New 'Net Neutrality' Bill Introduced 145
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Reps Ed Markey (D-MA) and Chip Pickering (R-MS) introduced the 'Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008' (HR 5353) this week. The proposed legislation [PDF] would not legislate what is and is not 'neutral'. Instead, it would add a section to the 'Broadband Policy' section of the Communications Act which spells out principles the FCC is expected to uphold, in addition to having them hold summits which would 'assess competition, consumer protection, and consumer choice issues related to broadband Internet access services' and make it easy for citizens to submit comments or complaints online."
Re:Non news (Score:5, Insightful)
Why don't you do the same?
...make it easy for citizens... (Score:5, Insightful)
Those comments are always ignored, apparently.
This seems a bit toothless (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We need a new internet also (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Non news (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Non news (Score:5, Insightful)
Going beyond voting, every message that the congresscritter receives from his or her constituents supporting this bill will indicate to them that it is an important issue, and that if they want to be re-elected they may want to pay attention.
Yes, my opinion individually may not matter much, but it still contributes.
I do not need to stick out in a crowd. I have no desire to stick out of the crowd--it's more trouble than it's worth, frankly. But forming a part of the 'mountain'? That's worthwhile.
It doesn't take much time to send an email to your congresscritter (make sure to include your snail addy, o'course, and your name and phone number). If net neutrality isn't important enough for you to take a couple of minutes to support it, then don't complain when all you can get is throttled-to-hell packet-shaped crapwidth instead of decent broadband.
I vote. I write my congresscritter when I hear about something that I find important. My opinion has been heard on more than one occasion, and as a result, I am content to participate in this democracy.
Does it always go my way? Of course not. But that's the way these things work, and sometimes what is best for me is not best for everybody else.
Bullsh!t (Score:5, Insightful)
1. If you put pen to paper and write a concise and reasonable paragraph or two about why it matters to you and send it to your representatives, you bet they will listen. Why? Because they know it's coming from a warm body as opposed to all of the anonymous electronic spam that Political Action Committees stir up. The letter becomes a bellwether of sorts if it is similar to other handwritten letters on the same topic.
2. The U.S. is a Republic, not a Democracy. Your one vote isn't really designed to matter as much as common knowledge would suggest.
3. Maintaining the Republic requires participation. Participation means putting pen to paper, talking to people in and out of the political system. Once you know a few people and have a couple of interests it can be very satisfying.
4. No, majority does not rule. More pablum that passes for common sense.
Making up excuses like yours is simply lazy and unpatriotic.
Re:Non news (Score:5, Insightful)
No vote, no difference.
You may as well stop talking altogether, really, though--because if you choose not to vote, then you're letting all those people who do vote choose what to do with you. As such, you're going to have to live with what we say.
What do I say?
Put up or shut up. Unless you're prepared to get off your lazy duff and -do- something about it, don't bother complaining about it.
Vote. Write your congresscritter. Write letters to the editor. Participate in the system--yes, even if you disagree, because, frankly, unless you know how to work the current one, you've got no chance of making it better or changing it for something else.
lawful purposes (Score:2, Insightful)
Interesting that they stuck the word "lawful" in there, as well as "unreasonable interference". This bill won't change anything.
Re:Non news (Score:4, Insightful)
Or perhaps that's why the Libertarians can't ever get a candidate in office--because none of their alleged supporters bother voting?
Sorry. If you don't vote, you don't matter. What people see are the numbers--and if there's no opposition because of broken people like you who don't bother voting, then any opposition to the status quo that might exist will never show up.
So by all means, have your lofty pie-in-the-sky Libertarian ideals. Don't expect anyone else to give a flying bacon sandwich for 'em, though, if you don't put action to it and actually do something with it.
You don't vote? You don't matter.
You don't work with the system? Then you'll have to shut up and accept what the system--and all those people who support it--will do to you.
Freedom this, freedom that... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm really sick of these 'patriotic names' which usually have little or nothing to do with what the bill encompasses,
Re:Non news (Score:5, Insightful)
So let me get this straight. Your philosophy depends on other people taking pity on you and reading your mind to figure out what you want?
You want everyone else to vote for someone whom you don't even really support, just so that you can have your opinions--which you'll never actually -tell- to anyone in charge--respected?
And somehow you don't see how broken that is?
This is why nobody will ever take your alleged 'political philosophy' seriously: you're unwilling to participate in a government, but want the government to magically do what you want it to do.
If you want to fix a system you see as broken, you'll have to get into the system to fix it. Ain't nobody yet who ever fixed a broken ethernet card by sulking in a corner--ain't nobody ever fixed a broken government by whining on slashdot.
Bill would put NET under FCC jurisdiction (Score:3, Insightful)
Bad definition of "counting" (Score:3, Insightful)
It's obviously clear, assuming that democracy is worthwhile, that everyone should vote even though every individual's vote has an extremely small probability of swaying the result of the election.
A growing (and dangerous) analogous phenomenon to not voting is not having your children vaccinated. The probability that any one child not being vaccinated will enable an epidemic is small.
Re:This is a good thing (Score:2, Insightful)
I think there is a fair argument for not doing so. A fair argument for them becoming content cops. A fair argument for them already being loudly against such enforcement, seeing as the won't spank comcast breaking existing laws.
I don't really have the power or money to defend my interests. Telecoms do. I don't have an army of lobbyists and lawyers. Telecoms do. The closest thing I have to a real representatives is Google and FLOSS friendly companies like SUN, and that's only because, many of, our interests happen to be the same at the moment.
I hate sounding like a librarian, but in a very real way, without making too much of a slippery slope out of the issue, power is a zero sum game, and giving more power to the government mean less power for the people. I don't know if it is worth giving even more power to the FCC in exchange for the slim chance they will do something to benefit me.
I want a clear law that says 'Hey, fuckers. You can't do that. If you do that x, y, and z, will happen.' I want affected companies and state's attorneys to be able to bring suits with regard to this. I don't want to give more power to an organization who's actions I already frequently disagree with.
Re:We need a new internet also (Score:3, Insightful)
The video over the internet problem has already been solved by companies like Akamai (edge cache servers close to the end users) and swarm technology (BitTorrent).
All that it would take to have HDTV streaming to every house in the US would be a cable or DSL connection, utilizing swarm technology like BitTorrent and local seeding at each major ISP's NOC in each major city. Akamai already has servers geographically dispersed all over the US (and many foreign countries). Put a BitTorrent client on every AppleTV and let them swarm with other users on the same ISP. Problem solved.
The whole net neutrality debate exists because the big ISPs don't want us to actually use the unlimited bandwidth we paid for. Sure they might have to upgrade a few of their systems to handle video over the internet, but I can assure you, those that don't upgrade their systems and start throttling video (ala Comcast) will go the way of the dinosaur, while those ISPs that provide decent bandwidth and don't interfere will flourish.
The free market will eventually win, even if it's local wifi coops bypassing the incumbent monopoly carriers (in areas where there is no competition).