Instead we should revisit the Communications Act of 1934 and rethink the classification structure in the digital age. 1996 didn't do enough, in my opinion.
Disappointing -- the text of the legislation is just "hey, take it back! Also, no double-backsies".
Having a comprehensive revisiting that directly addresses the needs and requirements for large-scale packet-switched networks rather than bolting it on to legislation aimed at switched networks would make it a lot clearer. The original rule that the FCC removed had a ton of exceptions, "ignore this because it doesn't apply" and had to shoehorn a lot of other definitions.
It would be good for Congress to explicitly lay out what the FCC's responsibilities in this area are (or to allow the FTC to enforce instead, since that was largely okay except for the regulatory scope problems).
Because Republicans have given up all pretenses of governing based on the will of the people and now openly strive to protect their own power and wealth forever at all costs.
I think treating the internet connection as a casual "product" is irresponsible and outright wrong. It provides access to education, news, communication, and entertainment. I mean when Russia blocked LinkedIn the response was that authoritarian government is limiting its citizens freedom but when American businesses are throttling firefighters connection it's a healthy competition... "Verizon admitted that the throttling of first responders was in violation of Verizon’s own policies, but in a statement to Motherboard denied that the fracas had anything to do with net neutrality. " Yes it does.
No, it doesn't. Net neutrality is the idea that all content should be treated identically. The idea that you should have unlimited data, or that data should be billed monthly, or any of these other things that are nice are not the same.
An easy way to picture it is common carrier. The postal service does not ask what you are sending. It asks you how big it is. It charges you based on when it needs to arrive. There is no mention of the contents - a dimensional pound of feathers and a dimensional pound of lead cost the same to ship Express Post. Net Neutrality is the expansion of the same idea to the internet - that Spotify, Netflix, my cat blog, and Hacker News cost the same, and are charged the same, per "standard reliability" kilobyte.
Good. It'll pass the House and then the Senate is forced to vote on it. It's necessary to get Republicans' positions on issues on the record so that voters can see just how reprehensible they are.
I don't really see this affecting much in the way of reputation. NN stopped being about the actual policy once it went mainstream and is now entirely tribal signaling. Nobody outside of a tiny tiny group of policymakers and a few ISP level network engineers can claim to really actually understand RIFA.
Anyone who is arguing that eliminating NN is reprehensible and not "I understand the positions of the stakeholders and the current FCC administration's policy goals but disagree that the bill will have the desired effect because..." isn't really helping anything.
Please, we can do better than this. Read the actual text and disagree with it on its merit, not because the people involved are evil.
Really? If you asked the average person about how the repeal of NN has effected them, you'd probably just get a blank stare. For 99% of people, the repeal of NN has not affected them in any tangible way.
> Good. It'll pass the House and then the Senate is forced to vote on it
How is the Senate forced to vote on it? McConnell seems to be fond of blocking votes that go against the Republican agenda. See: the shutdown. Also the anti-corruption and voting rights bill that passed the House will not be brought up for a vote in the Senate. Is there something about this bill that forces the Senate to vote on it?
Passing a bill in the house doesn't have much of a forcing function on getting a bill voted upon in the Senate. I doubt McConnell will bring it up for a vote. It's perhaps possible to attach it to some must pass legislation, in committee, but I'm doubtful.
[+] [-] cjslep|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andrewla|7 years ago|reply
Having a comprehensive revisiting that directly addresses the needs and requirements for large-scale packet-switched networks rather than bolting it on to legislation aimed at switched networks would make it a lot clearer. The original rule that the FCC removed had a ton of exceptions, "ignore this because it doesn't apply" and had to shoehorn a lot of other definitions.
It would be good for Congress to explicitly lay out what the FCC's responsibilities in this area are (or to allow the FTC to enforce instead, since that was largely okay except for the regulatory scope problems).
[+] [-] hnruss|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rc_kas|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dgzl|7 years ago|reply
Do you have sources? I personally believe in the free market, and think fast lanes are beneficial for customers.
[+] [-] hannasanarion|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] creaghpatr|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Cicada2026|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] freeone3000|7 years ago|reply
An easy way to picture it is common carrier. The postal service does not ask what you are sending. It asks you how big it is. It charges you based on when it needs to arrive. There is no mention of the contents - a dimensional pound of feathers and a dimensional pound of lead cost the same to ship Express Post. Net Neutrality is the expansion of the same idea to the internet - that Spotify, Netflix, my cat blog, and Hacker News cost the same, and are charged the same, per "standard reliability" kilobyte.
[+] [-] psychometry|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Spivak|7 years ago|reply
Anyone who is arguing that eliminating NN is reprehensible and not "I understand the positions of the stakeholders and the current FCC administration's policy goals but disagree that the bill will have the desired effect because..." isn't really helping anything.
Please, we can do better than this. Read the actual text and disagree with it on its merit, not because the people involved are evil.
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-347927A1.pdf
[+] [-] vondur|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hanging|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ModernMech|7 years ago|reply
How is the Senate forced to vote on it? McConnell seems to be fond of blocking votes that go against the Republican agenda. See: the shutdown. Also the anti-corruption and voting rights bill that passed the House will not be brought up for a vote in the Senate. Is there something about this bill that forces the Senate to vote on it?
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] anarazel|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hanging|7 years ago|reply