'There Will Be a [Senate] Vote' To Reinstate Net Neutrality, Schumer Says (arstechnica.com) 278
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he will force a vote on a bill that would reinstate the Federal Communications Commission's net neutrality rules. Legislation to reverse the repeal "doesn't need the support of the majority leader," Schumer said during a press conference Friday, according to The Hill. "We can bring it to the floor and force a vote. So, there will be a vote to repeal the rule that the FCC passed." The Federal Communications Commission voted to repeal its own net neutrality rules last week, and the repeal will take effect 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. But Congress can overturn agency actions by invoking the Congressional Review Act (CRA), as it did earlier this year in order to eliminate consumer broadband privacy protections. A successful CRA vote in this case would invalidate the FCC's net neutrality repeal and prevent the FCC from issuing a similar repeal in the future. This would force the FCC to maintain the rules and the related classification of ISPs as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act. A CRA vote lets Congress "undo regulations with a simple majority," without the possibility of a filibuster, as a Washington Post story said in February. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) announced a plan to file the CRA resolution last week. "It's in our power to do that and that's the beauty of the CRA rule," Schumer said. "Sometimes we don't like them, when they used it to repeal some of the pro-environmental regulations, but now we can use the CRA to our benefit, and we intend to."
Good, but will it pass? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good, but will it pass? (Score:5, Interesting)
Now we find out exactly how unified the GOP is. Spoiler: They're not unified at all. If it's a simple majority I think Ajit Pai is going to have his ass handed to him by Congress, and rightly so.
Maybe Ajit Pai will be the next high profile departure? Wouldn't that be nice?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Good, but will it pass? (Score:5, Informative)
Shame that a Senate vote to fix this isn't sufficient. Make it a law (which requires both House and Senate to vote on the same piece of legislation), and it'll really mean something. 51 Senators can vote on anything they want to, but without legislation in the House as well, it's just grandstanding....
Re:Good, but will it pass? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You could call it grandstanding. I prefer to call it "getting everyone to declare their position". If the House takes this up and passes it, great. If they don't, then it's clear that the House, and the speaker in particular are on the wrong side of the issue and need to be replaced. If it doesn't pass the Senate, and it's on party lines, then it's clear that the talk about "doing it the proper way" is just another in a long line of self-serving rules the GOP insists Democrats observe while doing nothing of the sort themselves.
So it's like choice.org, but for politicians?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If it doesn't pass the Senate, and it's on party lines, then it's clear that the talk about "doing it the proper way"
"Doing it the proper way" is not having the senate punt the issue back to the FCC to keep doing it the wrong way. It's for the legislature to pass actual laws. So no, sorry, if the senate doesn't just pass the football back where it doesn't belong, it doesn't prove that "do it the proper way" was just smoke. In fact, it's a pretty good sign that those who vote against doing it this way don't think this is the right way.
If the House takes this up and passes it, great.
Yes. And the Senate. Make it an actual law that changes the existing law about the FCC
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
51 Senators can vote on anything they want to, but without legislation in the House as well, it's just grandstanding....
Just a reminder, Schumer only has 48 Senators that caucus with him, he is the Minority Leader.
Re:Good, but will it pass? (Score:5, Insightful)
If it's a simple majority I think Ajit Pai is going to have his ass handed to him by Congress, and rightly so.
Even if the Senate Dems were to vote in lockstep, which is less than clear, this would have to pass in the House as well, then survive a presidential veto. That's not going to happen, and TFA says as much. This is nothing but political posturing on Schumer's part.
Re:Good, but will it pass? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is nothing but political posturing on Schumer's part.
Why is that bad, then we will know who not to vote for next year.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is nothing but political posturing on Schumer's part.
Why is that bad, then we will know who not to vote for next year.
Fabulous. You can vote for the Senators in your state who supported this meaningless gesture. This is a really common tactic - vote to show your support for something you really don't support at all in order to gain constituent support, confident that if the measure passes nothing will change.
Might very well pass (Score:5, Insightful)
If it's a simple majority I think Ajit Pai is going to have his ass handed to him by Congress, and rightly so.
Even if the Senate Dems were to vote in lockstep, which is less than clear, this would have to pass in the House as well, then survive a presidential veto. That's not going to happen, and TFA says as much. This is nothing but political posturing on Schumer's part.
It might very well pass, both House and president.
The main problem with the existing legislation was legal, not technical. It was passed in opposition to Congress' explicit instructions.
NN is a good idea, when viewed on its technical merits, and if a law gets passed that's a good thing.
Ajit Pai won't be getting "his ass handed to him", he'll be getting explicit direction from congress which is the correct way to do this.
Re: (Score:2)
Agree completely legislation is the better path if NN is going to happen. Respectfully disagree it's correct on the technical merits. But in any event, why are you bullish that it passes both houses? I'm not seeing the collective appetite for that but may be missing something.
Re: (Score:3)
Even if the Senate Dems were to vote in lockstep, which is less than clear, this would have to pass in the House as well, then survive a presidential veto.
That veto might not be such a sure thing if there is enough bipartisan support. A law passed by congress is easier to for him to support than a regulatory requirement that can be changed a the whim of the next administration, which was the worst part of the previous net neutrality approach.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The Trump landslide where he got more votes than any other candidate ever
I don't know how you do math, but Trump did not win by a land slide, not even close: http://www.politifact.com/trut... [politifact.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The Trump landslide where he got more votes than any other candidate ever
I don't know how you do math, but Trump did not win by a land slide, not even close: http://www.politifact.com/trut... [politifact.com]
I do my math with great sarcasm. Trump had less votes.
Re:Good, but will it pass? (Score:4, Informative)
Short answer: No. Why? Because a CRA is a Joint Resolution (that means it has to pass both the House and the Senate), and the President has to sign it into law.
Source: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R... [fas.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Good, but will it pass? (Score:2)
Theyâ(TM)re already trying to do that.
Re:Good, but will it pass? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Now we find out exactly how unified the GOP is. Spoiler: They're not unified at all. If it's a simple majority I think Ajit Pai is going to have his ass handed to him by Congress, and rightly so.
a premature celebratory comment here, about this grandstanding gesture which achieves nothing, and far from guaranteed to succeed at even that meaningless vote (not only gop, dems are also divided btw), about pai getting his "ass handed" back is now rated "insightful" .
oh \. !
with such meaningless opposition, and idiotic support for it, trump is going to be succeed.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
the other thing no one is asking is why wasnt this enacted by congress to begin with? rather than deal with the past 2 years, why didnt congress do its job before???
Because it was the FCC's job, which the FCC just chose to stop doing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
congress should be the ones making these decisions, not an unelected bureaucrat
Congress explicitly gave the FCC these regulatory powers. They are legally capable of delegating.
Re:Good, but will it pass? (Score:4, Informative)
Because it was the FCC's job, which the FCC just chose to stop doing.
Except for the fact that congress told the FCC not to do it, you're right. From this [wired.com]: "Back in the 1990s, key Democratic senators insisted Congress never intended Title II for broadband." So the people who wrote the laws said that Title II wasn't supposed to be applied to broadband.
That's why having the FCC decide to do it that way is the wrong way to do it. Congress needs to pass an explicit law. Not just a law telling the FCC to go back to the way they weren't supposed to be doing it, a law that does it the right way. Schumer is wasting everyone's time playing political football instead of trying to actually solve a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
So both parties, the FCC and congress have changed their mind on who's job it is. Where it stood a month ago was that the FCC had decided it was their job and were doing it, presumably because congress had not done it, presumably because it would compromise considerable funding streams from large telecom companies to senators and congressmen or their anonymous proxies.
A coordinated government would coordinate the passing of responsibility from one place to the other.
Enforcing net neutrality is actually an i
Re: (Score:3)
So both parties, the FCC and congress have changed their mind on who's job it is.
So pass a law making it so.
Where it stood a month ago was that the FCC had decided it was their job and were doing it,
No, where it stood a month ago was that Obama had told them to do it and they hadn't gotten around to reversing it yet.
presumably because congress had not done it, presumably because it would compromise considerable funding streams
Whenever Congress doesn't do something you want, it's always because they're corrupt and horrible. It's never because they don't think it is the right thing to do.
Enforcing net neutrality is actually an important function of government.
That's an interesting opinion, one which not everyone shares. Some people think keeping government out of the Internet is a good idea.
I travel a lot and the internet does indeed suck in places that don't have enforced net neutrality laws
I also travel, and I've seen no such massive problems.
Re: (Score:3)
So both parties, the FCC and congress have changed their mind on who's job it is.
The Constitution says it's Congress's responsibility.
Congress says it's Congress's responsibility - Congress never deferred to the FCC on this.
Where it stood a month ago was that the FCC had decided it was their job and were doing it, presumably because congress had not done it.
The FCC doesn't get to just decide to "step-in and do something" because the responsible party failed to act.
President Obama tried that line of reasoning with DACA, and we can all admire how well that reasoning worked out for the Dreamers...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good, but will it pass? (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess it is time to spend some karma.
The net neutrality rules were exploited by large corporations (especially Netflix, Google and Amazon)
Really, I pay to get access to the net, now people need to pay my ISP to allow me to see their content ? Never mind these large ISPs got large tax breaks to run the cables.
Comcast and other ISPs had a 20+ year lead on the net and now they are crying because some brand new companies came alone and are now eating their lunch! So much for the "free market working" phrase so many people yell about. Believe it or not, that is how the market is suppose to work. You do not innovate, you fail.
Re: (Score:2)
Now we find out exactly how unified the GOP is. Spoiler: They're not unified at all. If it's a simple majority I think Ajit Pai is going to have his ass handed to him by Congress, and rightly so.
I person can dream I guess. What you going to do? Impeach the guy? Good luck, you are going to need it.
Re: (Score:2)
Now we find out exactly how unified the GOP is. Spoiler: They're not unified at all. If it's a simple majority I think Ajit Pai is going to have his ass handed to him by Congress, and rightly so.
You assume the Democrats are unified. Not so long ago most democrats were also either actively ignoring net neutrality or against it.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's revisit this after tomorrow's votes on the Tax Cut bills...
Seems pretty unified right now, tomorrow will tell us how unified they are.
Re: Good, but will it pass? (Score:3)
The repeal only restored previous legislation, you know where communications providers were common carriers and couldnâ(TM)t screw with connections at all or couldnâ(TM)t reform into a monopoly.
We had a working Internet that drove bubbles and had plenty of startups all with existing legislation. Since Obamaâ(TM)s âoenon-Neutralityâ all we had is a return of Ma Bell now called Spectrum.
Re: (Score:2)
The repeal only restored previous legislation, you know where communications providers were common carriers and couldnâ(TM)t screw with connections at all or couldnâ(TM)t reform into a monopoly.
Uh the 2015 ruling that they repealed was to apply Title II regulation to the isps for the first time, for those who aren't particularily well versed in fcc regulations, Title II is common carrier status. The FCC repealed Common carrier status, so ISPS are no longer common carriers.
Re: (Score:2)
The Dems winning in Alabama was, in my opinion more a reflection on Roy Moore than any real political shift.
I suspect if the republicans had come to there senses, and cut Moore loose even a week before the election, and then stuck an inoffensive nobody in his stead, they'd have won Alabama.
That said, I *DO* think actual swing states are likely to swing blue next time around; people in the middle voted against Hillary and for Trump "Change"; but I think they've all had quite enough of Trump's nonsense by now
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect if the republicans had come to there senses, and cut Moore loose even a week before the election, and then stuck an inoffensive nobody in his stead, they'd have won Alabama.
They couldn't do that. The deadline for candidacy had passed. It had already passed when this forty-year-old crisis came to light. Why do you think it popped up when it did?
As long as the Dem's don't run people that aren't as unpalatable as Roy Moore they should do alright with the swing voters.
We're in for a new "normal". It won't matter who runs who.
Re: (Score:2)
2) the Democrats won a senate seat in deep red Alabama
The Democrats barely... BARELY managed to beat a guy who had gotten twice ejected as a judge due to professional misconduct and was accused of pedophilia. And he still made it close. That's not exactly running away with it.
Re: (Score:2)
One point you missed. It is invariable that there will be a war with North Korea, or technically a resuming of hostilities.
Maybe, maybe not. It depends on whether North Korean leadership decides to rattle the sabers again. They're not that dumb, they know it's a good time to settle down for awhile.
Any Republicans Going to Vote to Reverse? (Score:2, Redundant)
Re: (Score:3)
Unless they have a couple of Republicans who are willing to go against Trump and the FCC this ain't gonna happen.
Trump's approval rating is in the gutter and he's taking the GOP with it. There are some GOP congresspeople concerned for their jobs so I think you'll be surprised at the number of Republicans whom vote to override the FCC.
Re: (Score:3)
Trump's approval rating is in the gutter
In general, yes. But not with his base. 75% of Republicans think he is doing a good job. His approval rating is even higher with the wingnuts likely to vote in the primaries.
There are some GOP congresspeople concerned for their jobs
Most of them fear a primary challenge more than a general election defeat.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd agree. Supporting this is an easy way to get points for the next elections. One of those times where politicians can buck the party line with very little risk involved. Except to see GOP congresspeople in places with a legitimate Democrat threat voting to roll back this asinine FCC decision. How many of them do that will determine whether Trump signs off.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Economy is going great
"Great." The economy was also going "great" before the election, and none of the problems that existed then have really been solved now.
stock market is soaring
It was soaring well before the election. It's why Donald Trump mentioned as a candidate that the stock market was a bubble, that you couldn't trust its then-18,000 number. It was hitting record highs under Obama's watch, but Trump poh-pohed that, saying the economy was a disaster. He said this in Dec 2015, he said it in Apr 2016. In Sep 2016, he said "The only thing that i
Re:Any Republicans Going to Vote to Reverse? (Score:4, Interesting)
A big part of the FCC's action was based on a belief that unelected FCC commissioners should not be writing regulations that supercede state control and FTC protections.
Laws passed by our elected representatives in Congress are a completely different story than FCC regulations. It is perfectly possible to support a law mandating net neutrality and also support Pai withdrawing the FCC-level mandate.
Of course, using the CRA to reinstate net neutrality is just plain stupid, because it leaves the unelected FCC in control of the regulations. A CRA resolution would stop the FCC from changing the common-carrier classification, but it would leave the doors wide open to totally changing the meaning of "net neutrality". That is, you could have your net neutrality and find out it only applies to content under the creative control of the ISPs (like Fairness Doctrine) or even more egregious, has something to do with connections of neutral wires to lightning arrestors. To anyone who actually thinks the net neutrality repeal is about pleasing the big corporations rather than federal-state and FCC-FTC balancing, handing the reins back to the same three FCC punks sounds like the worst possible outcome.
Personally, I think that Pai's "net neutrality repeal" which actually is a common carrier reclassification that takes the FCC out of the picture, together with state or municipal regulation, is the correct answer. But I'm far less upset by the possibility of Congress passing an actual law defining net neutrality compared to the "save net neutrality but only until the composition of the FCC board changes again" side that has been making such a big fuss.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless they have a couple of Republicans who are willing to go against Trump and the FCC this ain't gonna happen.
A few? A bunch! You will need 12 Republicans to agree to this, PLUS Trump (OR 18 if you don't get Trump).
This will have to be a law... Meaning it will have to be a bill, passed by both the house and Senate and signed by the president. In the Senate, this will require a number of cloture votes which require 60 Senators and a veto override will take 66. No way you get that many Republican Senators to vote this way.
Fuck Ajit Pai (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
How is that a win (Score:4, Interesting)
Step back and think about this on a purely tactical level.
If the measure passes, the Democrats will be given credit even if every single Republican voted for it.
If the measure loses, the situation for the Republicans is not any different than it was today since it's something almost no-one will every know about, and certainly very few voters will care about way off in November.
Republicans voting for this can only lose, there is literally nothing to gain.
Some may still do so though, so it may pass. Not sure what the repercussions are of passing something that denies the FCC has the ability to choose what to do, but if you actually think about things long term it seems like a super-bad precedent to set in terms of choices other agencies make being overridden in similar ways.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as a precedent goes, that ship has sailed. As Sen. Schumer said in TFA (and TFS), this process is established by law and either party can and does use it. When I think about how it works, it seems kind of cool -- the regulat
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that between now and the 2018 elections, internet users, including those who now nominally support NN repeal, may see changes by bad actors at ISPs which will cause them to reevaluate their position.
Yes, the various ISPs and telecoms have pledged not to engage in bad acts, but history suggests otherwise. If there's money to be made by changing revenue models in ways that incentivize users to spend more for certain types of access or access to certain websites, some ISP is going to do it - it'
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Fuck Ajit Pai (Score:4, Insightful)
You *do* understand that this is simply how it's supposed to work, right?
The executive offices issue rules on trivia not important enough to rise to the level of writing law.
If an issue DOES rise to that level, then Congress gets involved, writes law, and supercedes the rules written by bureaucrats.
*Exactly* how the whole thing is supposed to go down, according to the founders.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds reasonable.
BTW, fuck Ajit Pai.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Fuck Ajit Pai (Score:4, Insightful)
No dude. The Democrats are bound to win if they run on
1) Gun control
2) Hate speech bans for people who use the wrong pronoun or argue with liberals on social media
3) Title II regulation for ISPs
4) Unlimited illegal immigration to force down working class wages
5) Punishing people who refuse to bake cake for gay weddings
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-c... [scotusblog.com]
All this 'sticking up for the working man' stuff is so last century.
So you finally want to do it the PROPER way? (Score:5, Insightful)
The proper way to implement significant policy changes is to change the law.
Because what's done via a pen and a phone are just are properly undone by a pen and a phone.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly... which is why Executive orders are not laws at all. Everyone pisses and moans when Trump reverses an executive order issued by Obama as if he is changing the laws and usurping congress. He has the prerogative to do whatever the hell he wants with existing Executive Orders, as they are nothing more than instructions to his subordinates on how to perform tasks. The only thing _permanent_ are Amendments and a new amendment has to be passed to repeal the former (as in the 18th and 21st amendments). La
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, this is apparently a 2018 election issue for democrats now... I doubt this hysteria can be kept up long enough but have at it. Good luck democratic boys, Girls and Nancy P, you are going to need it if this is all you got for now.
Re: (Score:2)
Net-net, the ISPs are petrified of being placed into a class for service like the phone companies were. They want their balance sheets to stay not only green, but extremely so, and universal service and extending to low-margin areas doesn't help that goal.....
Most ISPs are doing a crap job with service as well - the speeds are slow as hell even in areas with competition. They're not investing in physical plant because what they provide now is 'good enough.' I've been elsewhere in the world and speeds ar
Theater (Score:2)
Re:Theater (Score:4, Insightful)
The only way (Score:2)
Is a 1 page constitutional amendment, with no riders or dependencies.
Otherwise it's just pointless, and will be subject to continual lobbying and see-sawing debates forever.
Re: (Score:2)
Like constitutional amendments don't get debated or changed.... Or is the 18th amendment is still in force? If it is, I need to report myself to Elliot Ness..
It won't pass (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When will the insanity end (Score:3)
So, there will be a vote to repeal the rule that the FCC passed." The Federal Communications Commission voted to repeal its own net neutrality rules last week
So this is a vote to repeal the FCC repealing an original action - three levels removed!
When will this insanity end? Why not put together a REAL bill that would lay out what Net Neutrality really meant? They are using this weasel technique to try and avoid actually having to state what Network Neutrality is, because the original FCC order was to the benefit of companies, not consumers.
I have all along said that I don't dislike the concept of Net Neutrality, but what the FCC actually had was the opposite of that because it bound ISP's in many ways that had nothing to do with equal network access, and also provided a foothold for government dictating how the internet worked.
I would love to support a simple bill that clearly laid out REAL network neutrality - but you can bet you'll never see such a thing from ANY party in DC.
Of course there will be (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. They will be taken to the stocks and placed on public display where citizens will be allowed to throw over-ripened fruit and moldy vegetables at them for a fortnight.
Do you really think there are consequences for repealing a set of rules?
Re: (Score:2)
Public Right-of-way access for ISPs (Score:2)
Does anyone have any insights into ISPs and their access to utility poles after this FCC rule making? From what I can find online, only utilities and communications providers under FCC control can gain access to private land for the purpose of running wires, etc. If ISPs are not utilities and not under the control of the FCC, then can they still demand access to my land? Granted, most of them are also telecommunications or cable TV providers, but can I force them to declare if they are fixing someone tel
Big wish (Score:2)
It could become true - will it?
- the US political system seems to be financed by contributions to the candidates or incumbents to get elected or reelected or - the candidates or incumbents (let's call them "seats" from now on) are independently rich - multi-billionaires - to pull it through on their own.
I financier of a "seat" has a certain interest in a "seat" to get his/her ideas promoted and implemented. A "seat" then is in a bind to go by that line of the financier, or s/he will need to look for other
Consider the regulatory impact (Score:2)
Business is constrained by uncertaintly. So consider this: Even if this doesn't passm the ISPs will hesitate to violate neutrality. It is hard to push forward with a business model that is constantly threatening to be overturned. Imagine offering paid fast lanes today, only to have them made illegal in 3 months by congress, or in 2 years after midterm elections, or in 3 years with a new presidency. It's just a big risk for them to do. They would be better to play it safe and look like good guys.
Healthc
Americans are weird (Score:2, Interesting)
I find it weird Americans are more divided over whether or not to support having health care than they are over whether they're okay with slow Internet connections. They'd rather be dead than have porn that buffers.
Never see the light of day (Score:2)
This bill will be referred to committee and never emerge to see the light of day. I'm guessing it will never come up for discussion by committee either. Shame on you Senator, you know this already, but you don't care.
Ah yes, grandstanding for political appearances.. Go Chucky!
Re: (Score:2)
Most people do not understand what the "Net Neutrality" debate is really about. Videos in this article show MSNBC anchor OWNED by someone who actually knows how this stuff works.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/14/msnbc-anchor-loses-net-neutrality-debate-with-former-fcc-chairman-video/
Well, Net Neutrality is about preventing ISPs (dumb pipe providers) from charging content providers extra to have their content delivered. It's about keeping all traffic prioritized equally and not charging extra for higher priority. It is also about not charging consumers extra for services like social networking or streaming. The idea is that the internet should be completely neutral and open. I am fine with charging more money for higher speed connectivity.
Re: (Score:2)
I support Net Neutrality but the FCC was the wrong place to enact those rules.
Yes, I wondered why this was placed in the hands of the FCC to begin with.
Re: (Score:2)
I support Net Neutrality but the FCC was the wrong place to enact those rules.
Yes, I wondered why this was placed in the hands of the FCC to begin with.
Because the democrats couldn't do it any other way.... Congress wasn't controlled by them and Obama couldn't/wouldn't work with the Republicans on this (or pretty much anything else for that matter).
This is what "I have a phone and a pen" governance by a president looks like....
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good news (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
There needs to be a vote to reinstate Net Neutrality and to never allow another vote/bill to get rid of it ever again.
There's no such thing. Even a Constitutional Amendment can get overridden by another amendment later.
Re:Republicans will vote as a bloc (Score:5, Insightful)
Democrats REALLY want the Federal Government to gain control of the Internet.
I am a progressive. I do not want the government to control the internet, and I sure don't want the corporations with government granted monopolies to control it either.
Here's a thought for you: If you don't want the government to step in here, then pass "One Touch Make Ready" and strike down the laws the telecoms got enacted to prevent cities and counties to establish co-ops for internet. They don't have to allow tv, just internet. That would restore open market freedoms and elemenate the telecom monopolies.
Re:Republicans will vote as a bloc (Score:5, Insightful)
Then it's a good thing that Net Neutrality rules don't put the government in control of the internet.
Re:Republicans will vote as a bloc (Score:5, Insightful)
Even the most rabid libertarian agrees that government is necessary for the common defense. In this case, we need a common defense against corporations. Regulations are necessary to prevent free market abuse, and anyone who thinks zero regulation makes the free market work best doesn't know very much about about history.
Re:Republicans will vote as a bloc (Score:4, Informative)
There is no such thing as a "free market". Free markets do not exist in nature. Markets are only created where there is sufficient government.
Re:Republicans will vote as a bloc (Score:5, Interesting)
And the only "free market" is one that is open for buyers and sellers to freely enter to exchange money for goods and services. The only way to maintain openness is through a set of rules that are constantly and evenly enforced. There's a term for consistent and evenly enforced rules.
Regulation.
Re:Republicans will vote as a bloc (Score:4, Informative)
No, they don't. There is nothing in net neutrality rules that would affect who or what can connect to the internet. Once again, I guess I have to post a simple, straightforward definition of net neutrality:
https://www.eff.org/issues/net... [eff.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Do people not remember the origin of "The Internet"? It started as a Defense Project to ensure communications in the event of a nuclear war... They opened it up to universities, and then to the public. Back then they did a fairly decent job of being hand-off. It wasn't until they turned over to private corps, that it started to go downhill.
Re: From whence came the Internet ... (Score:5, Informative)
IMightB inquired:
Do people not remember the origin of "The Internet"? It started as a Defense Project to ensure communications in the event of a nuclear war... They opened it up to universities, and then to the public. Back then they did a fairly decent job of being hand-off. It wasn't until they turned over to private corps, that it started to go downhill.
As it turns out, that's a common belief - and it's wrong.
While it's true that a 1962 RAND Corporation white paper [rand.org] authored by Paul Baran theorized that a packet-switched data network could allow military communications to survive a general nuclear war, that was entirely a thought experiment. The Department of Defense filed it away and largely forgot about it.
It wasn't until 1965, after accepting a position at DARPA, that an electrical engineer named Robert W. Taylor first got the idea for what would eventually become first the DARPAnet, then the ARPAnet, and finally the Internet.
As a condition of the DARPA grants that helped fund their experiments, research teams at three different major research centers were required to install remote terminals at DARPA for their - entirely separate and self-contained - multi-user mainframe systems. These were the first computers to operate interactively, rather than in what mainframers call "batch mode", and support multiple, concurrent user sessions via dumb terminals with line printers as their "displays". One of Taylor's assignments was to monitor and liase with the scientists who built and ran this trio of individual experimental systems, and he quickly noticed that something very like what we would think of as newsgroups spontaneously appeared on all three systems. (That is to say that computer scientists who had accounts on all three, separate, not interconnected in any way systems had each decided that something very much like a computer BBS or Usenet-style messaging system would be a useful addition, and had - again, independently - hacked such a tool together for the users of each of these systems to communicate with each other in a way that had some degree of persistence and which was accessible to the entire user community of that particular machine.)
The fact that users on each system had more-or-less-simultaneously decided such a tool was desireable, and had developed code to create it - and we're talking three different sets of code here - without ever communicating with the other two teams greatly interested and excited Taylor. He immediately wondered what would happen if all three systems were physically connected together in a way that would allow their users to communicate not only with each other, but with users on the other two systems, as well. He took that idea to his supervisor, one Charles Herzfeld, who thought it might have merit. Herszfeld asked Taylor to draw up a formal proposal, and committed, sight unseen, to fund it to the tune of a million dollars (which was real money in 1965).
So Taylor wrote a proposal, and with a million bucks to spend on it approached the managers of the three, separate multiuser systems with his idea to interconnect their systems. All three turned him down flat.
Robert W. Taylor was from Texas, where they grow 'em stubborn, so he persisted in pitching his idea to the three managers of different, multiuser mainframe systems, despite their continued objections that each saw no merit in his proposal, and each considered it a potentially major distraction from the purposes for which each of their disparate systems had been created. Eventually, over the course of time, he wore them down to the point where he got two of them to agree to at least test the idea. It took nearly two years from then before all the ducks were duly aligned, the necessary equipment designed and built, and the long-distance, dedicated telephone lines contracted for.
At 22:30 hours on October 29, 1969, the first two nodes of what was dub
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Republicans will vote as a bloc (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The fact of the matter is that if all the money and time spent on NN was instead spent on the one touch make ready stuff and eliminating municipal exclusivity agreements you would have laws that bypassed the need for NN entirely.
Re: (Score:2)