Democrats Prepare Bill That Would Codify Net Neutrality (theverge.com) 226
According to a new report from The Washington Post, congressional Democrats are expected to introduce a new bill codifying net neutrality in the coming weeks. The Verge reports: The Net Neutrality and Broadband Justice Act -- spearheaded by longtime Senate internet advocates Ed Markey (D-MA) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) -- would reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service under Title II. This would give the Federal Communications Commission new enforcement powers over the internet, including the power to set rules against throttling, blocking, or paid prioritization. [...] The lawmakers could introduce the bill as early as August, a source familiar told The Verge on Monday. The measure would restore the FCC's authority over broadband and allow the agency to investigate consumer complaints and roll out new rules to promote broadband competition and close the digital divide, the source said.
In 2017, the Trump FCC, led by former chair Ajit Pai, rolled back the net neutrality provisions put in place under the former administration. The rules banned broadband providers from throttling and blocking certain lanes of traffic and offering paid fast lanes for specific services. Since the Trump reversal, congressional Democrats have vowed to codify net neutrality permanently. [...] Without an FCC Democratic majority, Markey's net neutrality bill may be the Biden administration's only means of reinstating the open internet regulations.
In 2017, the Trump FCC, led by former chair Ajit Pai, rolled back the net neutrality provisions put in place under the former administration. The rules banned broadband providers from throttling and blocking certain lanes of traffic and offering paid fast lanes for specific services. Since the Trump reversal, congressional Democrats have vowed to codify net neutrality permanently. [...] Without an FCC Democratic majority, Markey's net neutrality bill may be the Biden administration's only means of reinstating the open internet regulations.
Settlement-Free and Private Peering? (Score:2)
Did they fix this from last time?
'Democrats Prepare Bill' (Score:3)
You can stop reading right there. Those darn Democrats have been preparing bills for years. Not sure why or why any journalist would bother printing that or why a Slashdotter would read that. The bills never become law. You'd think everyone would have learned by now.
You know there's a very simple solution (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They won't get a 62-seat majority anytime soon.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I, for one, am glad that Republicans obstruct bad ideas and attempts to make stupid changes. I appreciate anyone who points out that the Socialism which has poisoned the Democrats is not progress, but an attempt to revive a system that failed so spectacularly that it caused the horrifying deaths of tens, possibly hund
It'll be interesting to read (Score:5, Interesting)
It'll be interesting to read what they come up with THIS time.
There are a few different principles that different people call "net neutrality", which are mostly good *in principle*.
The devil is in the details. If you actually read any of the proposals carefully, and you have any depth of understanding of how the internet actually works on a technical level, they've all screwed it up really, really badly. They all ban basic shit.
Kinda like back when DMCA was written, everyone - content producers, web hosts, webmasters, everyone was reasonably happy with the compromises in the DMCA. If a host / site is notified of a copyright violation, the uploader gets a chance to object. If they don't object, the content comes down. If the uploader objects, it stays up unless the copyright holder actually files a federal lawsuit. But there was a one mistake - no penalty for recklessly filing invalid DMCA requests. We can see how that turned out. All the network neutrality proposals are like that but 1000X worse because the legislators have zero technical knowledge at all.
Besides them having no technical knowledge, there are actually legitimately HARD problems. Consider "a web site / service can't pay an ISP to carry their traffic". That's one of the main things you hear for network neutrality, right? That's called "web hosting".
When you point that out, the proponents say "we don't mean regular web hosting - that's silly". Of course that's not what they MEAN, but it's what they *write*. Try to write a network neutrality law that doesn't make web hosting illegal. It's actually non-trivial to do. If you happen to be a legislature, not an IT nerd, and don't really know what "web hosting" is, writing a workable law becomes close to impossible.
It'll be interesting to see what they come up with this time.
They may very well once again try to make it illegal to route traffic such that both voip works (very low bandwidth, very low jitter, via tiny buffers) AND Netflix works (high bandwidth, jitter doesn't matter, uses large buffers). You HAVE to distinguish between Netflix traffic and live chat traffic, or you end up with neither one working worth a damn.
Republicans oppose net neutrality? (Score:5, Insightful)
Didn't these same fools want TWITTER declared a public utility so they could be racist on it? Republicans are only against neutrality when they perceive that it is biased in their favor.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be content returning to a sane world where 'racist' actually means racist and not "I disagree with you".
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be content returning to a sane world where 'racist' actually means racist and not "I disagree with you".
If you even believe in race, which has no scientific basis, then you are a racist. You might be little-r racist, where you're unaware of ways in which you demonstrate embedded cultural bias; Or you might be big-R Racist, where you have a whole belief structure around some bullshit you learned from your pappy. Having this pointed out is uncomfortable, and pointing it out is not a great way to make friends, but not addressing it only helps to perpetuate racism.
Racism was literally invented to excuse white peo
Re: (Score:2)
Hear, hear.
I'm approx. 50% German, 40% English, and "muttified" 10%. So if I made a statement that my 60% English, 20% Eastern European, and 20% mutt neighbor is building a new fence over my property line, and it pisses them off that either they were wrong or that it will cost them something to rectify the issue, they scream out racism to get eyes in sympathy with them. Unconditionally. If it were an issue simply addressed as an old, "Dude, how's your wife doing after her trip? Cool, cool. Hey, I notic
Re: (Score:2)
The people whose claims you are repeating redefined racism to include those those things. Hell, they redefined it to include a slew of positive things unrelated to race, and somehow to exclude treating people differently on the basis of race. Which they demand.
So, what are you arguing against again?
Re: (Score:2)
Kind of like how Democrats (at least on slashdot) see to be against Disney and insane copywrite timeframes until a Republican's comes up with a bill to do something about it?
Kind of like how the Democrats claimed Twitter should be controlled by the government until Elton Musk was going to buy it and then took a 180?
Both sides are guilty of it but the downside is that only one side gets called out for hypocrisy.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you edit/delete posts you aren’t a common carrier. You then ‘own’ responsibility for all your content. You are then liable for that content. Or should be. Socials hide behind protections meant f
Re: (Score:3)
So, bocking obnoxious tweets is not the same as selectively making certain websites not work? Care to elaborate? Section 230 was a convenient excuse, without section 230 .. sites like twitter, niche websites on various hobby topics, reddit, or even slashdot won't exist and you know it. A forum on motorcycles would never be able to keep things on topic or even block most spam.
Finally, the correct way to implement this (Score:2)
Ajit Pai, under Trump, correctly removed Net Neutrality enforcement from the FCC. Using ancient POTS regulations to regulate modern communications was both an affront to the powers of Congress and not a modern approach. The article's statement of, "The measure would restore the FCC's authority over broadband..." if entirely false. The FCC never had such authority. It was always executive branch overreach.
I'm in favor of sensible net neutrality regulations (I have not read this bill to know if it's sensib
Re: (Score:2)
Are you in favor of Twitter being declared a public utility? You can't both be against net neutrality and in favor of government telling twitter what to do, not unless you are a hypocrite.
Re:Finally, the correct way to implement this (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you in favor of Twitter being declared a public utility? You can't both be against net neutrality and in favor of government telling twitter what to do, not unless you are a hypocrite.
Yes you can, and it's easy and lawful to do it. Twitter currently claims privileges given under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Privileges, not rights. In exchange for those privileges, we the people do get to make demands on Twitter. And we should, because right now they "have their cake and eat it to", because they get all the liability immunity of a content-neutral internet platform, but they also get to exercise the editorial control over their platform like a newspaper publisher. That's unfair and should be rectified with legal reform of Section 230.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The whole point of the FCC is to regulate communications for the public good. If they can't do that without an act of congress, what's the point of having an FCC, which is by the way literally supposed to have jurisdiction over both broadband access and fair competition in communications? This is literally what they are for.
Why? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do people substitute the word "democratic" for "democrat?" The Democrats we have today are authoritarians. There is no excuse for conflating them with the word "democratic."
*ahem*
https://idahocapitalsun.com/20... [idahocapitalsun.com]
So now two lives are lost in the name of jesus.
Re:Democrats are anything but Democratic... (Score:5, Insightful)
The Democrats we have today are authoritarians.
As a lifelong Republican, I'd like to request that you keep your thorough ignorance of the meaning of most of the nouns in that sentence to yourself. I'm tired of explaining to people that I'm not one of *you* assholes.
Re:Democrats are anything but Democratic... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm tired of explaining to people that I'm not one of *you* assholes.
As a lifelong Democrat, I have the same issue with people on my side. It's hard for the adults in the room to have a conversation when the toddlers on either side of you are screaming nonsense at the top of their lungs.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You mean how the last republican president won with a minority vote, as well the first term for the republican president before him also won with a minority vote. Or perhaps how the republican party dealt with an election loss, where the current president got the majority votes as well the electoral votes, and attacked the capital to try to prevent the official tally. As well in many of the states that typically voted republican, who voted for Biden this time, created laws to restrict ones ability to vote
Re: (Score:2)
the Republican party has no stance to say that Democrats are the authoritarian party, where the Republican party has a strong recent track record of subverting Democracy and the will of the people.
That wasn't the claim. The claim was that the current crop of Democrats are authoritarian, and that is mostly the case. That they are less authoritarian than Republicans should be obvious, but it does seem to escape most people. But the bulk of them still have a hard-on for the rule of a system of law designed to enforce inequity. Look at Kamala Harris (if you can find her) and consider her history on enforcement of victimless crimes. And her vice presidency is supposed to serve as some kind of balance to B
Re: (Score:2)
however while the Democrats prefer to push a little more federal control than I like, they are actually trying to work for the will of the people, and not for the Legacy Companies who are going to politics to try to keep their failing business plans alive
You mean like how the Pelosis have a shitload of Intel stock and are backing a bill to get billions of dollars for Intel to build a fab in the USA even though they literally have enough liquid assets lying around that they can afford to build it themselves?
I agree that there are differences between the parties, and that on average the Democrats do more for The People, but they still do plenty to The People, in the name of the Legacy Companies you're talking about. And this particular example is massively in
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that there's only two parties show that the politics in your country pretty much failed.
No side represent you.
Also the net neutrality is just a "hotfix" that won't solve the problem of local monopolies of the country.
It should be a federal crime to use the government to enforce monopolies of any kind.
Re:Democrats are anything but Democratic... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Democrats are anything but Democratic... (Score:5, Insightful)
Even audits by other Republicans - and they still show they lost.
Of course, they are DEEPSTATE, run by obama and hillary, funded by george soros, who controls eh flat earth, from his pedo pizza parlour in the south pole! /s
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"deep state" is a term referring to the proliferation of executive branch agencies full of essentially permanent appointees that have taken over the duties of the other two branches of government. They aren't elected and they have no accountability or transparency whatsoever. They make up laws at a whim and enforce them just as capriciously, with no avenue for appeal or oversight and certainly none of the constitutionally mandated protections.
You should be appalled at this. Even if it's people you like in p
Re:Democrats are anything but Democratic... (Score:5, Informative)
"deep state" is a term referring to the proliferation of executive branch agencies full of essentially permanent appointees
Appointees can be reappointed. You have to use the weasel word essentially to avoid acknowledging this.
They aren't elected and they have no accountability or transparency whatsoever. They make up laws at a whim
If they are making laws, then their actions are recorded in a register, and they are trivially publicly identified. Therefore their positions are trivially targeted for reappointment.
Your whole theory just doesn't make any sense right on its face.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Some of them might be, and some of them may basically be there for life. The sheer scale of the bureaucracy of these agencies makes it all but impossible to reign them in. It's not a weasel word to acknowledge a de facto truth that conflicts with a de jure claim, it's a lot more weaselly to try and use sophistry and technicalities to ignore reality on the ground.
>If they are making laws, then their actions are recorded in a register, and they are trivially publicly identified. Therefore their positions a
Re:Democrats are anything but Democratic... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Democrats are anything but Democratic... (Score:5, Informative)
If the Democrats had won fair and square, they would have welcomed election audits
The prescribed audits in areas under dispute were conducted as codified by the local legislature.
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators
Article I Section 4 Clause 1
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors
Article II Section 1 Clause 2
The Constitution indicates that the rules for an election need to be set before the date of election. The Constitution indicates that the entire affair is at the States, but the States cannot just serendipitously create new rules AFTER the election has been conducted, that's plainly not fair. Trump indicated that he wanted to supersede the States' Courts to challenge the audits that had occurred. To add additional audits that law did not prescribe would be in fact, changing the rules of the game after the game had been played. If a State wanted all this endless recount, they need to indicate that an election is open to those recounts BEFORE the election takes place.
The Democrats welcomed the legally allowed amount of audits and after that point indicated that adding more audits was in violation of the agreed upon rules of the election. And this is where the Independent State Legislature doctrine to be on SCOTUS' docket next year comes into play. ISL is exactly what Trump's legal team wanted BEFORE the 2020 election. In ISL, a strict reading of Art. II Sec. 1 C. 2 is applied. Allowing State Legislatures to unilaterally dictate electors without challenge. That means, the States upon seeing an election conducted, can after the results are known, toss out the result and appoint whomever they feel is appropriate for electors. ISL indicates that nothing can legally challenge their position. This would in turn overturn somewhat Ex parte Yarbrough.
At any rate. Democrats allowed for the prescribed audits to happen and no more past that. Now if SCOTUS does indeed rule to strictly read the Constitution in a way to support ISL, then yeah, a State Assembly could indicate that it wants a recount whenever it wants one and nothing can challenge them. Hell, they could even just do away with the recount and just say, "meh, this person wins, the end." ISL strictly reads the Constitution as a protection of electors, not voters. More than likely ISL would be applied to allow for unlimited recount and if need be a clause that "if it's too close to call, the State Assembly will nominate the electors". But while extreme, ISL would absolutely allow for elections for President to be suspended in a State, if a State so chose it, there's nothing legally that could call that into question.
But do note, ISL was not the read of the Constitution at the time of the 2020 election. Therefore, the number of audits that were allowed, were an agreed upon amount before the election began. You cannot just have unlimited recounts as the system is currently.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Democrats are anything but Democratic... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I often wonder, do you people earnestly believe this drivel, or are you aware that it's nonsense somewhere in the back of your mind and just use it to justify your continued support for an actual, demonstrable, traitor to his country?
GOP members with brains that voted for Trump in 2016 (yes, they exist): "You're making good points."
I understand that you *super* don't like Mexicans and all, but is it really worth...
GOP members with brains that voted for Trump in 2016 (yes, they exist): "Oh, fu-u-u-ck you
Re:Democrats are anything but Democratic... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Democrats are anything but Democratic... (Score:2)
It's their name.
True. But what sort of person would name their child, for example, with an adjective?
"Come inside, Twitchy. It's time to practice your violin."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Won't pass. (Score:4, Insightful)
In this case the party stands for internet freedom.
Ah, yes. Freedom is when the government tells everyone the ONE way that they have to do things, or else. Got it.
You prove that you don't believe this in your next sentence.
Make no mistake net neutrality and section 230 are the bedrock of the internet.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is only the bedrock of the services that ruined the internet, like Twitter and Facebook.
You want to tell everyone that they have to do things your way. To wit, you want Twitter or Facebook to be forced to amplify speech whether they agree with it or not. You are the one who wants government to tell everyone the ONE way that they have to do things, or else. Got it.
The sooner it is reformed to make internet platforms behave more like telephone companies and less like newspaper publishers with insulation from any liability for what they publish, the better for FREEDOM.
According to you, there is only one right way for public websites to work, and that is like a common carrier. You, sir, are a hypocrite. Further, if you truly believe that's how the web should work, you have no idea how it works today, or how or why it exists at all.
Re:Won't pass. (Score:4, Insightful)
Where did I propose forcing anyone to do anything? I simply said that Section 230 PRIVILEGES should only be available to those who are willing to follow the same rules that telephone companies, electric companies, and other common carrier utilities already follow.
You propose forcing websites to act as common carriers, which they are obviously not. For one thing, common carriers ship closed packages, whose contents they are not privy to. You're trying to force one thing to be something else that it just isn't, and you're doing it because you think speech that you want to be exposed to is being disproportionately censored despite all studies showing the exact opposite. You are acting in force on ignorance.
Re:Won't pass. (Score:4, Insightful)
Why does freedom of speech frighten you so much?
That's the opposite of what's happening here. I have free speech. I can have my own website and spread whatever I want. And nobody forces me to not delete comments on it, which is why that doesn't infringe on my freedom of speech. I'm not forced to amplify anyone else's speech, and at the same time, I'm not liable if I fail to delete a third party's comment which incites violence, violates copyright, or is otherwise illegal.
If corporations are going to be treated like people and have rights, on the basis that corporations are reflections of the will of humans, then one of those rights has to be free speech. Otherwise you're trampling the rights of the shareholders, and the management, and so on. But this really isn't actually about corporations, this is about the entire internet, and chilling speech on it. Section 230 is all that protects us from that. Without it, the remainder of the CDA means the end of the internet, and it will not be the good thing you think it is. It won't just be the end of the parts you don't like.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the opposite of what's happening here.
No, it isn't.
I'm proposing a change to the law that encourages - doesn't force but encourages - private enterprise to permit maximal freedom of speech on their platforms.
You oppose this move.
So why?
Once again, I'm only proposing offering an OPTION. Not forcing anyone to do anything. Twitter, Facebook, etc. would be 100% free to continue to govern their platforms as they choose, if my proposal is adopted. I'm not sure where you keep getting the idea that I'm propo
Re: (Score:2)
I'm proposing a change to the law that encourages - doesn't force but encourages - private enterprise to permit maximal freedom of speech on their platforms.
At the cost of the freedom of speech of the people represented by the corporation. You are not pro free speech. You are pro speech with which you agree, and you think that infringing on some people's speech rights will deliver more of it. You are wrong, and that infringement will actually work against you as well.
If we're going to have corporations, and let me clearly state that I don't think we should have them at all (or at most we should have a limited number of them whose existence is actually justified
Re: (Score:2)
At the cost of the freedom of speech of the people represented by the corporation.
It's a CHOICE, not a requirement, so no, it doesn't cost anyone any freedom.
Honestly what's with your argument? It's totally incoherent. Why do you keep pretending you don't oppose freedom of speech?
Re: (Score:2)
It's a CHOICE, not a requirement, so no, it doesn't cost anyone any freedom.
They have a CHOICE as to how to operate now, so if what you want is for them to have a choice, all you have to change is nothing. QED, you do not want them to have a choice.
Re: (Score:2)
They have a CHOICE as to how to operate now
Right now, the law extends to them a privilege - immunity from liability for published content.
In exchange for that privilege, the law attempts to place certain commensurate demands about respect for freedom of speech, of anyone who would take that privilege. The legislators who passed the bill have acknowledged this was their intent, and this is a completely fair thing to do. Nobody has a "right to privileges".
However, in successive court cases over the decades si
Re: (Score:2)
Right now, the law extends to them a privilege - immunity from liability for published content.
Almost. It's for third party content. You deliberately left that out. That was disingenuous.
However, in successive court cases over the decades since the CDA was passed, courts have failed to acknowledge those commensurate requirements that were intended to be read alongside the privileges.
That is a lie cut from whole cloth. Section 230 explicitly states that there is no mechanism for being deprived of these "privileges", which makes them rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Almost. It's for third party content. You deliberately left that out. That was disingenuous.
OK I'm officially sick of you, now. You've been making disgusting personal accusations against me the entire thread, completely misframing the argument, and simultaneously talking about how you think corporations shouldn't exist while VEHEMENTLY defending their right to be granted a privilege without any reasonable restrictions on it.
Pretty sure this conversation isn't going to go anywhere.
Section 230 explicitly stat
Re: (Score:2)
disingenuous arguments
I see. I see.
Re: (Score:2)
Since we're sharing personal impressions with one another, let me share mine.
I think your motives here are purely pragmatic. You said you think corporations shouldn't exist, and you genuinely believe that. You aren't trying to defend Twitter's rights because you care about Twitter's rights, you'd rather that whole class of entity had none at all!
No, you're defending Twitter's interests here because Big Tech censorship has been playing out in your favor for several years now. One side has, with really stunni
Re: (Score:3)
What kind of incentive are you offering corporations to carry speech that they are currently removing from their websites
Immunity from liability for the things people post on their platform. Simple as.
It's totally reasonable that a company is immune from liability for what's posted on their platform, if they are just providing a platform and are not attempting to actively decide what moral standard to apply to allowable content.
Telephone companies behave this way, they deliver all legal calls, and don't try
Re: (Score:3)
but they have no control over what people say to each other?
Congratulations, you just proved to the world that you don't understand the argument. Section 230 of the CDA is explicitly about allowing platform operators to exercise control over what people say on their platform, without making them liable for any of it. This is literally what is required for you to have free speech on the internet. Without it, not only can you not say what you want on a website, but you can't say what you want on the internet, either.
Absent Sec.230, websites will be forced to moderate
Re: (Score:2)
The Democrat party has decided they stand for Internet freedom now? Oh, excellent!
The Republican party has decided they stand for freedom of association now?
*checks President Trump's account banned status at Twitter / Facebook*
*sees troll suggesting Facebook should be forced to amplify another party's speech*
Ahem...
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it is insightful that people see giving the "Federal Communications Commission new enforcement powers over the internet" as leading to a more free internet.
Most justifications for more government power lists good reasons for it such as the Patriot Act.
Re: (Score:3)
Historically throttling rules have always had exceptions for wireless carriers for their limited bandwidth. Also rules like this mean carriers can't so readily sell you bandwidth they can't actually deliver on.
Also with the bandwidth numbers being pushed by the marketing departments by the big carriers and the fact they are offering "unlimited" home plans now as well I am starting to think their bandwidth isn't as limited as we remember it.
Local cable monopolies are actually an issue the FCC can address bet
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Won't pass. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Net Neutrality absolutely affects QoS. It also changes the cost-benefit analysis for non-transit CDN traffic, the amount of investment one might make in home-rolled solutions, and, of course, marketing contracts out the yin-yang.
The fact that the apocalypse hasn't occurred in the last few years (well, the internet apocalypse at least) is testament to the overwrought nature of the doom-and-gloomers' views on NN.
Re: (Score:3)
Net Neutrality absolutely affects QoS.
How? The idea of Net Neutrality* does not at all prevent an ISP from prioritizing (for example) web or voice traffic over BitTorrent. Net Neutrality is meant to stop anti-competitive behavior by prohibiting ISPs from prioritizing (for example) the video streaming service owned by the ISP's company over Netflix.
To oversimplify a bit:
Re: (Score:2)
"My opposition is ontologically evil, my side is ontologically good", the post.
Re: (Score:2)
Define what you mean by "net neutrality" and then we can have a debate.
This is much like the Democrats claiming the Republicans are against lowering CO2 emissions because the Republicans voted against the Democrat supported bill on energy subsidies. There's more than one way to lower CO2 emissions, so maybe the Democrats came up with a really shitty way to get there and that's why they voted against it. I can't even comment on "net neutrality" being a good or bad thing because I can't get a consistent def
Re: (Score:2)
I can't even comment on "net neutrality" being a good or bad thing because I can't get a consistent definition on what the term means.
You probably have no idea how close this sounds to someone straight out of Idiocracy going "I have no idea what this means, but it must be a bunch of fag shit!"
Democracy had a nice run.
Re: (Score:2)
You probably have no idea how close this sounds to someone straight out of Idiocracy going "I have no idea what this means, but it must be a bunch of fag shit!"
Ironically, the more "Idiocracy"-like behavior is ridiculing someone for asking for a term to be defined. The pursuit of precision in discussion isn't "Idiocracy"-like at all, it's the sort of healthy skepticism that rational minds typically exhibit.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: So tell me again (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Define what you mean by "net neutrality" and then we can have a debate.
It's clear how they define it - "give the Federal Communications Commission new enforcement powers over the internet".
When I think of a free internet, the first thing I think of is government control.
Re: (Score:2)
"Once you've built the big machinery of political power, remember you won't always be the one to run it."
P. J. O'Rourke
I regret that this is the second time I have had to post this today.
Re: (Score:2)
"The establishment of our new Government seemed to be the last great experiment, for promoting human happiness, by creating a reasonable compact, in civil Society." - George Washington, 1790
Re: (Score:2)
How it is that both parties are the same? Or do we no longer support net neutrality on this forum?
Remember all those meme graphics your side ginned up years ago, about how if we lost net neutrality we would soon be paying for a-la-carte websites, getting upcharged for YouTube access by our ISPs, etc.?
Yeah, so that was fear mongering. Net neutrality hasn't been a rule in the US for several years now. It hasn't had any of the negative impacts your side predicted.
So that probably has influenced people to think
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...So we have bills that don't come up for a vote because our lawmakers are so old they are falling and breaking their hip. What is the word for "rule by octogenarians"? ...
One name to paint a model image - Rome.
Re:Democrats are fully Corperatists (Score:5, Interesting)
The whole reason they want to "codify Net Neutrality" is to make sure the government has total control over any ISP.
Yes, in the same way that health inspections give the government total control over restaurants and completely hamstrung the entire food service industry. /s
The reality is, we had Net Neutrality before the Trump administration and the sky did not fall. Granted, it hasn't fallen since being eliminated either, but Net Neutrality is like a fire extinguisher (or a gun, if you're pro 2A, take your pick) - you won't miss it until a situation arises where you really wish you had it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, in the same way that health inspections
Oh, if you only knew what a protection racket that really is...
The reality is, we had Net Neutrality before the Trump administration and the sky did not fall.
The reality is, we dropped Net Neutrality with the Trump administration and the sky did not fall. Better not tomes with things you don't understand.
Re: (Score:2)
Health inspections don't give the government total control over restaurants.
Analogy (Score:2)
However, your analogy would be that we should just keep blasting fire extinguishers at everything in case it catches on fire.
Wait until an ISP does something super shady with billing, then pass a law addressing it.
I have no fundamental opposition to net neutrality laws, except they all include the following verbage (taken directly from the federal register)
"Consumers who subscribe to a retail broadband Internet access service must get what they have paid for—access to all (lawful) destinations on the
Re: (Score:3)
*Netflix is buffering*
Please pay an extra $0.99 a month for Xfinity Netflix priority plus.
Re: (Score:2)
That didn't happen, though.
Re: (Score:2)
How did this drek get modded up? (Score:2, Troll)
And enjoy one party rule and a dictatorship by right wing theocratic extremists. Because that's gonna be great for us nerds and our hobbies, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
is to make sure the government has total control over any ISP
One, that isn't what they want. Two, even if that was what they wanted, I mean fuck, most Utility ISPs are three trillion orders of magnitude better than the pure private ISPs. Like I lived in a suburb of Nashville and it was Comcast monopoly, service sucked gorilla nuts. Moved out to the middle of nowhere Tennessee to an ISP ran by a government owned local teleco, if I have an issue they're out here within an hour. Comcast monopoly was 50Mbps service/16Mbps in reality on good days. Local ISP is fiber
Re: (Score:2)
You really think Republican's are alone in the culture war? We are not the ones changing the very meaning of words just to pretend we are not changing the culture.
Re: (Score:2)
Language changes over time. You don't have to make it into a culture war.
Re: (Score:2)
It should change over time. This isn't that. We are changing language on a whim now.
Heck, even with the recent abortions stuff, we're changing "war on women" to "war on child-bearing humans." And if we don't agree to the language change, your side calls it a culture war.
Re: (Score:2)
Dudes can have babies now. The miracle of modern science. You can rage against it all you like, but what you really want is for everyone else to conform to your preferred use of language.
Re: (Score:2)
You can rage against it all you like, but what you really want is for everyone else to conform to your preferred use of language.
You want the exact same thing or you wouldn't call people that didn't confirm phobes.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is you want everyone to think the way you do, to conform to your standards.
I want people to be tolerant and respect each other's human rights, which means not mis-gendering them and using inclusive language.
The difference is in the motivation.
Re: (Score:2)
It really is the same thing. You want everyone to conform to your standard of what you think is right and forcing people to use the language you find less decifices (I find it the opposite).
The difference is not motivation. The difference is that I don't assume negative motivation (just misguided) from you.
On the plus side, the fact that there is no longer the "let them use what language they want - no one is making you also do it" way out, means that people must make a choice now, instead of staying neut
Re: (Score:2)
If we do what you want, then a lot of people suffer.
If we do what I want, it has negligible negative effect on anyone.
Re:I have Government Broadband and it's awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. I'd like healthcare that didn't cost me $10,000 before insurance started paying.
Re: (Score:2)
"Hindsight is 20/20."
I'm not supporting any one entity. Just adding the element.