Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Government The Internet Communications Network Republicans United States

FCC To Officially Rescind Net Neutrality Rules On Thursday (reuters.com) 124

Posted by BeauHD from the one-step-forward-two-steps-back dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: The U.S. Federal Communications Commission is expected to publish on Thursday its December order overturning the landmark Obama-era net neutrality rules, two sources briefed on the matter said Tuesday. The formal publication in the Federal Register, a government website, means state attorneys general and advocacy groups will be able to sue in a bid to block the order from taking effect. The Republican-led FCC in December voted 3-2 to overturn rules barring service providers from blocking, slowing access to or charging more for certain content. The White House Office of Management and Budget still must sign off on some aspects of the FCC reversal before it takes legal effect. Congressional aides say the publication will trigger a 60-legislative-day deadline for Congress to vote on whether to overturn the decision. U.S. Senate Democrats said in January they had the backing of 50 members of the 100-person chamber for repeal, leaving them just one vote short of a majority. The December FCC order will be made public on Wednesday and formally published on Thursday, the sources said.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FCC To Officially Rescind Net Neutrality Rules On Thursday More

FCC To Officially Rescind Net Neutrality Rules On Thursday

Comments Filter:

  • More evidence that there are real differences (Score:4, Informative)

    by JoshuaZ ( 1134087 ) on Wednesday February 21, 2018 @08:07AM (#56162785) Homepage
    This should be more evidence that there are real and substantial differences between the Democratic and Republican parties. Yes, there are a small number of Democrat senators who aren't in favor of net neutrality, and there are a small number of Republican senators who are in favor, but the vast majority of each group have taken positions exactly as expected. There are real differences between the major political parties.

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by drinkypoo ( 153816 )

      There are real differences between the major political parties.

      There are, but they are implementation differences, not necessarily moral ones.

      • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
        Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by fyngyrz ( 762201 )

          There's some truth to that, but the real question is which party will MAGA?

          Neither one. They're both engaged in screwing it up for most people. Not for themselves, of course.

          There are definitely differences, though. The Democrats (at present) aren't as utterly corrupt as the Republicans. I suspect that'll turn around with the next pendulum swing. Because American voters just can't seem to wrap their heads around the idea that putting the rich in power will not result in a generally favorable outcome for eve

      • The implementation is the only thing that matters, that is what people are going to be dealing with on a day to day basis. What the politicians say is all posturing, if you want to make an intelligent decision about who to support look at their history of action.
    • Yeah, the main difference is that the Dems lie out of the left side of their mouth and steal from your left pocket and the Repubs lie out of the right side of their mouth and steal from your right pocket. Woo Wee bigg diff...

      • so, BSAB argument?

        maybe you'd like to engage in some whataboutism?

        (no, both sides are NOT identically bad; and in this situation and mahy others where its business vs people, the R's clearly favor the rich business and care NOTHING for the common man. NOTHING. and their base of poor flyover states eat it up, in some kind of absurd opposite-think; afterall, anyone poor in a flyover is just 'temporarily poor' and they fully think they have every chance to be rich like their idols, though it will never happe

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Gr8Apes ( 679165 )

          ... and their base of poor flyover states eat it up, in some kind of absurd opposite-think; afterall, anyone poor in a flyover is just 'temporarily poor' and they fully think they have every chance to be rich like their idols, though it will never happen)

          I think a large part of their base in poor flyover states are of the mind-set "If I can't have any, neither can anyone else" but are too stupid to realize they're creating a new aristocracy, and that has obviously always ended well (ie, never).

      • Actually, the real difference is that the Republicans steal as a unified organization (or sub-organization, as in the Tea Party coalition), whereas the Democrats steal as individual entrepreneurs.

    • Sorry, it's theater. They have the same donors, and the only difference is the Kabuki choreography.

      Don't forget: Obama appointed Pai to the FCC. Obama's FCC chairperson was for "fast lanes" before they reversed position due to public outcry.

      Big Telecom knew that they were getting this eventually. The script was written a long time ago.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by nmb3000 ( 741169 )

        Obama appointed Pai to the FCC.

        Obama was required to appoint a republican since the law requires the commission to have a 3-2 split between the parties. Guess who recommended Pai to Obama? Oh yeah, Mitch McConnell.

        Obama's FCC chairperson was for "fast lanes" before they reversed position due to public outcry.

        Tom Wheeler may have come into the FCC with some preconceived opinions and bias, like anyone would, but he quickly revised his stance as he learned the facts. This is what separates a rational, thinking person from a mindless party hack like Pai. Frankly, Tom Wheeler was one of the best commissioners the FCC has ever had, a

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Gr8Apes ( 679165 )

        Sorry, it's theater. They have the same donors...

        So Soros is donating to Republicans and Koch Bros are donating to Democrats?

        Don't forget: Obama appointed Pai to the FCC

        Under the advisement of Mitch McConnell, who happened to have control of the Senate and would have obstructed any pick he didn't present (yes, the party of NO). But Pai's ass-hattery didn't come to the fore until Trump put him in charge as the chairman.

      • Don't forget: Obama appointed Pai to the FCC.

        Obama was required to appoint a Republican, and in doing so followed established tradition of going with the recommendation of the opposition party's Senate leader.

        Obama's FCC chairperson was for "fast lanes" before they reversed position due to public outcry.

        In other words, Wheeler was responsive to the electorate whereas Trump's Chair Pai was not. This is a point where one party was CLEARLY better than the other.

    • This should be more evidence that there are real and substantial differences between the Democratic and Republican parties. Yes, there are a small number of Democrat senators who aren't in favor of net neutrality, and there are a small number of Republican senators who are in favor, but the vast majority of each group have taken positions exactly as expected. There are real differences between the major political parties.

      As a Canadian, our government is in favor of Net Neutrality, and our ISPs will be looking to bypass traffic originating from the USA that has indications of favouritism

  • Missed it by thaa-at much (Score:4, Informative)

    by rmdingler ( 1955220 ) on Wednesday February 21, 2018 @08:15AM (#56162801) Journal

    Even though a Presidential veto and a Republican-dominated House would stand in the way of a 51 vote Senate rejection, the "one vote shy" premise is heartening on the surface... unless you consider these claims don't get held to any scrutiny.

    The Democrats are saying, "Look we are trying!" while accepting campaign contributions [theverge.com] as fast as the Republicans from ISPs.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by thomst ( 1640045 )

      rmdingler snorted:

      The Democrats are saying, "Look we are trying!" while accepting campaign contributions [theverge.com] as fast as the Republicans from ISPs.

      As legendary former Speaker of the California House Jesse Unruh [wikipedia.org] famously observed:

      If you can't eat their food, drink their booze, screw their women, take their money, and then vote against them, you've got no business being up here.

      (Unruh was talking about the California legislature - but the qualification is equally applicable at the national level. Perhap moreso ... )

      • thomst thoughtfully proffered:

        As legendary former Speaker of the California House Jesse Unruh [wikipedia.org] famously observed:

        "If you can't eat their food, drink their booze, screw their women, take their money, and then vote against them, you've got no business being up here."

        (Unruh was talking about the California legislature - but the qualification is equally applicable at the national level. Perhap moreso ... )

        We need more politicians like that in Congress and posters like you on /..

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by thomst ( 1640045 )

          I pointed out:

          As legendary former Speaker of the California House Jesse Unruh [wikipedia.org] famously observed:

          "If you can't eat their food, drink their booze, screw their women, take their money, and then vote against them, you've got no business being up here."

          (Unruh was talking about the California legislature - but the qualification is equally applicable at the national level. Perhap moreso ... )

          To which mdingler responded:

          We need more politicians like that in Congress and posters like you on /..

          I obviously agree with your first point - and I am flattered by your second.

          Thank you, sir ...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by pots ( 5047349 )
      Your link just gives numbers for each congressman individually. You're telling me that you expect me to add all of those up to see which party receives more contributions from ISPs? It's Republicans [opensecrets.org]. Who gives them money is a pretty trivial bit of information compared to what they actually do though - the congressional record is very clear that Republicans heavily favor eliminating net neutrality and Democrats are trying to preserve it.

      I would like to know why though, this didn't used to be a partisan is
      • In the current political climate, spinning this as a core Republican position might be as simple as saying, over and over again,

        "The Democrats are for it."

    • It's easy to get votes for something when the politician knows there is zero chance that vote is going to actually do anything. Witness the attempts to repeal the ACA. If they actually got across 51 some of those votes would likely evaporate. If the House and presidency flipped some of those votes would certainly disappear.
  • We've lost, right?

  • It's Official! (Score:3)

    by kenh ( 9056 ) on Wednesday February 21, 2018 @08:51AM (#56162925) Homepage Journal

    It's the End of Days, queue Mass Hysteria [youtube.com] - we'll look back on these days wistfully, with a tear in our eyes for the liberties lost when the FCC stopped it's nearly thousand day watch over a briefly Neutral Net...

    • No need to wait that long.

      I'm already crying because of the results of the last fuck up the FCC made several years ago, radio station consolidations.

      At the time, I didn't have an opinion one way or another, but the quality and the diversity of content has only gone downhill since then. And now, in our pay-to-play world, the music we hear on the radio is just one massive advertisement that plays over and over again until we're brainwashed into liking it.

      • Did it work, though? I can't remember the last time I heard someone listening to music on broadcast radio. Just sports games. For music everybody streams on their phones these days. I suppose the consolidation in broadcast television will be even worse, though...

        • Maybe for you, but for me, I drive a lot and my internet is not truly unlimited, and I can't afford satellite radio.

          • My old 2007 car had an aux in, I'd play stuff off my phone's storage rather than stream most of the time. The '96 I drove before that I had to use a FM adapter to play my MP3 player on the cars speakers. Worked better than a tape deck adapter anyhow. Newer cars have Bluetooth or USB ports, you can play a flash drive.

  • One more thing to fix... (Score:3)

    by Gravis Zero ( 934156 ) on Wednesday February 21, 2018 @09:03AM (#56162971)

    after the "blue wave" takes control of Congress. The weird part is that net neutrality is good for everyone and everyone wants it (except ISPs).

    • The weird part is that net neutrality is good for everyone and everyone wants it (except ISPs).

      That's true but everyone other than ISPs profits from it indirectly whereas ISPs have a direct incentive to kill net neutrality. Direct incentives almost always seem to win out over indirect ones at least in the short term because those with direct incentives are willing to fight harder for them. Google probably benefits from net neutrality but the benefits are hard to point to on a profit and loss statement so it's harder to get them to fight for it.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      NN rules are great for protecting paper insulted wireline monopoly networks.
      With networks finally released from federal rules, more innovative local networks can finally be considered.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The weird part is that net neutrality is good for everyone and everyone wants it (except ISPs).

      Almost everyone wants something called Net Neutrality but very few people actually have any idea what the FCC decision did. Whatever neutral internet you wish for, it didn't provide. The main thing it did was implement rules and regulations about how all ISPs will have to provide information to the federal government. There were a few vague things about price controls and service limits, but the majority of it was about sanctioning ISP monopolies and explicitly stating their debts to the federal governme

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      after the "blue wave" takes control of Congress. The weird part is that net neutrality is good for everyone and everyone wants it (except ISPs).

      Except that there are too many CRUMBS getting in the way of that.

      People like their CRUMBS, despite candy-assed whining from arrogant asshole "progressives".

      Making America Great Again - one CRUMB at a time.

      Ooooh, the fact that HURTS you is music to my ears. How one year of Trump lays bare eight years of "progressive" Obama "recovery" failure.

  • That's fine (Score:3)

    by lexman098 ( 1983842 ) on Wednesday February 21, 2018 @10:00AM (#56163255)
    If the Trump admin can rescind the rules this quickly, the next Dem administration can just put them back.
  • will this change how anyone votes in the mid terms (or in any other election for that matter)? And change doesn't just mean "I'm not voting for so and so" it also means "I'm going to show up at the polls this year".
  • Another sad day for democracy, if you can call it that, a political system which is bought and paid for is hardly democratic.
  • What many don't realize is that two companies have not only taken over or driven out of business the majority of Internet Service Provider Companies (ISPs) but have quietly purchased control of the companies that maintain the internet backbone.

    The trend is a bit disturbing and it would be easy to start looking for a plot for world domination akin to a comic book plot. But, there is no need for an evil plot when greed, avarice, and apathy can achieve the same results.

    Net neutrality predates Obama

Slashdot Top Deals

If it wasn't for Newton, we wouldn't have to eat bruised apples.

Close