12 ms·
Democrats to push to reinstate repealed 'net neutrality' rules
- subdane 8y ago"The text of the proposed legislation has not been released."
- Colt45RPM 8y agoWho knows what could be hiding in there?!?!
- jedmeyers 8y agoYou need to pass the bill before you know what's in it.
- vengefulduck 8y agoWhat? How would they know what their voting for?
- justinlink 8y agoIt's a reference to something Nancy Pelosi said when passing Obamacare. "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it”.
- paulddraper 8y agoOften, that's literally true due to the length and complexity of the legislation. Which is why there is the proposed Read the Bills Act. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Read_the_Bills_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Read_the_Bills_Act
- agensaequivocum 8y agoWell, it's not like it's uncommon for Congress to drop a 1000+ page omnibus crap sandwich the night before the vote.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- amreact 8y agoThat's a quote from a Nancy Pelosi speech about Affordable Care Act. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pelosi-healthcare-pass-the-bill-to-see-what-is-in-it/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pelosi-healthcare-pass-the... For the record, Snopes does a good job explaining how Pelosi's statement was taken out of context by the right, especially when compared to Republican actions that were much more questionable regarding a somewhat (?) comparable Republican-sponsored bill called the American Health Care Act.
- paulddraper 8y agoThat article (and it's rating of "Mixed") has puzzled me. The context "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy." doesn't really change the way I think about her remarks. Controversy or not, it's a ridiculous assertion.
- dfee 8y agoSnopes is actually quite partisan. This is a good example.
- threeseed 8y agoIrrelevant. Most of the fact check checkers rate it as pretty accurate: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/fact_check_review/ https://www.realclearpolitics.com/fact_check_review/
- simula67 8y agoIt is relevant since they could be cherry picking facts to rate
- read_if_gay_ 8y agoWho says so-called "fact checkers" aren't partisan?
- 8y ago
- masonic 8y agoThat's how Pelosi runs things. That's a faithful paraphrase of what she said before the ACA (Obamacare) votes. Neither the rank-and-file of either party not the Republican leadership got to see the ACA final bill contents before the vote.
- djur 8y agoIt is a deeply misleading excerpt of something Pelosi said, not "faithful" in any way. And the claim that nobody got to read the ACA before the vote is simply not true. You can see the main bill being repeatedly debated and amended on the floor of the Senate from early October 2010 until late December here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-bill/3590/all-actions https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-bill/3590... The House passed the Senate bill several months later. It was then amended by the 2010 reconciliation act, which resolved some issues the House had with the Senate bill. That passed much more quickly (because it was a smaller and less controversial bill), but it still was presented on the floor of the House a week before it eventually passed: https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-bill/4872/actions https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-bill/4872...
- DrScump 8y agoYou can see the main bill But not the final bill, which is the only one that matters. Compare the early October version with the Chaptered (final) version.
- exabrial 8y agoThe internet has barely survived?
- exabrial 8y agoThe only bill that actually threatened the internet was CISPA. Let's stop the dog and pony show or we'll miss out on the real problems
- paulddraper 8y agoYeah, that one just kinda flew by without incident.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- donatj 8y agoI mean honestly Senate bill H.R.1865 successfully did a ton to ruin the internet if we're being honest.
- JauntyHatAngle 8y agoLets not be reactionary here. Legislation can halt a slow decline, and companies move as slowly as they need to. Something taking 5-10-20 years to decline can often be traced back to a piece of regulation (or deregulation) that occurred a long time ago. Legislation being repealed doesn't mean the next day everything goes to the dogs, it's often supposed to plug up a trickle, not hold back a flood. That may or may not apply to net neutrality depending on your view. But just because things haven't gone completely gone to the dogs yet does not mean it wont in the future and that this legislation is or isn't necessary.
- willio58 8y agoWhat strikes me is how Republicans didn't realize net neutrality translates to equal opportunity on the internet, which fits really well with free-market capitalism.
- anarchy8 8y agoFree-market capitalism and crony capitalism are subtly different in that way
- ekianjo 8y agoRepublicans aren't that much in favor of Free-market as they used to be.
- SlowRobotAhead 8y agoDemocrats are far more socialist than they used to be. Do you suggest all of the USA political spectrum has moved to the left? I don’t have an opinion on that but I bet lots of people would argue a shift the other way. I think that’s a problem of perspective. Republicans have always had big government establishment RINOs clashing with small government fiscal conservatives who feel they are too far left for fiscal issues and mixed bag on social issues. Bush era “neocons” get little love today (Romney for example). If you are truly on the center today (rare breed) you might be interested that the neocons hate Trump, and how the GOP establishment is begrudgingly stuck with him. Polar opposite, if you find yourself agreeing with every socialist proposal and bemoaning yourself that Dems are too far right, it’s probably just perspective of how extreme left you are. So... are Republicans less free-market than they “used” to be? Or does it only seem that way from your perspective? When you say Republicans, do you mean base, establishment, or Trump?
- int_19h 8y agoThe US political spectrum has moved towards being more authoritarian in general. As in, large-scale government solutions to whatever is perceived as problems are in vogue on both the left and the right.
- 8y ago
- rdtsc 8y ago> In October, California agreed not to enforce its own state net neutrality law until the appeals court’s decision on the 2017 repeal, and any potential review by the U.S. Supreme Court That was one positive "states rights" thing I was looking forward to, but they chickened out? It's their state law, why not enforce it. It's also been some time so it would be good to see how the predictions panned out. Some of those were pretty grim: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/net-neutrality-in-2017-what-you-should-know_us_599debf0e4b06d67e334fa94 https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/net-neutrality-in-2017-... [warning: auto-playing video] > "That means if Bing offers Comcast a hefty penny, you’ll never make another Google search for as long as you live. Yeah, it’s that bad." I can't say I have seen any changes in the 2 or 3 services I have. It could be because there are competitors in the region and they'd be afraid to rock to boat too much. Maybe in other parts it was much worse.
- sgillen 8y agoPossibly California's legislature wants to avoid fractured governance of the internet in the US if they still have hope in net neutrality nation wide? Possibly if some of those grim predictions start to come true they will take action.
- rdtsc 8y agoI was hoping if they start enforcing it then more states will follow suit. Making laws and then selectively enforcing them when convenient is not a good idea. But you're right, that perhaps not enough time has passed yet and the worse is yet to come.
- ams6110 8y agoThey have fractured many other things with their regulations. Auto emissions, cancer warnings on everything.... I don't think they fear a fractured internet, if they even can understand that.
- torpfactory 8y agoYeah the cancer warnings seem to appear on just about everything but the CARB ratings for cars have probably saved a significant number of lives by dragging the rest of the country along for the ride with cleaner exhaust standards. Nothing to sneeze at.
- sandov 8y agoPlease recommend me a good browser extension to replace strings in websites. I'm tired of reading about net neutrality.
- NoblePublius 8y agoHow about they do something about random price increases, geographic monopolies, bundling, or forcing customers to rent equipment that’s cheaper to buy? These are issues that affect consumers. The only thing NN does is make Netflix slightly cheaper.
- ocdtrekkie 8y agoNet neutrality won't make Netflix cheaper. It will ensure that Netflix can use it's size and influence to scale better and squash any potential competitors, who don't have the influence to force ISPs to colocate their cache boxes for free. They're still probably continue to raise their prices on consumers, because that's what monopolies (like Netflix) do. Net neutrality is the creation of regulatory capture for Netflix, and probably YouTube. Which is why it is shocking these are the two companies funding every single supposedly grassroots effort to support it.
- gbear605 8y agoThe issue for Netflix with not having net neutrality is that some of Netflix’s competitors are run by some of the ISPs. If those ISPs were to decide that they wanted their customers to be forced to go with their service, and net neutrality weren’t a thing, they could block (or essentially block) Netflix.
- ocdtrekkie 8y agoWe have other more applicable laws to that task: It's called antitrust laws. It's already illegal to use your monopoly in one market segment to progress your control in another. The reason you won't see Google or Netflix promoting that ISPs face antitrust investigations, is because they're monopolies themselves. So they're investing in laws that hurt ISPs, but protect them. Net neutrality is a custom love letter to big tech, rather than a generally applicable law against bad practices. You'll notice exceptions are carved out to ensure Comcast is a telecom, and Google isn't, even if they both provide video services and both also run ISPs. (You could see similar when Google tried to avoid registering as a telecom when trying to deploy Fiber in Austin, so that they had less regulatory limitations than their competitors.) You'll note that Google has both last mile service in terms of Fiber and Fi, as well as major international infrastructure, like their undersea cables. They aren't shockingly different from Comcast in that regard, either. We should be promoting antitrust, where big tech and ISPs face similar penalties for their behaviors. And yes, Google and Netflix are both monopolies under any reasonable definition of the term. Yes, ISPs are in some areas, regional monopolies, but Google and Netflix are global ones, and they're a far bigger threat.
- alkibiades 8y agocan anyone steelman the argument against net neutrality for me? The only one i've ever heard was that its "government intervention". Which doesn't quite add up for me.
- ocdtrekkie 8y agoThe primary impact of net neutrality, is that it prevents ISPs from charging tech companies like Google and Netflix for data usage.[1] Google (especially YouTube) and Netflix together take up about 75% of all bandwidth usage in the United States, so this is really about charging these two companies, and these two companies alone, for the amount of network buildout that's required to support their increasing demands. Any bandwidth costs anyone else faced due to this sort of thing would be inconsequential in comparison, if the ISPs bothered to bill anyone else at all. Google and Netflix do not like this, of course, and have created or funded dozens of grassroots efforts to "save the Internet" by ensuring ISPs are legally prohibited from billing them. My personal view is that when you are on the "majority of the data usage on the Internet" scale, ISPs should have every right to negotiate with you, and that preventing that process ensures that Google and Netflix's economies of scale permanently win out as monopolists in the space. [1]Insert rhetoric from supporters about double charging here, don't bother commenting to claim it. I've heard the argument before. And I was answering the parent's question, not trying to start an argument with the opposing position.
- buttholesurfer 8y agoI'm sick of hearing about "net neutrality". Nothing changed when it was shot down. Report this or rage has much as you want but NOTHING has changed. I'm now more weary of "net neutrality" than ever before.
- ionised 8y agohttps://nocable.org/news/whats-happened-in-the-three-months-since-net-neutrality-was-repealed https://nocable.org/news/whats-happened-in-the-three-months-...
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- donatj 8y agoHonestly, I think the passage of Senate bill H.R.1865 “FOSTA” has quite quickly done way more harm to the internet at large than killing Net Neutrality has.
- dilap 8y agoAbsolutely. It was crazy to watch everyone go crazy about net neutrality with triple-bank-shot theories of how it might chill some site somewhere someday, but barely a peep about the far-worse FOSTA, which almost immediately forced sites offline. I'm still not sure how to explain this. Perhaps people are just dumb and prone to irrational panics, perhaps I am dumb (i.e., NN > FOSTA), or perhaps movements like NN support are not really particularly organic, and being organized for reasons unknown.
- sbuttgereit 8y ago"people are just dumb and prone to irrational panics" Of any statement that I've read this year, this is the one that most succinctly captures the entire spectrum of political life. Left or right, fake news to hacker news... Understand that statement and you understand how far we've come.
- mikeq101101 8y agoThere has been a huge fearmongering campaign behind net neutrality, partially funded by companies that profit from net neutrality. Net neutrality is a classic case of regulatory capture, the very thing people think it will suppress. If you think Google and Netflix are supporting NN because it's a right thing to do, instead of their profit motive, you're extremely naive.
- odessacubbage 8y agobecause the first line of people and services affected by FOSTA are the ones no one wants to talk about. sex workers and underprivileged queers only exist as part of the conversation when it's politically expedient for those in power. America may no longer be a god-fearing nation, but the skeleton of moralism still exists, just with all it's values stripped away. you will hear far more screams if netflix loses even 1 percent of it's value than if the safety and livelihood of all the undesirables is erased.
- charliebrownau 8y agoIt really seems like the GLOBAL SOCIALIST LEFT ( Democrats) want to remove everything that is good , positive and supports FREEDOM and ruin, infect and destroy everything they get into via "Diversity" "quotas" "feminism" or just out right admitting they are socialist traitors
- mlindner 8y ago"Net Neutrality" is one of the biggest misinformation campaigns I've ever seen in my life. I've never seen so many predictions of doom and gloom over such a small thing. More so those opinions put out by non-technical people to mislead non-technical people. We've never had "net neutrality" and we never will. Doing so goes against how the internet fundamentally works. All packets are not the same. QoS exists and will always exist. Internet companies can't consume all the bandwidth and not pay for it. This has always been about Silicon Valley vs ISPs with ISPs wanting to charge the actual cost of service and Silicon Valley wanting a free ride to all of the ISPs customers. No customer will ever see any change from the creation of nor lack of net neutrality.