Does it mean that companies cannot come to agreements with content providers? After all if TMobile give free data access to Netflix it is promoting that company above Hulu.
Re: (Score:2)
Without the text of this specific bill, exact answers to your questions aren't possible.
That being said, here's the answers using the typical definitions of net neutrality.
Does this mean that companies cannot deplatform websites and people?
Nope. Net neutrality is about the behavior of ISPs. It has nothing to do with deplatforming.
Does it mean that companies must treat all data as the same? (So data from an email and a netflix video must be treated the same?
ISPs have to treat similar data as the same. So they must treat all SMTP packets the same, or all streaming video packets the same. They would be allowed to use QoS-style techniques that prioritizes particular packets, as long as those techniqu
Re: (Score:2)
Net neutrality isn't just about speed. Zero-rating is also a violation of net neutrality.
The packets must be handled the same. If you're charging for packets from one source but not another, you are not treating the packets the same.
Re: (Score:3)
Serious Question. I still don't understand Net Neutrality.
The goal of Network Neutrality is to prevent ISPs from abusing their monopoly position in the ISP market to affect other markets, such as movie/television content.
Does this mean that companies cannot deplatform websites and people?
No, unless you mean ISPs blocking certain legal websites. YouTube and Facebook are not ISPs, and anyone that gets kicked off YouTube or Facebook is free to use some other similar service.
Does it mean that companies must treat all data as the same? (So data from an email and a netflix video must be treated the same?
No, the part of the packet that can't be used for prioritization is the source/destination address, whichever is the remote end. Quality of Service is still allow
Re: (Score:3)
A) If the Democrats bill goes into any sort of details like this I will be both surprised and excited. I fully expect it to be more along the lines of their Green New Deal (ie, a ridiculous wishlist of unrealistic fluff). If the bill mentions "packet" I'll be happy.
B) Blocking marketing agreements may not be desirable. What happens when Spectrum negotiates to get Netflix and Hulu to build co-lo centers within their network areas. Netflix agrees, but Hulu resists. Spectrum will now have a lower cost fo
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you said what you meant.
You don't open an investigation to see if a crime was committed. You take note that a crime was committed, then you open an investigation to see what happened.
We still don't have a "Paragraph 1" for any of the Trump investigations. For those that don't know, "Paragraph 1" is the beginning of the opening report of any investigation. It would read along the lines of "On , material evidence was found that a crime was committed at ...."
Re: (Score:2)
"Now an FCC radio license can cost a small fortune"
Not sure who's ass you pulled that from. The cost is typically less than $30, typically $15. If that's a small fortune to you, you may have other concerns.
Re: (Score:2)
Now an FCC radio license can cost a small fortune.
The last license I got cost $0. The one prior to that was $15 because I went through a VEC that charged $15. Laurel VE charges $0. The cost of a license depends on what kind of license. A commercial broadcast license may cost what you think is "a small fortune", but once you have one it's a cash cow.
For what?-- the FCC doesn't really do much of anything for their money.
Really? The fact that you can listen to the local radio station you want without another one interfering is due, in large part, to FCC frequency allocations. The fact that your local public safety and land mobil
Re: (Score:2)
This is why we desperately need a 3 Rd party. Both of the 2 majors do nothing but play with issues and fucking solve nothing.
What fuck-nut moderators are so far up the major parties asses that they felt the need to moderate this as troll or flamebait -- it is the FUCKING TRUTH.
If you modded that post troll or flamebait, your are 100% what is wrong with this country -- FUCK YOU!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But, you should consider just ignoring him.