Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Communications United States Your Rights Online

New Net Neutrality Bill Headed To Congress (theverge.com) 125

Posted by msmash from the tussle-continues dept.
Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) said today he would "soon" introduce a bill to permanently reinstate the net neutrality rules that were repealed by the Federal Communications Commission, led by chairman Ajit Pai, in 2017. From a report: Markey's announcement comes as a federal court is set to hear oral arguments over the FCC's repeal of net neutrality regulations in 2017. Markey, who is a member of the Senate Commerce Committee, has previously introduced a bill that would permanently reinstate net neutrality as a member of the House of Representatives, although the measure ultimately failed.

It's unclear when the bill would be formally introduced, but Markey said it was imminent. "We will soon lay down a legislative marker in the Senate in support of net neutrality to show the American people that we are on their side in overwhelming supporting a free and open internet." Further reading: Net Neutrality Repeal at Stake as Key Court Case Starts: Oral arguments are set to begin Friday in the most prominent lawsuit challenging the federal government's repeal of broadband access rules known as net neutrality. The Federal Communications Commission approved the rules in 2015 to ensure internet users equal and open access to all websites and services. The commission, under new leadership, rolled the rules back in 2017. The plaintiffs in the suit to be argued Friday, led by the internet company Mozilla and supported by 22 state attorneys general, say the commission lacked a sound legal reason for scrapping the regulations. The government is expected to argue that the rules were repealed because of the burden they imposed on broadband providers like Verizon and Comcast.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Net Neutrality Bill Headed To Congress More

New Net Neutrality Bill Headed To Congress

Comments Filter:

  • Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)

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

  • Net Neutrality is a red herring (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Friday February 01, 2019 @03:58PM (#58056660)
    Would it solve the problem of Comcast throttling Netflix unless Netflix paid their extortion fee? Yes it would. But that problem is actually a just a symptom of a greater problem.

    The real problem is that there's next to no competition among ISPs. If there were competition and Comcast throttled Netflix as a ploy to extort money from Netflix, Comcast customers who watched Netflix would simply cancel and sign up with a competing ISP. Comcast would be slitting their own throats with such a bone-headed move. We wouldn't need Net Neutrality. The only reason they have the gall to throttle Netflix, the only reason Net Neutrality helps, is because they have a monopoly or near-monopoly in most areas. They know their customers cannot flee to a different ISP, so they're free to do things which intentionally degrades the quality of the service their customers receive.

    Why do Comcast, Verizon, et al have near-monopolies? Because the local goverments gave it to them. Often in exchange for service guarantees (e.g. to cover low-income areas) or financial kickbacks. The governments like it because it gives them control over the telecoms (who happily make campaign donations to retain their monopoly). The telecoms like it because the government gives them a monopoly so they can over-charge their customers (more than enough to offset the cost of they campaign contributions they have to make to maintain this arrangement). That is the real problem that needs to be fixed. Not only does it cause the problems Net Neutrality aims to fix, it causes a host of other problems like excessively high prices, excessively low data caps, poor repair service times, incentive money being spent on executive bonuses instead of improving the network, etc.

    Net Neutrality is the politicians' way to have their cake and eat it too. They can pretend to be on the customers' side by striking a blow against the big, bad cable monopolies. But since the monopolies are government-granted, they retain control over those monopolies so the telecom companies continue to give campaign contributions to them. It just cements in place this terrible monopoly ISP system we have in place, by taking one of the biggest customer complaints off the table.

    If you want to fix this, just rescind the government-granted monopolies. You don't even need national legislation to do this. Just elect people to your city or county government in favor of allowing multiple cable companies to compete in your area. Then it can't be countered just because some bozo gets appointed head of the FCC.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by HornWumpus ( 783565 )

      Netflix wanted free rackspace at the ISPs.

      The ISPs said, No, you pay like everybody else. That or you stream HTML5 video and we can cache for you.

      Netflix hired publicists instead. How you heard about it.

      Also note how Netflix has changed their backbone provider several times. Netflix having so much traffic it breaks the peering agreements for their ISP. They've burned all the low bidders and will soon be paying for their traffic by spreading it around. That's not anybodies problem but Netflix and thei

    • ^^^^^ What this guy said.
    • exactly right.
      We either de-monopolize and allow real competition, OR allow local govs to create a utility with fiber that competes. However, all local gov efforts should not be done as a monopoly, but, as running fiber to the buildings and then allow various service companies to then offer up services over the fiber.

      • A great idea, but there aren't too many companies or local governments with a few hundred million spare dollars for building out their own fiber networks in a major metro area.

        One of the richest corporations on the planet tried (Google) and basically gave up.

        I'm personally in favor of the wire operators being declared common carriers regardless of the last mile wire technology, and then having them sell bandwidth to ISPs that can compete for my business based on their price and service offerings. Sell me a

    • Nice sentiment, but you have grossly understated the genesis of ISP monopolies and what it would take to foster competition.
      Saying that the monopolies are government granted is misrepresenting the problem.


      I agree that there are many anti-competitive laws pushed through by kickbacks that lead to court battles and delays such as the Google Fiber rollout [consumerist.com].

      But the problem with monopolies is that they can leverage other monetary streams to lean on smaller competition.
      Fixing a few regulations isn't going t

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Ichijo ( 607641 )

      The governments like it because it gives them control over the telecoms (who happily make campaign donations to retain their monopoly).

      I'm with you so far.

      If you want to fix this, just rescind the government-granted monopolies...Just elect people to your city or county government in favor of allowing multiple cable companies to compete in your area.

      That's not so easy because of campaign donations keeping monopoly-friendly legislators in power.

    • Remember the old adage..."Nobody ever got re-elected by repealing an entitlement."
    • it's just a different issue. There can be more than one problem with the internet. Yes, if there was a massive amount of competition you could just switch to an ISP that supported NN, but given the centralized nature of internet access and how much it costs to build out a network you're more or less stuck with natural monopoies.

      Now, if you want to talk about red herrings, I'd say the real red herring is this notion that Internet should be provided by public companies in the first place. In 2019 it's to

    • ISP owning content is a big issue as well as ATT, Comcast, t mobile, can just may other video services slow or be under small caps.

    • I get what you're saying here and I don't disagree, but I feel you are over simplifying the issue and to some extent the details matter. Now I will caution you that this is a pretty long reply because I'm trying to highlight something here and I hope you catch on. It is important to note that a lot of these ISP monopolies are granted at the local level, not the Federal level. So simply saying:

      If you want to fix this, just rescind the government-granted monopolies

      is implying that you feel we can solved this at the local level. Which again, I don't disagree that we ought to

    • Why do Comcast, Verizon, et al have near-monopolies? Because the local goverments gave it to them.

      Cable companies got exclusive franchises more than 20 years ago. Federal law prohibits this today, and has for more than 20 years. That's longer than any existing franchise agreement. If you know of an existing exclusive franchise, notify DOJ so the perps can be prosecuted.

      ISPs have NEVER, as ISPs, been granted any monopoly status. Perhaps that's why you can usually find another one, if you don't put strict limitations on what you would accept as an ISP. Like cost. Or the specific service medium.

      The governments like it because it gives them control over the telecoms

      The same l

    • Why do Comcast, Verizon, et al have near-monopolies? Because the local goverments gave it to them.

      No, this is thanks to the FCC. There's a provision in the telecommunications act which requires line sharing (instead of the terrible system of redundant infrastructure that you're promoting), but it only applies to telecommunications services and not to information services. So when the FCC finally classified ISPs as telecommunications services, increased competition was one of the many things that we hoped to get out of it. Then the current commissioners were appointed and started reversing everything goo

  • Good (Score:2, Troll)

    by Shotgun ( 30919 )

    Death to the regulatory state.

    The American Federal Legislature has been allowed to shirk their duty for far too long. The plan was that representatives, representing the people and the states, would convene in DC and create the laws that would govern our country. This premise has been almost wholly abandoned, and the power slowly handed over to the Executive branch which is slowly approaching a monarchy.

    I look forward to the representative branch of our government developing a spine and clawing back some

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by gtall ( 79522 )

      "Death to the regulatory state." I see. So airlines should compete on how few of their passengers they kill per year? Or drug companies like Ma and Pa Kettle's Beans and Cancer Drugs should be able to hawk anything they like, competition will stop them if enough of their customers die. Those nice food companies should compete on how few salmonella cases they have per year. Need I go on?

  • If they put back what was there before... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GregMmm ( 5115215 ) on Friday February 01, 2019 @04:03PM (#58056678)

    This is a useless. Ask 10 people what NN is and you will get 10 answers. If the government simply puts back the NN rules as before, then it's broken. This is simply a political ploy. Here is the scenario:

    Dems bring bill to reinstate (makes sound good) NN rules. Reps don't vote for it, and it goes no where (Reps say same reasons for broken NN rule that were there in the first place) Dems rave about how Reps are in it for the big corporations (gee where does all of the money from both of them come from) and they don't want equality. People this is this true because no one has any idea what NN is and if something is good for them or not. Next, Reps will bring out their own. Dems will say it's not good enough and vote it down. And around we go.

    Nothing gets done. By the way, did anyone actually check with some networking experts on these rules they want to implement. With how the original rules were written, that would be no. But if they did, they paid a pretty penny for it.

    • It's a senate bill, Dems are the minority there, good luck getting it up for a vote.

      It's just a Dem Senator wanting to see his name in the paper.

    • so it can be brought up during elections. Not just national ones either, but state ones. The point is to make the GOP the party that opposes Net Neutrality (they are, after all).

      As for how you get folks to understand NN, you don't. All Joe Schmoe needs to know is that NN == Lower Cable Bills. Hammer that point home.

      We're a democracy, and a pretty corrupt one. But it's fixable if we try. I agree it's frustrating we can't just fix something this simple, but the way to do it is not throwing our hands u

      • Which party can understand net neutrality, at least well enough to actually stand in front of a camera and educate their community?

        • and it's a common mistake among the Democrats that facts and fact checking can make a difference. Liz Warren just learned that the hard way when she proved her points about her Native American heritage were factually correct (e.g. she had enough that it wasn't unreasonable for her grandma to tell her that she had some India blood) but got nowhere defusing the "Pocahontas" situation.

          Political debates are won with hope, fear and confidence. For the Dems to make NN an issue (and it would only be the Dems,

    • If the government simply puts back the NN rules as before, then it's broken.

      How were the previous rules broken? The excuse that made the rounds was not that there was any flaw in the rules, but rather that congress should make the rules rather than the FCC. (Never mind that that congress did this albeit indirectly, excuses don't have to make sense.)

      I haven't heard any claim about the previous rules being broken.

  • Almost every single Democrat will vote in favor, almost every single Republican will vote against. May pass house, doomed in senate. American politics is driven entirely by partisan considerations - very few politicians dare to go against their party position. There may be one or two defectors, but that's all. The actual subject of the bill is not important at all.

    • More than that... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Junta ( 36770 ) on Friday February 01, 2019 @04:52PM (#58056950)

      In a scenario where power is split, both parties love to go to town with heavy rhetoric and the bills to back it up, safe in the knowledge that the other party will block it and take the blame. They get to largely throw any semblance of nuance out the window on divisive issues and *appear* to be ready to go all in to get that bill passed. Like a dog chasing a car being very loud.

      Then when the dog catches the car, suddenly things are different. When one of the parties control the legislature and executive branch all that rhetoric can finally go. Well, actually they are not really a fan of those seemingly simplistic perspectives, and suddenly things grind to a halt. We want socialized medicine say the democrats that know they will be vetoed. They get power in congress and the executive branch, things get watered down and Obamacare happens. On the flipside, Republicans with a president that will absolutely veto anything that would threaten obamacare: 'we have passed many bills that would dismantle obamacare'. Republicans win congress and the presidency, 'oh... well, we don't *really* want to repeal it....'

      It's a large cause of the seesaw. The tough reality is that some nuanced approach is generally best but the voters are bored by that so they vote for the energized oversimplistic view that sounds straightforwarde enough.

  • sad. This is just a waste of energy (Score:3)

    by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Friday February 01, 2019 @04:18PM (#58056764) Journal
    Seriously, it would be far better to spend efforts on getting rid of dark money, balancing the budget, taking care of massive student debts, etc.
    THis issue is easily solved by de-monopolizing communication.

    • THis issue is easily solved by de-monopolizing communication.

      How do you do that? I agree that it would be a better solution than regulation, but just describing the end state doesn't say anything about how to get there. NN may be a lighter regulatory framework than that required to create competition.

  • Your telco monopoly likes your spending. Your monopoly telco can keep your network.

    The federal rules get changed back so every federally NN approved telco monopoly can keep their consumers.

    Welcome back to paper insulated wireline and its a permanently regulated NN network.
    No community broadband will be connected as they are not a federal NN approved telco.
    Want to build an network as an ISP? Thats the part when rules that are now permanently in place allow a monopoly telco to request a review of NN

  • Ball-less, supine Congress, which devolves things onto the executive and judicial branches lest they be held accountable, should have done this all along.

    This is independent of whether it is a good idea or not.

Slashdot Top Deals

I've noticed several design suggestions in your code.

Close