US Senate votes to preserve net neutrality, but effort faces overwhelming odds
U.S. Senate Democrats were handed a major victory on Wednesday when the body voted 52 to 47 in favor of undoing the Federal Communications Commission's "Restoring Internet Freedom" order, which ended Obama-era net neutrality protections.
The measure passed with a better margin than expected, with three Republicans and two independents helping to put Democrats over the top, Reuters observed. It must still survive the Republican-dominated House of Representatives however, and a likely veto by President Donald Trump. The White House has opposed any return to net neutrality.
Senate Democrats took advantage of the Congressional Review Act to force a vote on the matter. Without intervention, net neutrality is expected to vanish on June 11.
Supporters of net neutrality have worried that if internet providers are no longer subject to Title II rules, they will begin preferentially blocking or throttling traffic, favoring their own services or customers and partners that pay the best. Restoring Internet Freedom simply requires ISPs to inform the public of those tactics.
Among the corporate backers of neutrality is Apple. The company's business model is highly dependent on fast internet access, whether for services like Apple Music, iTunes, and FaceTime, or just general usability.
"An open internet ensures that hundreds of millions of consumers get the experience they want, over the broadband connections they choose, to use the devices they love, which have become an integral part of their lives," the company remarked in an August letter to the FCC intended to steer the agency's thinking.
The measure passed with a better margin than expected, with three Republicans and two independents helping to put Democrats over the top, Reuters observed. It must still survive the Republican-dominated House of Representatives however, and a likely veto by President Donald Trump. The White House has opposed any return to net neutrality.
Senate Democrats took advantage of the Congressional Review Act to force a vote on the matter. Without intervention, net neutrality is expected to vanish on June 11.
Supporters of net neutrality have worried that if internet providers are no longer subject to Title II rules, they will begin preferentially blocking or throttling traffic, favoring their own services or customers and partners that pay the best. Restoring Internet Freedom simply requires ISPs to inform the public of those tactics.
Among the corporate backers of neutrality is Apple. The company's business model is highly dependent on fast internet access, whether for services like Apple Music, iTunes, and FaceTime, or just general usability.
"An open internet ensures that hundreds of millions of consumers get the experience they want, over the broadband connections they choose, to use the devices they love, which have become an integral part of their lives," the company remarked in an August letter to the FCC intended to steer the agency's thinking.
Comments
https://www.theringer.com/2017/7/21/16077992/google-fiber-struggles-7d2bb5399a12
“might”, “could”, “may” ? Try "Has", "Did", "Probably will again" https://consumerist.com/2014/02/23/netflix-agrees-to-pay-comcast-to-end-slowdown/
There are plenty of expansions that Ajit Pai likes to point to as a victory for the end of Net Neutrality that were approved and funded under Obama.
Aside from concerns above about the gov't putting restrictions on the communications, I'd prefer a utility model at this point as well. Private telcos have proven they are unable of competing and brining better services and innovations at lower prices. Since they are more or less monopolies (but I don't think reachable via the restrictions), the capitalistic model simply won't work. Or, they could be broken up, reset, etc. But, I just don't trust that to go well either.
You realize Netflix wouldn't even be able to operate under a pure net-neutrality model, right? It currently works well because Netflix places special 'caching' boxes at major ISP locations. That kind of pay-to-play would be against net neutrality, afaik. Heck, my own sites use CDN, which costs me more money to get my site to my users faster. Someone competing with my sites who doesn't have CDN is at a disadvantage.
The basic and true premise that people are usually self-interested is ignored in favour of letting go of government regulation. People will screw others to get what they want. This is the norm not the exception. The exception is the company who has genuine interest in serving their customers first. Additionally, the customers who supposedly have the ‘power’ are just as self interested and will happily bend over if it means they don’t have to put the effort into fighting something.
The ‘market’ only works if people treat others well. The internet is not going to fall into the hands of well-meaning entrepreneurs who want to serve others, it will fall into the hands of selfish and greedy people who will happily screw others to make a buck. I don’t like big government but I’d rather have that than the alternative.
The socialists in Seattle think the lack of affordable housing is because Starbucks and Amazon aren’t paying their “fair share.” All a sane person has to do is look at all of the laws, regulations, and hoops builders have to jump through to build anything and it’s no wonder there’s a shortage of affordable housing.
Keep the the government out and let business’ do their thing and compete.
Supporters of net neutrality have worried that if internet providers are no longer subject to Title II rules, they will begin preferentially blocking or throttling traffic, favoring their own services or customers and partners that pay the best. Restoring Internet Freedom simply requires ISPs to inform the public of those tactics.
———
This is a deceptive paragraph. So-called “neutrality” under Title II is not the norm. It is a NEW government intrusion into the free market.
Because, in general, he has been literally brainwashed to believe that they don’t exist. And so, since he can’t even DEFINE the problems in the world (because it makes him physically uncomfortable to think about people and their differences), he can’t solve the problems. And if he continues to refuse to define the problems, a solution remains impossible. So it’s just easier to ignore the problems. It’s easier to say, “The problems can’t ever go away.” Easier. Safer. More comfortable.
And we let them get away with it. Every time.
Except... the government is the only entity that can legitimately enforce the needed rules and regulations that make capitalism work. The problem isn't so much government regulation, as it is a government without the designed-in checks and balance. Many people under poorly designed governments or corrupt governments don't have this luxury. But, in the USA (and some other countries), we get the government we deserve. The mechanisms are there to fix it, if we have the will. We (collectively) don't.
“The basic and true premise that people are usually self-interested is ignored in favour of letting go of government regulation. People will screw others to get what they want. This is the norm not the exception.”
Look at what you wrote and think about it. All people are self-interested, true. Here’s the rub: Government is also made of self-interested people, but they don’t have the leavening forces of competition keeping them in check.
We currently have a means to regulate the any violations before net neutrality became policy.
I sure as hell don’t want it and it’s not the function of the Federal government to intervene in functioning markets. People are not guaranteed to get everything they want. If the market cannot provide everything and anything customers want, maybe sometimes that means what customers want is unrealistic.
However, some fear certain wording in the Net Neutrality™ legislation proposed during the Obama administration, which wasn't really net neutrality anyway.
And, then there is the telco industry baloney about how if they don't get their way, it will slow innovation. They've been making record profits for decades and we've seen little innovation and ever-increasing costs... why would they start now?
This whole thing is a political football between government control/potential censorship and corporate interests.