House Democrats Refuse To Weaken Net Neutrality Bill, Defeat GOP Amendments (arstechnica.com) 127
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives yesterday rejected Republican attempts to weaken a bill that would restore net neutrality rules.
The House Commerce Committee yesterday approved the "Save the Internet Act" in a 30-22 party-line vote, potentially setting up a vote of the full House next week. The bill is short and simple -- it would fully reinstate the rules implemented by the Federal Communications Commission under then-Chairman Tom Wheeler in 2015, reversing the repeal led by FCC Chairman Ajit Pai in 2017.
Commerce Committee Republicans repeatedly introduced amendments that would weaken the bill but were consistently rebuffed by the committee's Democratic majority. "The Democrats beat back more than a dozen attempts from Republicans to gut the bill with amendments throughout the bill's markup that lasted 9.5 hours," The Hill reported yesterday. Republican amendments would have weakened the bill by doing the following: Exempt all 5G wireless services from net neutrality rules; Exempt all multi-gigabit broadband services from net neutrality rules; Exempt from net neutrality rules any ISP that builds broadband service in any part of the U.S. that doesn't yet have download speeds of at least 25Mbps and upload speeds of at least 3Mbps; Exempt from net neutrality rules any ISP that gets universal service funding from the FCC's Rural Health Care Program; Exempt ISPs that serve 250,000 or fewer subscribers from certain transparency rules that require public disclosure of network management practices; and Prevent the FCC from limiting the types of zero-rating (i.e., data cap exemptions) that ISPs can deploy. An additional Republican amendment "would have imposed net neutrality rules but declared that broadband is an information service, [preventing] the FCC from imposing any other type of common-carrier regulations on ISPs," reports Ars Technica. "The committee did approve a Democratic amendment to exempt ISPs with 100,000 or fewer subscribers from the transparency rules, but only for one year."
Commerce Committee Republicans repeatedly introduced amendments that would weaken the bill but were consistently rebuffed by the committee's Democratic majority. "The Democrats beat back more than a dozen attempts from Republicans to gut the bill with amendments throughout the bill's markup that lasted 9.5 hours," The Hill reported yesterday. Republican amendments would have weakened the bill by doing the following: Exempt all 5G wireless services from net neutrality rules; Exempt all multi-gigabit broadband services from net neutrality rules; Exempt from net neutrality rules any ISP that builds broadband service in any part of the U.S. that doesn't yet have download speeds of at least 25Mbps and upload speeds of at least 3Mbps; Exempt from net neutrality rules any ISP that gets universal service funding from the FCC's Rural Health Care Program; Exempt ISPs that serve 250,000 or fewer subscribers from certain transparency rules that require public disclosure of network management practices; and Prevent the FCC from limiting the types of zero-rating (i.e., data cap exemptions) that ISPs can deploy. An additional Republican amendment "would have imposed net neutrality rules but declared that broadband is an information service, [preventing] the FCC from imposing any other type of common-carrier regulations on ISPs," reports Ars Technica. "The committee did approve a Democratic amendment to exempt ISPs with 100,000 or fewer subscribers from the transparency rules, but only for one year."
Re: (Score:2)
My $100,000 campaign donation says that they're right!
Great (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nice to see the Democrats showing some balls.
I certainly don't mean to start a political discussion over this, but I don't think there's anything to do with balls when it comes to politicians. Had they balls, they'd be doing more along the lines of reason. No, these guys get paid to push laws/regulation.
If there are balls out there, it's Amazon, Facebook, Google, Netflix and Twitter that're bribing, I mean lobbying, to keep net neutrality. With the way things have gone so far, it's a wonder why anyone even cares. The next president can just wave a
Re:Great (Score:5, Interesting)
The big players on the Internet don't actually want net neutrality. Much like privacy regulations and Warren's dumb "data breach" law, these are laws that are intended to keep new players from harming established players. Net neutrality would help new players, so the big players don't really want it. They have to keep up appearances, so they'll claim to like it as an advertising push, but they don't really care any more. They can afford to put pressure on ISPs and even with the ISP monopolies the US has, no monopoly is going to block Google or Amazon.
Net neutrality is dead and will stay dead because you can bet the instant the Democrats have the ability to pass such a bill they'll all of a sudden forget about it. Voters don't really care about net neutrality, as long as their Facebook and YouTube works. And since no ISP would be insane enough to block those, voters don't care. New comers are screwed though, and that's just the way established players like it.
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
Big players want net neutrality, and different big players do not want net neutrality. It's basically a fight between two different groups of corporations.
Re: (Score:2)
The greatest "anti-new-player" mechanism in existence in this country is the income taxes. With 1000's of loopholes, only the large companies have the $$$ to hire the legal help to maximize profit by minimizing income taxes via correct tax decisions throughout the year. Newcomers to any business in the USA are forced to pay the full-pull taxes, because they can't yet afford to hire 100's of lawyers to guide them through these loopholes.
Want to benefit competition amongst all aspects of commerce? Repe
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But some of these are the same companies that try to censor certain viewpoints on their own platforms. So neutrality of data is fine, but neutrality of opinion isn't.
And before anybody says it, no, their censorship is not limited to "hate speech," unless you have a very broad definition of "hate" to include "anything that I disagree with."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You're not being clear. Are you saying every company with a web presence has to have a "neutrality of opinion"? Are you sure you want that?
Re:Great (Score:4, Insightful)
You have no right to use their platforms. The right of association means they have the right to choose who uses their platform.
Don't like it? Well then you really want net neutrality, so your new platform that accepts your speech has equal access to the Internet.
Re: (Score:2)
If I'm a business serving the public, I have to. Because I have to serve all of the public.
If I'm a bigoted asshole, I can operate a "private club" that happens to bake cakes, and charge a $5 membership fee on the first cake you buy every year.
If I'm a bigoted asshole and want to show off just how much of an asshole I am, I can demand that I be excused from the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Except the baker was happy to make a normal cake like he'd make for any wedding.
Nope. In all the cases that actually went to a courtroom, the baker refused to make a wedding cake at all. This was not about the cake topper having two men or two women. That's easy enough to get around with "I don't stock those, since there isn't much demand, so here's where you can go to buy one".
Also, the baker still had that "private club" option. But they wanted to be a regular business, which means they have to comply with the rules of a regular business.
Lastly, the idea that you "participate" in
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Great (Score:4, Insightful)
If there are balls out there, it's Amazon, Facebook, Google, Netflix and Twitter that're bribing, I mean lobbying, to keep net neutrality
As opposed to Verizon, Comcast, and AT&T that are bribing, I mean lobbying, to end net neutrality.
Re:Great (Score:4)
Exactly. The whole thing is a shit-show of money being more important than reason, those who have investors, and which "side" they're on. "The People" are like muted pets on the side of it all.
Re:Great (Score:4, Interesting)
Exactly. The whole thing is a shit-show of money being more important than reason, those who have investors, and which "side" they're on. "The People" are like muted pets on the side of it all.
Yep. When we were fighting the superdmca bill 17 or so years ago here in TN, the cable lobby was buying both Republicans and Democrats. Actually, the bill's sponsor in the senate was a Republican who happened to be the father of the head of the TN cable lobby. The house sponsor was a Democrat with long family ties to politics around here.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You guys should try something different.
Re: (Score:2)
Give it time, we tried democracy once and then jettisoned that and are now trying the Great Experiment of rule by corporation.
Re: (Score:2)
A democracy without referenda, and without any cap on funding, which is not even transparent, is no real democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Nice to see the Democrats showing some balls. But it is pointless grandstanding at this point, as it will never get to Trumpy's desk, let alone him signing it.
The bill says "do things the way the last Chairman did." It is not about Net Neutrality, it is about politics.
If they really cared then they would write a bill that codifies Net Neutrality and takes it out of the reach of regulatory and Presidential whims.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I look at the announced Dem candidates, and calculate an average of only 1.4 balls per candidate.
Re:Great (Score:5, Funny)
It's a sad day when many of our ballsiest Representatives are those that don't actually have any. Maybe it's because without them, the corporations can't get a firm grip?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's OK. You get people on the record for supporting it (or not), and then, after the 2020 elections, you have a bill ready to go.
Re:Great (Score:5, Interesting)
You're assuming we're able to flip the Senate in 2020, which would need a far more decisive turnaround than we managed in 2018.
Also, that voting would go along party lines, which seems questionable for the Democratic party, given the resistance it's putting up against the progressives.
Re: (Score:3)
Not really. We only need to flip 3 seats, and this time around, all the vulnerable seats are Republican. There will be a net pickup in the Senate of 7.
It's not pointless (Score:2, Troll)
Finally when the Dems have a Majority they can pass the bill. It's that a PIA? Yes, yes it is. But it's the only way to get pro consumer shit done. It's not like consumers have a multi million dollar lobby to stand up for them. All we've go
Re:It's not pointless (Score:5, Informative)
The point is to get the GOP on record supporting something that will likely raise your cable bill (or phone bill if you're on DSL). That's an issue that can resonate with voters. From there it becomes election fodder to win seats and push the presidency over the edge.
The democratic bill allows FCC to impose regressive USF taxes on Internet access. They didn't have to do that. The democrats could have done a clean NN bill. They elected not to.
Re: (Score:2)
A member of congress from my own state said on her blog today that should would not vote for this bill because of this above all - the Internet should not be taxed.
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think it's so much about balls, as a critical realization:
The Republicans have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they will do their best to fuck up anything that the Democrats try to do, no matter how constructive and needful an idea it is.
Republicans think they have a mandate to block anything Democrat, and that mandate overrides everything else includes basic good sense.
Obama's greatest mistake (in hindsight) was that he tried to create a bridge with the Republicans. Republicans do not want to bridge the gulf. They don't want compromise. They want to "beat" the Democrats no matter the cost. Hell, they had the majority and spent almost all of their time undoing anything and everything the Democrats wanted, no matter how inane, rather than actually governing the bloody country.
And they proved it again with this legislation by trying to hamstringing it to the point of uselessness, despite literally the entire country (not counting telecoms) wanting it.
The Democrats did the right thing.
Re: (Score:1)
The GOP isn't just screwing with the Dems for fun (Score:4, Interesting)
1. Cut taxes on their donors.
2. Cut regulations, which sounds good in theory, until you remember 2008 and how cutting regulations got us there. Or safety regs on mines. Or live in a place like Flint, Mi, or any one of the thousands of regulations that help you personally that folks like to forget about or pretend won't be cut.
3. End Social Security & Medicare. It's at the point where they'll have to raise the cap on taxable income to pay for it, and that would mean cutting into their donor's profits, again.
4. Give the Evangelicals anything they want so long as it doesn't inconvenience their donors. Overturning Roe v Wade, allowing discrimination against the folks evangelicals don't like and yes, that's up to and including theocracy. Look at Saudi Arabia and how the ruling class lives large and without moral constraints while the working class follows the Koran to the letter. Think that but with King James.
5. More war, more empire building.
6. And while all this is going on take as much money for themselves as they can
There are others, and yes you'll find right wing Dems like Joe Biden and Beto O'Rouke going along with most if not all of the above (both Biden & Beto have got behind a program to end Social Security and replace it with a means tested welfare program, and Chuck Schumer & Pelosi have been selling us out to their donors for years. ).
It's always the same damn thing though. Our ruling class is clawing back the ground they lost post WWII. What I find so frustrating is how obvious they are about it and how nobody seems to give a damn. Especially if they've got theirs (fuck me).
But getting back to my point, the GOP is _not_ just being contrarian. They have a very specific agenda, long term and well financed. The sooner we figure out that their agenda isn't compatible with our continued well being the sooner we can do something about it.
Re: (Score:1)
This is a grand argument for more of a pariamentary style of government (perhaps based on the Single Transferrable Vote) designed to permit multiple viable parties who each stand a reasonable chance of winning elections.
Separation of powers + checks and balances was a wonderful idea and a great advancement. Winner-take-all was not. It practically guarantees that there will be only two parties with marginal differences over issues that might have great personal weight but don't matter in the scale of runni
Nay votes are just as important as Yea's (Score:2)
You force the issue and get politicians on the record, so you can drive them out of office for it in future elections. Limiting yourself to "what we can pass now" is very poor strategy.
Re: (Score:1)
not. the. point.
the point is: to get them on record as being anti-american (yes, I truly mean that).
the GOP are fucking evil. would have been fun to see their faces with all the NO given to their little tricks.
when will the US finally get tired of the R's being so fucking evil?
WHEN????
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
End your life. (Score:1)
I hope you understand that you deserve any horrible fate which may befall you, your family or your friends for abusing the fixed width font to draw more attention to your posts.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, only comic sans should be used.
Real problems like : Russia (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me preface this post with: Shut the fuck up ivan.
The difference between you and literally every slashdot poster 10 years ago is obvious.
"stop regulating business"
Regulating business has been central to every society with laws since 1776 bce with hammaburi's first 300 or so laws. ^^^ . This is the sort of statement I expect from the typically well educated posters who hang out on Slashdot.
You sound like this:
Durrr govanment isn't supporsed to be messing with business. Y don't they do imporannt work like bring back coal jerbs
Which is exactly the sort of retarded argument I'd expect from the sort of poor unwashed prole
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Repeals homicide law
I'm not dead yet, so no biggie!
Re:Great (Score:5, Informative)
The crying came originally from the left and the right and the center. It was not a partisan issue until the anti-regulation nuts got involved and the big telecoms started donating money to get it defeated.
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
Mueller explicitly did NOT exonerate Trump. There's a world of difference between "he didn't do it" and "there's not enough evidence to justify trying to impeach a sitting president, when the Senate that would have to convict him obviously has no desire to do so".
Not to mention, we have NO idea what's actually in the report itself, since Barr refuses to allow it to be released, while misrepresenting its contents in a laughably short summary.
Re: (Score:1)
FFS I am so tired of the political bullshit here. Get off the soap boxes, all of you - this should be a tech blog!
Re: (Score:2)
The purpose of the investigation was to investigate whether there was evidence of collusion. Mueller didn't find it.
What "evidence" is needed to exonerate him? Nothing Mueller could produce could prove that nothing happened; you would always say "B-b-b-but we don't know what was said at the Trump Tower meeting !!!".
Re: (Score:2)
Mueller explicitly did NOT exonerate Trump. There's a world of difference between "he didn't do it" and "there's not enough evidence to justify trying to impeach a sitting president, when the Senate that would have to convict him obviously has no desire to do so".
Not to mention, we have NO idea what's actually in the report itself, since Barr refuses to allow it to be released, while misrepresenting its contents in a laughably short summary.
This. I have no doubt Trump is up to it's orange scrotum in the collusion... However I also have no doubt it was being driven from Moscow and Trump was just a hapless idiot who thought he was benefiting from it...
That being said (probably enough to earn a downmod from a Trumpite SJW on it's own), the courts of any free nation need to maintain a high standard of evidence. If there is not sufficient evidence to convict, the by all means he should be acquitted even if reasonable doubt remains. A not guilty
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
Jesus, get over it already, Obama won in 2008 and the same people who bitched and moaned about him for 8 years and declared from the highest pulpits that they would keep him to a one term president and now the mental giants who declare "now that our guy is in office, we want you to shut up!"
So which is, we're only allowed to criticize Democratic politicians who win but have to keep quiet about Republican presidents? There's so much hypocrisy out there it's ridiculous, but that's the nature of politics. Spend four years in a investigation of Bill Clinton with nothing substantial to show for it, but literally some of the same people who were cheerleading that witchhunt were the ones insisting that there should have been no investigation this time. More hypocrisy.
The only real political ideals anyone has these days is "our guys good, your guys bad!" Anyone sane in this country is opting out of politics.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think such a balanced picture is justified. The right, at the moment, are much more aggressive and breaking the rules to their own (short-term) advantage. I guess they hope to remain in power indefinately, by committing a slow coup. It certainly feels like that, with all the bending of rules, inciting aggression, hate and conflict, and gerrymandering going on.
Yes the left have done some of these too at a smaller scale, but the scales are not comparable. People should not try to be balanced, so hard,
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No he didn't, Barr did.
Prosecutors from Muellers team says that Barr is full of shit.
Re: Let's hear it (Score:1)
One side is trying to do something about climate change, the other denies there is even a problem.
One side is trying to keep the internet open to all (even if it's at the behest of big corporations) , the other doesn't give a damm.
I could go on and on, but frankly what's the point your gonna believe what you want to believe.
Re: (Score:2)
Were none of those even worth hearing?
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's much easier in terms of capital to build new ISP than one of those.
Basic math must be very interesting in your world.
Re: (Score:3)
Why should monopolies like Twitter, Facebook and YouTube not be required to be common carriers?
Because they are not carriers.
It's much easier in terms of capital to build new ISP than one of those.
It's also much easier to bake a cake.
i FEEL teh NEED teh NEED 4 SPEED (Score:2)
Open the pipeline bay doors, HAL!
P.S.: WA,OR,CA already have Net Neutrality by law, this is just if we want to talk to the rest of you.
Bad Congress / Good Congress (Score:1, Insightful)
Bad Congress -- I think government control of internet content and data transfer will be a net loss for society.
Good Congress -- if it's going to be done, under the American system, it ought to be passed as a bill in Congress, not decreed by a President or a President's appointee.
Re: (Score:2)
Bad Congress -- I think government control of internet content and data transfer will be a net loss for society.
Good Congress -- if it's going to be done, under the American system, it ought to be passed as a bill in Congress, not decreed by a President or a President's appointee.
Fascinating!
Why don't you talk to us about the technical ramifications and issues surrounding net neutrality?
Since you're totally a Slashdot regular with an interest in news for nerds.
Bro, I first started reading /. on a 9600 modem before the JonKatz days, back when people actually read long blocks of text on the Internet because you'd grow old waiting for any kind of visual media or virtual machine applet to d/l and render. There were several years when almost all of my non-fap computer time was spent on Slashdot and the various other "cyberspace" ghettos from the Slash diaspora - K5, MeFi, and Adequacy. I wish someone had paid me for all the time I've spent here. I'd have a nice down p
Re: (Score:1)
Don't make shill quality posts if you don't want to be called a shill idiot.
What you call me is entirely up to you. It's slashdot, so there's no damage to me regardless of your comments. Meh.
I first started reading /. on a 9600 modem before the JonKatz days
So you're saying you're not really all that into computers? . Because people were giving away faster modems for free by the time slashdot was around
If someone had given one to me for free, and it had fit the expansion slots in my 486, I would have gladly used it. It is good that you had the money and resources, and lived in a community during that time which allowed you to obtain free hardwa
Information service? (Score:1)
Per the article:
"broadband is an information service, [preventing] the FCC from imposing any other type of common-carrier regulations on ISPs"
If broadband is considered an "information service" which now prevents the FCC from imposing any regulations on ISP's, why does the US government give $$$$ away to broadband carriers to offer higher speeds such as the Connect America Fund (CAF) ? If the FCC is the government's form of regulating communications services in the United States how can they offer CAF fu
Re: (Score:3)
If the FCC is the government's form of regulating communications services in the United States how can they offer CAF funding to promote faster internet speeds but at same time the FCC claims it can't regulate it?
Well, one gives the ISPs money, so it is good. One prevents the ISPs from gouging others for money, so it is bad.
Intellectual consistency is not a requirement to run a business.
Re:Information service? (Score:4, Interesting)
If broadband is considered an "information service" which now prevents the FCC from imposing any regulations on ISP's, why does the US government give $$$$ away to broadband carriers to offer higher speeds such as the Connect America Fund (CAF) ? If the FCC is the government's form of regulating communications services in the United States how can they offer CAF funding to promote faster internet speeds but at same time the FCC claims it can't regulate it?
The FCC maintains multiple contradictory definitions of the same terms used interchangeably to get away with whatever they please.
For example according to the FCC broadband Internet counts is 200kbit/s in either direction AND at least 25/3 mbit/s. To a normal person it's plainly obvious both definitions can't concurrently be true but hey if your the FCC anything goes.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Correct. The Republicans would maintain simultaneously that providing broadband is an "information service" and thus cannot be regulated by the FCC since its business is proving informational content, while a the same time being a common carrier, and thus free of any liability for what goes over its pipes ("tubes" to some Congressfolk) since it does not provide any informational content.
De-authorize the Republican party (Score:1)
Staying (Score:1)
Bring some new innovation and speed into your community.
Stop thinking the federally protected monopoly networks are finally going to be upgraded.
Get community broadband in to your community.
Allow some innovation and free market competition.
Escape past the federal NN laws and rules that kept your network slow.
Re: (Score:1)
you're a fucking idiot.
mueller is a republican!
go to hell, asshole. your lies, in defense of the damned R's are part of the problem.
why do you hate america so much?
Corrected Headline: (Score:2, Troll)
House Democrats Choose Political Grandstanding Over Legislating.
Yeah, sure, you've got the usual delusional people who blather about "on the record" political tactics. Who, exactly, winds up on the record here? In the House, nobody other than people in safe-enough seats that they survived the 2018 Democrat wave. In the Senate, nobody, because the unamended bill will never reach the floor.
The only purpose of this is cynical base-pandering in the quest for campaign donations. Which will work, because there
If I'm reading it right, we're fucked (Score:2)
This is not the net neutrality that was promised to me.
The sub sub paragraphs matter folks. Don't rely on what they say it does, you actually have to parse the legal obfuscation that is in these things.
We Need a Level Playing Field (Score:2)
Re:Member when? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not how you boil a frog...
I do (Score:3, Insightful)
They're also busy fucking with Netflix. The only reason they haven't started charging a Netflix tax is they're worried if they do it too soon folks will rebel and elect a Demo
Re: (Score:2)