Support NeoGAF

kehs · Nov 10, 2011

The US Senate is slated to vote on a repeal of the FCC's controversial net neutrality regulations today, just a few days before they're scheduled to go into effect. Today's vote, like most these days, is expected to be divided along party lines, with most Democrats standing in favor of the rules, and Republicans calling for them to be overturned. Texas Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson, who sponsored the resolution, claims that the FCC's regulations would obstruct innovation and investment by jeopardizing the openness upon which the web has thrived, thus far. "The internet and technology have produced more jobs in this country than just about any other sector," Hutchinson argued. "It has been the cradle of innovation, it does not have a problem, and it does not need fixing." Senate Republicans aren't the only ones taking issue with the rules, either. Both Verizon and MetroPCS have already publicly aired their grievances, with the former filing a formal appeal in late September.

http://www.engadget.com/2011/11/10/senate-to-vote-on-net-neutrality-repeal-today-obama-counters-wi/

The Administration strongly opposes Senate passage of S.J. Res. 6, which would undermine a fundamental part of the Nations Open Internet and innovation strategy an enforceable, effective but flexible policy for keeping the Internet free and open. Today more than ever, the open Internet is essential to job creation, economic growth, and global competitiveness. The United States leads the world in the development of new Internet-based services and applications. An important element of this leadership is that the open Internet enables entrepreneurs to create new services without fear of undue discrimination by network providers. Federal policy has consistently promoted an Internet that is open and facilitates innovation and investment, protects consumer choice, and enables free speech. The rule at issue resulted from a process that brought together parties on all sides of this issue from consumer groups to technology companies to broadband providers to enable their voices to be heard. Notably, the Federal Communications Commissions rule reflected a constructive effort to build a consensus around what safeguards and protections were reasonable and necessary to ensure that the Internet continues to attract investment and to spur innovation. Disapproval of the rule would threaten those values and cast uncertainty over those innovative new businesses that are a critical part of the Nations economic recovery. It would be ill-advised to threaten the very foundations of innovation in the Internet economy and the democratic spirit that has made the Internet a force for social progress around the world.
If the President is presented with S.J. Res. 6, which would not safeguard the free and open Internet, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the Resolution.
* * * * * * *

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/112/sapsjr6s_20111108.pdf

-----------------------

Passed in December of last year:

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db1223/FCC-10-201A1.pdf

The current vote is to repeal it:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.J.RES.6:

Zaptruder · Nov 10, 2011

Jesus shitting christ. How fucked are we going to be once Obama is out of office?

Clevinger · Nov 10, 2011

fucking useless Congress

onken · Nov 10, 2011

I wish there was a party that valued the importance of welfare and social development but rejected this kind of nanny-state bullshit.

Sho_Nuff82 · Nov 10, 2011

Can someone explain to me the two sides of this issue? I haven't been keeping up on internet law.

Fox318 · Nov 10, 2011

Zaptruder said:
Jesus shitting christ. How fucked are we going to be once Obama is out of office?

Congressional power will continue to fuck us in general.

There needs to be term limits in the House and Senate.

The Technomancer · Nov 10, 2011

claims that the FCC's regulations would obstruct innovation and investment by jeopardizing the openness upon which the web has thrived

So anti-regulation-GAF, does that stance extend even to regulations designed to promote net neutrality? Or should the free and open nature of the internet allow for capitalistic exploitation that will eventually result in it being even more restrictive?

Bento · Nov 10, 2011

onken said:
I wish there was a party that valued the importance of welfare and social development but rejected this kind of nanny-state bullshit.

I don't think that party will ever exist, they come hand in hand unfortunately.

Darklord · Nov 10, 2011

Sho_Nuff82 said:
Can someone explain to me the two sides of this issue? I haven't been keeping up on internet law.

Net Neutrality basically means a free and equel internet for everyone. When that is gotten rid of corporations can run wild, they can allow more bandwidth to some sites, less to others, add extra fees to use popular sites at a decent speed, basically ruin it for more money.

Barrett2 · Nov 10, 2011

Im' barely familiar with net neutrality. My understanding is that it basically means: (i) no price discrimination when offering the same service to different groups, (ii) no throttling of bandwidth or blocking certain ports?

Is that basically it?

gcubed · Nov 10, 2011

onken said:
I wish there was a party that valued the importance of welfare and social development but rejected this kind of nanny-state bullshit.

you disagree with net neutrality?

Chavelo · Nov 10, 2011

I, for one, blame Obama for this sticky situation that we're in.

/reads OP

Oh... /gulp

On topic: Are... people seriously... disagreeing with net neutrality? I... damn... :-(

Darklord · Nov 10, 2011

lawblob said:
Im' barely familiar with net neutrality. My understanding is that it basically means: (i) no price discrimination when offering the same service to different groups, (ii) no throttling of bandwidth or blocking certain ports?

Is that basically it?

It's like Free to air TV vs Cable TV. We want free TV, they want to charge for bunches of channels. That's how I see it.

demon · Nov 10, 2011

And people say there's no difference between the two parties. Fuck the Republicans.

AndyD · Nov 10, 2011

lawblob said:
Im' barely familiar with net neutrality. My understanding is that it basically means: (i) no price discrimination when offering the same service to different groups, (ii) no throttling of bandwidth or blocking certain ports?

Is that basically it?

That and also no restrictions/priority based on content (if legal) are the main points.

Companies would like to favor their own content over others. For example Comcast could limit bandwidth for Netflix, but provide unlimited bandwidth for their own OnDemand. They could offer limited bandwidth to ABC.com but increased priority and bandwidth to their own NBC.com and so forth.

My biggest complaint is that the current rules do not apply to wireless providers.

kehs · Nov 10, 2011

Arstechnica article about the rules that are trying to be repealed, which are schedule to go into effect Nov 20th:

First, transparency: fixed and mobile broadband providers must disclose the network management practices, performance characteristics, and commercial terms of their broadband services.

Second, no blocking: fixed broadband providers may not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices; mobile broadband providers may not block lawful websites, or block applications that compete with their voice or video telephony services.

Third, no unreasonable discrimination: fixed broadband providers may not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...hnica/index (Ars Technica - Featured Content)

Socreges · Nov 10, 2011

Texas Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson, who sponsored the resolution, claims that the FCC's regulations would obstruct innovation and investment by jeopardizing the openness upon which the web has thrived, thus far.

Anyone willing to defend this claim? Seems like some doublespeak bullshit.

Why would anyone take this bizarre stance, unless they're subject to the whims of corporate lobbyists?

Barrett2 · Nov 10, 2011

AndyD said:
That and also no restrictions/priority based on content (if legal) are the main points.

Companies would like to favor their own content over others. For example Comcast could limit bandwidth for Netflix, but provide unlimited bandwidth for their own OnDemand. They could offer limited bandwidth to ABC.com but increased priority and bandwidth to their own NBC.com and so forth.

My biggest complaint is that the current rules do not apply to wireless providers.

Oh yeah, forgot about that one.

That third point is so obviously a horrible and dangerous thing to allow monopolistic providers of bandwidth. How in god's name would anyone thing providers should be allowed to prioritize traffic like that?

Socreges said:
Anyone willing to defend this claim? Seems like some doublespeak bullshit.

Why would anyone take this bizarre stance, unless they're subject to the whims of corporate lobbyists?

It's typical conservative nonsense. You have an ideology that has a blanket belief that any gov regulation will have unintended consequences that stifle innovation. Problem is, this maxim instantly breaks down when you try to apply it to monopolistic entities, or really, any field in which market efficiencies don't automatically work, such as building public roads, or making vaccines.

Hitokage · Nov 10, 2011

Socreges said:
Anyone willing to defend this claim? Seems like some doublespeak bullshit.

That's because it is doublespeak.

Funky Papa · Nov 10, 2011

lawblob said:
Im' barely familiar with net neutrality. My understanding is that it basically means: (i) no price discrimination when offering the same service to different groups, (ii) no throttling of bandwidth or blocking certain ports?

Is that basically it?

It also deters AT&T or any telecom company from blocking results and/or products from their competitors, as well as stuff they don't deem ok for fuck all reasons. Without net neutrality, nothing stops them from blocking critical sites, for instance.

kehs · Nov 10, 2011

Al Franken Article from a few days ago:

This week, the free and open Internet millions of Americans have come to depend on is under attack.

In a procedural move, Senate Republicans are trying to overturn the rules that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) put in place late last year to help protect net neutrality -- the simple idea that all content and applications on the Internet should be treated the same, regardless of who owns the content or the website. The House already pushed through this dangerous legislation, which would effectively turn control of the Internet over to a handful of very powerful corporations.

......

These are the rules Republicans in the House have already voted to overturn. This week, my Republican colleagues in the Senate will attempt to short circuit the legislative process by forcing a procedural vote and ignoring the FCC's expertise on this issue. They hope to abolish net neutrality and give their supporters in big telecom what they want: an unfair advantage over small businesses and bigger profits at the expense of consumers.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-franken/net-neutrality-is-under-a_b_1082225.html

onken · Nov 10, 2011

gcubed said:
you disagree with net neutrality?

My bad I had it backwards here, I am all for NN. Though I stand by my statement in general.

WedgeX · Nov 10, 2011

Hopefully this doesn't even pass the Senate.

But if it does and Obama saves the Internet...welp.

Plywood · Nov 10, 2011

WedgeX said:
Hopefully this doesn't even pass the Senate.

But if it does and Obama saves the Internet...welp.

It's okay, they'll find a way to blame Obama for saving the internet.

kehs · Nov 10, 2011

Plywood said:
It's okay, they'll find a way to blame Obama for saving the internet.

"Obama freezes up, chooses to be neutral"

Socreges · Nov 10, 2011

lawblob said:
Oh yeah, forgot about that one.

That third point is so obviously a horrible and dangerous thing to allow monopolistic providers of bandwidth. How in god's name would anyone thing providers should be allowed to prioritize traffic like that?

It's typical conservative nonsense. You have an ideology that has a blanket belief that any gov regulation will have unintended consequences that stifle innovation. Problem is, this maxim instantly breaks down when you try to apply it to monopolistic entities, or really, any field in which market efficiencies don't automatically work, such as building public roads, or making vaccines.

Difficult to tell when they're motivated by ideology or motivated by special interests. I'd guess it's mostly the latter in this case.

RPG_Fanatic · Nov 10, 2011

There is no face palm big enough for this. Everyone trying to repel net neutrality should be ashamed of themselves.

Barrett2 · Nov 10, 2011

Socreges said:
Difficult to tell when they're motivated by ideology or motivated by special interests. I'd guess it's mostly the latter in this case.

True. I suspect with a lot of these conservatives their ideology serves as cover for their slimy lobbyist backscratching.

Copernicus said:
"Obama freezes up, chooses to be neutral"

Obama: Taxing Christmas trees and stifling American innovation!

balladofwindfishes · Nov 10, 2011

Are you free if the one major ISP in your area is able to decide what websites you can visit? Do people seriously not see the big picture here and realize that without net neutrality they are losing rights

I hate this mentality of "if the government regulates it, we've lost freedom" because in this instance not being regulated means we lose a huge amount of freedom and possibly a whole aspect of the economy is shut off.

kehs · Nov 10, 2011

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/302604-1

Josh Smith spoke by phone about Senate Republican efforts to nullify Federal Communications rules on net neutrality, a policy that required Internet providers to allow content providers equal access to networks rather than giving preference to certain types of traffic

Slayven · Nov 10, 2011

Senate and Congress should one term limit. Seems like nowadays politicians get elected and instantly start working on getting reelected.

Flying_Phoenix · Nov 10, 2011

As usual, the ignorant and uneducated are the one to demolish something they have no idea about.

PhoenixDark · Nov 10, 2011

I bag on Obama all the time, but it's times like these that make me glad he's in the White House

AndyD · Nov 10, 2011

RPG_Fanatic said:
There is no face palm big enough for this. Everyone trying to repel net neutrality should be ashamed of themselves.

I don't think people understand what it actually means. Some think of it as government managing the internet.

The funny thing is companies want it now, but then in a decade or whatnot when they get mired in fights and squabbles they will decry the lack of regulation stifling business.

Similar in a way to software patents. A couple decades ago they were clamored for by companies, now they are seen as obstacles to innovation and the government and PTO are criticized for letting it get out of hand.

And all along customers will suffer. I really wanted the FCC to go to bat and declare Internet a utility. It would have had a number of huge benefits that would have outweighed the detractions in my opinion.

Harry Dresden · Nov 10, 2011

RPG_Fanatic said:
There is no face palm big enough for this. Everyone trying to repel net neutrality should be ashamed of themselves.

Ashamed of themselves all the way to the bank.

Hitokage · Nov 10, 2011

Slayven said:
Senate and Congress should one term limit. Seems like nowadays politicians get elected and instantly start working on getting reelected.

That's not the problem, because ideally you want politicians to work to get reelected by not fucking things up. The problem has more to do with them spending half their job fundraising.

thetechkid · Nov 10, 2011

Serious question, do they even understand Net Neutrality?

Bulbo Urethral Baggins · Nov 10, 2011

I don't know a lot about this, but who will want to invest in new broadband networks if they can't control what's on it?
Fill me in.

VistraNorrez · Nov 10, 2011

If this happens to be repealed is there something to stop an ISP from slowing down or blocking traffic to certain political candidates websites? If not I can see this biting anyone who wanted it repealed in the ass. If say Verizon thinks you ain't doing enough for their corporation they could just block you and help another guy get elected. I mean there is no way that would be possible right?

PhoenixDark · Nov 10, 2011

Hitokage said:
That's not the problem, because ideally you want politicians to work to get reelected by not fucking things up. The problem has more to do with them spending half their job fundraising.

Either increase congress terms to 4 years and decrease Senate terms to 4 as well, or go for campaign finance reform imo. Preferably both. Sadly both are long shots

Harry Dresden · Nov 10, 2011

thetechkid said:
Serious question, do they even understand Net Neutrality?

They understand that the corporations will give them $$$ if they get rid of it.

balladofwindfishes · Nov 10, 2011

Bulbo Urethral Baggins said:
I don't know a lot about this, but who will want to invest in new broadband networks if they can't control what's on it?
Fill me in.

you can make a profit without absolute control of your product, plenty of industries do just fine

akira28 · Nov 10, 2011

Jesus said be hot or cold. If you are neither, he will spit you out.

Dunk#7 · Nov 10, 2011

Wouldn't this passing mean that internet service providers would have to pay for the rights to host various sites?

If you have Comcast you can only access certain sites.

If you have SuddenLink you can access a different set of sites.

They each can have many of the same sites, but neither will have them all.

Do I have that correct?

balladofwindfishes · Nov 10, 2011

Dunk#7 said:
Wouldn't this passing mean that internet service providers would have to pay for the rights to host various sites?

If you have Comcast you can only access certain sites.

If you have SuddenLink you can access a different set of sites.

They each can have many of the same sites, but neither will have them all.

Do I have that correct?

they could, in theory, do that, yes

Clevinger · Nov 10, 2011

thetechkid said:
Serious question, do they even understand Net Neutrality?

They understand that the corporations are giving them money, at least.

AndyD · Nov 10, 2011

Bulbo Urethral Baggins said:
I don't know a lot about this, but who will want to invest in new broadband networks if they can't control what's on it?
Fill me in.

Control what's on it? Why would Comcast care whether I watch Netflix or read CNN or GAF? I pay them for Internet access to watch what I want, not what they want me to.

Jonm1010 · Nov 10, 2011

Slayven said:
Senate and Congress should one term limit. Seems like nowadays politicians get elected and instantly start working on getting reelected.

That would do nothing to stop the current system where politicians get into office and basically get bought by special interests by way of job promises and money to push their agenda. In a way it might exaggerate the problems with the former. If you only have one term whats to stop you from screwing things up and taking the cush private sector job once you're out?

Reform needs to be much more expansive and encompassing than just term limits IMO.

Windu · Nov 10, 2011

those net neutrality rules don't do shit anyway. They don't cover wireless and there are loopholes as wide as the grand canon for wired. Verizon is fine with the so called rules, they helped make them shit in the first place. They are just trying to make the FCC's power even less. Real Net Neutrality is dead, the stuff they are doing now is just for show.

I suggest people read dslreports.com, i notice Gaf usually posts about this stuff way late from sites like the wall street journal etc..

Cyan · Nov 10, 2011

Damn. At least Obama's going to step up and do the right thing here for once.

Support NeoGAF

Senate To Vote Net Neutrality Repeal, Obama set to Veto

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

card-carrying scientician

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Banned

I don't mean to alarm you but you have dogs on your face

aka andydumi

Banned

Banned

Member

Setec Astronomer

FUNK-Y-PPA-4

Banned

Member

Banned

NeoGAF's smiling token!

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Banned

aka andydumi

Member

Setec Astronomer

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

aka andydumi

Banned

never heard about the cat, apparently

Banned

Similar threads