Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
The Internet Government United States Your Rights Online

Congress Unhappy With FCC's Proposed Changes To Net Neutrality 208

Presto Vivace writes with news that the FCC's suggested net neutrality rules are facing opposition in Congress. "FCC chairman Tom Wheeler took the hot seat today in an oversight hearing before the House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology to testify about current issues before his agency, including net neutrality. The overriding theme of the day? Pretty much everyone who spoke hates the rule the FCC narrowly approved for consideration last week — just for different reasons." Wheeler himself made some interesting comments in response to their questions: "[He said] the agency recognizes that Internet providers would be disrupting a 'virtuous cycle' between the demand for free-flowing information on one hand and new investment in network upgrades on the other if they started charging companies like Google for better access to consumers. What's more, he said, the FCC would have the legal authority to intervene. 'If there is something that interferes with that virtuous cycle — which I believe paid prioritization does — then we can move against it,' Wheeler said, speaking loudly and slowly. A little later, in response to a question from Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), Wheeler cited network equipment manufacturers who've argued that you can't create a fast lane without worsening service for some Internet users. 'That's at the heart of what you're talking about here,' Wheeler said. 'That would be commercially unreasonable under our proposal.'" Here are instructions for how to send your comment to the FCC for those so inclined.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Congress Unhappy With FCC's Proposed Changes To Net Neutrality

Comments Filter:
  • You can NOT have competition without regulation. What you have is a single monopoly.
    This isn't selling 10 dollar t-shirts, it's infrastructure. How do you propose the market would solve thins? how would you want to ahve everyone who want to compete to have to dig up your yard and street?

    You idea is foolish and naive at best. It flies in the face of history. There has NEVER been a similar situation that when unregulated goes well fore the consumer.
    Read more history and less Fox.

    TO anyone who has read the history of the markets, you statement look stupid.. no not stupid, fucking stupid.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @08:49PM (#47052739)
    FYI, When filing these comments, choose your words carefully as they will be publicly posted online under your real name for anyone to read in the future.
  • by dcollins117 ( 1267462 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @10:50PM (#47053399)

    Nonsense. Since when did the "people's" views make a difference in this (and many other) issues?

    In the current political climate, it is very easy to become discouraged. Please don't let that keep you from letting your representatives know how you wish to be represented. Occasionally, it opens doors that were previously closed.

  • by meerling ( 1487879 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @11:03PM (#47053475)
    The 'market' is trying to destroy the internet by owning it all under one umbrella and dole out tiny bits to consumers for as absolutely much money as they can squeeze out of us. I have to wonder, do you actually know what a free market is? The ISP market is nothing like a free market situation. Neither is cable television, but although that is a different subject, it is still related due to the cable companies being major broadband players in this water sprinkler. (Not extensive enough to be called a pool.)

    There's basically a few ways to handle this.
    One: Let the companies do what they want. That will be an utter nightmare for consumers, and due to the growing necessity of the internet and all it's related data services, it would totally screw all of the populace of this country. Dumbest choice possible.
    Two: Regulate the companies properly. Let's face it, they are really providing a necessary utility these days, just like power and water. Make them toe the line. The companies would hate this, but they get to stay in the game.
    Three: Since it is a utility that the corporations have already shown they can't be trusted to manage, have it become ran by the government. Although the government isn't the most efficient organization, they also aren't trying to suck every last cent out of your cash anemic self as they don't have a profit motive. Expansion and improvement are likely to be slow, but then again, the corporations were already given massive bonuses in tax exemptions or write offs and many other ways by the government, and they still haven't delivered the very things they agreed to as a requirement for receiving that aid. For that matter, they've demanded several more times the previous largesses just to do what they were already supposed to have done. Looks like the government won't do any worse for the consumer than the companies are already screwing up.

    What's the right choice? I couldn't really say, but the status quo of #1 has already proven it's a failure, so it at least is NOT the right choice. For the other two, I guess it really depends on how it's done.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @11:03PM (#47053481)

    USPS has not received any subsidy from the US government since 1982.

  • by Beeftopia ( 1846720 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @11:37PM (#47053605)

    Say there's a pesky blog that keeps posting pointed, critical commentary at NBC-Comcast or at a cause they support. If you allow prioritizing of data, shockingly, that site's traffic might receive the lowest priority possible, or intermittent blockage. The Internet is the last bastion of the free flow of ideas. That should be protected, strongly. Because if there's an opportunity to abuse the privilege of prioritizing data, in order to increase profit or stifle dissenting voices, it most assuredly will be abused.

    Here is an informative 3 minute video highlighting some of the ways to abuse data prioritization. []

  • by the biologist ( 1659443 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2014 @01:07AM (#47053893) []

    as of 2006, the USPS has been required to pre-finance retiree benefits for the next 75 years. The govt as a whole uses the USPS as a profit center, while making it look like the USPS is in debt.

Don't tell me how hard you work. Tell me how much you get done. -- James J. Ling