Move over FCC guidelines, new bill moves to make Net Neutrality a Law

[rcmaehl]

Sources:

Reuters
Techcrunch

 

TL;DR:
Instead of changeable guidelines and policies set forth by the FCC, a new bill is pushing to make Net Neutrality a law.

 

Media:

 

Quotes/Excerpts:

Quote

Congress may soon vote on a new bill that would set net neutrality down as a matter of law rather than a set of rules to be changed... The “21st Century Internet Act,”... would ban blocking, throttling, paid prioritization, and eliminates all questions of jurisdiction... The bill, would modify the Communications Act of 1934... and add a new “Title VIII” full of stipulations specific to internet providers. This would settle the decades-long dispute over whether internet access is an “information service” or a “telecommunications service,”... the act just codifies the rules as law and sets the FCC as the official watchdog... net neutrality would be the law and it would unequivocally be the Commission’s job to enforce it. his catch-all rule says an ISP “may not unreasonably interfere with or disadvantage” users or edge providers from accessing or providing lawful content and services.

Quote

an uphill battle to try to force a vote to restore net neutrality rules that were overturned by the Trump administration...The net neutrality rules expired on June 11, handing sweeping new powers to internet providers to block, throttle or offer paid “fast lanes” for web traffic... The Federal Communications Commission repealed the open internet rules in December by a 3-2 vote, sparking a firestorm of criticism..

The bill would ensure “no throttling, no blocking, no paid prioritization and oversight of interconnection” rules between internet providers and backbone transit providers, his office said in a statement. It would also bar the FCC from setting rates for internet service. Opinion polls show overwhelming public support for net neutrality... the issue will help motivate younger people to vote in congressional elections this November...

 

My Opinion:

About darn time. No matter what polictical party you belong to, you should definitely be supporting this bill. My only concern is that this might become another SOPA/PIPA/CISPA like other bills have become. 

[TigerHawk]

Holy crap yes please do this. I'm Canadian but if this shit gets put into law in the US, we'll follow suit. We always do.

[rcmaehl]

3 minutes ago, huilun02 said:

Not this stupid back and forth clown show again

The only Clowns here are the FCC and Pai.

[GoldenLag]

This should have been a thing the second net neutrality went out of effect....

[Jito463]

1 hour ago, rcmaehl said:

The net neutrality rules expired on June 11, handing sweeping new powers to internet providers

Why is this still being propagated?  There's a reason these "news" sources are constantly referred to as fake news (and it didn't just start with Trump).  There was no "sweeping new powers" granted to anyone, it just restored the same exact rules that were in affect prior to 2013.  The internet didn't die before 2013, and it didn't implode after NN was reversed.  All this nay-saying and hand-wringing just serves to make them look ridiculous.

 

As to the topic: frankly, this is why I'm glad that the FCC reversed NN.  If it's needed (and I'm not entirely convinced it is), then it should be done through Congress instead of a 5-man panel of unelected bureaucrats.

[Commodus]

10 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

Why is this still being propagated?  There's a reason these "news" sources are constantly referred to as fake news (and it didn't just start with Trump).  There was no "sweeping new powers" granted to anyone, it just restored the same exact rules that were in affect prior to 2013.  The internet didn't die before 2013, and it didn't implode after NN was reversed.  All this nay-saying and hand-wringing just serves to make them look ridiculous.

 

As to the topic: frankly, this is why I'm glad that the FCC reversed NN.  If it's needed (and I'm not entirely convinced it is), then it should be done through Congress instead of a 5-man panel of unelected bureaucrats.

Please don't just regurgitate Pai's talking points.

 

There are multiple demonstrable instances of violations that happened before the Obama-era FCC codified net neutrality.  AT&T made Apple block Skype.  MetroPCS blocked streaming video outside of YouTube.  Verizon blocked tethering apps.  And of course, Comcast blocked peer-to-peer apps.  That's not including gray area practices like making Netflix sign peering agreements to avoid being throttled by ISPs.

 

The internet didn't die, but there was obvious abuse of the lack of regulation.  Net neutrality is needed, and you will throw your full support behind this bill if you actually value an open internet.

[Christophe Corazza]

I see that someone has been tossing money at politicians at greater quantity than someone else. 

[Stefan Payne]

1 hour ago, rcmaehl said:

Instead of changeable guidelines and policies set forth by the FCC, a new bill is pushing to make Net Neutrality a law.

And that is how it should have been done in the first place...

The FCC isn't really the right place to do that.

[Brooksie359]

10 minutes ago, Commodus said:

Please don't just regurgitate Pai's talking points.

 

There are multiple demonstrable instances of violations that happened before the Obama-era FCC codified net neutrality.  AT&T made Apple block Skype.  MetroPCS blocked streaming video outside of YouTube.  Verizon blocked tethering apps.  And of course, Comcast blocked peer-to-peer apps.  That's not including gray area practices like making Netflix sign peering agreements to avoid being throttled by ISPs.

 

The internet didn't die, but there was obvious abuse of the lack of regulation.  Net neutrality is needed, and you will throw your full support behind this bill if you actually value an open internet.

Yeah the days when they throttled Netflix and riot games if they didn't pay them money. It's kind of ridiculous that people don't realize the abuse that happened before net neutrality. 

[Brooksie359]

1 hour ago, huilun02 said:

And 'powerless' citizens who don't take charge of their country

How do you figure? The only way people can do anything is by pressuring their lawmakers to act. It seems that has happened already. Even that is hard with all the money and lobbyist that sway them in the opposite direction. 

[Unhelpful]

1 hour ago, huilun02 said:

And 'powerless' citizens who don't take charge of their country

This is a representative government... This is how changes happen.

[Jito463]

1 hour ago, Commodus said:

Please don't just regurgitate Pai's talking points.

I'm not.  I never even read any of his comments.  That's my own opinion based on my own personal observations.

1 hour ago, Commodus said:

The internet didn't die, but there was obvious abuse of the lack of regulation.

My point has always been that it should never have been left in the hands of unelected bureaucrats, as I again repeated in my comment above.

1 hour ago, Commodus said:

Net neutrality is needed, and you will throw your full support behind this bill if you actually value an open internet.

Depends on what kind of crap gets appended to this bill, and how it's written.  I won't support a badly written bill or one with attachments to it that have nothing to do with the original bill, and only serve to do harm (as has happened on many, many other bills).

[Stefan Payne]

2 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

Yeah the days when they throttled Netflix and riot games if they didn't pay them money. It's kind of ridiculous that people don't realize the abuse that happened before net neutrality. 

THAT should have been a case for the FTC!

And that is the main Problem, that the FTC doesn't do shit these days. 

 

 

2 hours ago, Commodus said:

Please don't just regurgitate Pai's talking points.

 

There are multiple demonstrable instances of violations that happened before the Obama-era FCC codified net neutrality.  AT&T made Apple block Skype.  MetroPCS blocked streaming video outside of YouTube.  Verizon blocked tethering apps.  And of course, Comcast blocked peer-to-peer apps.  That's not including gray area practices like making Netflix sign peering agreements to avoid being throttled by ISPs.

 

The internet didn't die, but there was obvious abuse of the lack of regulation.  Net neutrality is needed, and you will throw your full support behind this bill if you actually value an open internet.

No, the Problem is that the instances that are already there just don't do shit.

You have the FTC that should have protected you from this stuff.

 

 

There was never a need for "Net Neutrality" in the FCC, there was a need for the institution you already have to act/do something. But they didn't.

 

THAT was/is the Problem, that they don't keep up with Technology...

 

[Brooksie359]

50 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

THAT should have been a case for the FTC!

And that is the main Problem, that the FTC doesn't do shit these days. 

 

 

No, the Problem is that the instances that are already there just don't do shit.

You have the FTC that should have protected you from this stuff.

 

 

There was never a need for "Net Neutrality" in the FCC, there was a need for the institution you already have to act/do something. But they didn't.

 

THAT was/is the Problem, that they don't keep up with Technology...

 

I don't believe the FCC can do anything if they were to do the same thing again. What could they get them for now that there are no restrictions against it? I don't quite remember what stopped them before but that was repealed with the net neutrality if I remember correctly.  

[rcmaehl]

7 hours ago, Jito463 said:

 I won't support a badly written bill or one with attachments to it that have nothing to do with the original bill

Yep, hoping this doesn't become another SOPA or Article 11/13

[Trik'Stari]

If any one of them wants to get re-elected, they'd better jump onboard.

 

 

Or we truly are living in the Idiocracy universe.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, Trik'Stari said:

If any one of them wants to get re-elected, they'd better jump onboard.

 

 

Or we truly are living in the Idiocracy universe.

Long live Camacho!

[vorticalbox]

14 hours ago, huilun02 said:

And 'powerless' citizens who don't take charge of their country

I guess you missed the part where everyone lost their shit because of the change then. All the protests, movements, petitions most of which were fuelled by the public.

 

People may be placid and bend over a take it but it doesn't take much to annoy the collective and make PRs life very hard very quickly.

[mr moose]

I don't see the point in making new laws if you are only going to have people like ajit enforce them. 

 

"yes, we agree Comcast should not be throttling your connection,  but becasue you didn't pay us $225 for the complaint and a $50 service fee plus the $35 for the remittance advice we can't officially tell them to stop".

[Doobeedoo]

Well oh shit. 

[Stefan Payne]

Why are you so hellbent on focussing on the FCC, when its the job of the FTC to wake up and do something?!

 

 

The Example above is something for the FTC and pretty anti competitive behavior...

[leadeater]

17 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

Why are you so hellbent on focussing on the FCC, when its the job of the FTC to wake up and do something?!

 

 

The Example above is something for the FTC and pretty anti competitive behavior...

ISPs in a general sense fall under both, FCC for how they operate their services and FTC for how the operate their business and compete in the market. If people want faster internet access and cheaper prices look to the FTC, if people want to ensure their internet access is operated in a fair way for all data traffic and no undue restrictions are put in place for how you can use it then that's the FCC.

 

There's never actually a question as to whether or not internet access is a communication service it's just that there hasn't been a clear ruling, a long lasting one, as to what type of communication service it is. It's one of the dumbest things to get stuck over, if it's a such a problem to figure out what it is then make a new category that properly fits what it is so the debate ends, like is what is being proposed here.

[mr moose]

16 hours ago, leadeater said:

. It's one of the dumbest things to get stuck over,

right next to supplements, which are neither a food nor a drug so the FDA has no jurisdiction and supplement companies can sell snake oil again.

[Soonercoop]

My primary concern with this is that it is not likely to be implemented in a way that is really beneficial to consumers. We are inviting the federal government to regulate something that should be left to the states imo. What we really need is incentives for isps to upgrade their infrastructure. People complain about 10 Mbps being an unrealisticallly low broadband standard and yet in large swathes of the country (including where I'm from, a city of 140,000) 10 Mbps down is the maximum speed even businesses can buy at all. My company is paying $1,500/month for a 15/5 Mbps line and that's literally the best we can get because there are no other providers available. That's not even a business package level btw, those are more like $3500/month. People can keep talking about "net neutrality" as a blanket for regulation like it's the life or death of internet usage, but the fact is that the infrastructure and lack of competition is the problem that really needs to be addressed.