back to article Dems push Ryan to vote to help save America's net neutrality measures

With the FCC's motion on ending net neutrality provisions set to be enacted in a matter of days, Senate Democrats want the House to put their resolution to save the protections up for a last-minute vote. An open letter sent by the entire Democratic Senate Caucus to House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) implores him to schedule a vote …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Signal switching

    "In issuing the 2015 net neutrality rules, the FCC delivered a message that the choice of what consumers can access online, and the speed at which they can access it, should be kept solely in the hands of those consumers, not the big broadband providers," the note reads.

    When was it decided that the FCC's remit is to send political messages via regulations, rather than Congress doing it with law? Isn't that really Congress's job? And if it is, why should anyone pay attention to political signaling by a federal bureau that, presumably, was doing the bidding of the president at that time?

    1. Voland's right hand Silver badge

      Re: Signal switching

      When was it decided that the FCC's remit is to send political messages via regulations, rather than Congress doing it with law

      Which is exactly the point here. It should be up to the congress to decide and not to FCC.

      As far as when - during Bush. The FCC decision on applicability of CALEA and other phone legislation to the Internet. In 2004.

      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: Signal switching

        When was it decided that the FCC's remit is to send political messages via regulations, rather than Congress doing it with law

        When it was decided that the head of the FCC was a direct presidential appointment

    2. Jamie Jones Silver badge

      Re: Signal switching

      Big John, are you against this simply because it's a Democrat proposal?

      This seems to be the M/O of republicans - it doesn't matter if it hurts them, they must reject anything the Dems do!

  2. bombastic bob Silver badge
    Facepalm

    86% of Americans agree with *THEM*? Since *WHEN*?

    I think the Demo[c,n][r,R]ats need to stop it with the DISHONESTY.

    Trump will NEVER sign such a bill. He wants to DE-regulate. And the Demo[c,n][r,R]ats are misrepresenting what alleged "net neutrality" means anyway.

    What it REALLY was (prior to Trump): something that large intarweb (liberal politics) companies like Google and Facebook bought and paid for, which isn't 'net neutrality' at ALL.

    If they want to protect citizens from having their data misused, they can legislate that (maybe like GDPR). But STOPPING people/companies from BEING ABLE to pay extra to get better bandwidth, quality, etc. is just SOCIALISM being crammed up our, er, down our throats. "all equal" becomes "equally mediocre". (There are ways to do this right that would have NO negative consequences, and competition is one of them, instead of playing the 'class envy' game because one person has a nicer something and paid extra to get it)

    The reason telcos and cable companies want what Pai did: it gets GUMMINT off of their backs! [this should be a GOOD thing, getting GUMMINT out of our lives as much as possible]

    icon, because facepalm, because this should be OBVIOUS. but apparently, many can't see it with their political motives in the way.

    1. no_handle_yet

      Re: 86% of Americans agree with *THEM*? Since *WHEN*?

      Is there something wrong with your keyboard ?

      1. WolfFan Silver badge

        Re: 86% of Americans agree with *THEM*? Since *WHEN*?

        It's Bombastic Bob. PEBKC. It's the worst case of Keyboard Tourrette's that I've ever seen.

      2. kain preacher

        Re: 86% of Americans agree with *THEM*? Since *WHEN*?

        Yes the caps key is malfunctioning as that rant should be in all caps.

    2. James 51

      Re: 86% of Americans agree with *THEM*? Since *WHEN*?

      I know it goes against your nature but calm down bob. Take a deep breath amd reread before you hit post. You type like you're having a stroke.

      1. Fruit and Nutcase Silver badge
        Joke

        Re: 86% of Americans agree with *THEM*? Since *WHEN*?

        I know it goes against your nature but calm down bob. Take a deep breath amd reread before you hit post. You type like you're having a stroke.

        Alternatively, could Bob be an AI/ML experiment?

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: 86% of Americans agree with *THEM*? Since *WHEN*?

      This is what happens when you habitually huff on Hannity

      1. kain preacher

        Re: 86% of Americans agree with *THEM*? Since *WHEN*?

        "This is what happens when you habitually huff on Hannity"

        I'm thinking more of Alex Jones.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: 86% of Americans agree with *THEM*? Since *WHEN*?

      Expecting that waving your money around entitles you to crowd out honest every people is elitism, pure and simple. So before you start whining that everything else is socialism, ask yourself, do you personally, or does anyone else that you know, have a helicopter, or a yacht, or an island? Because if the answer is 'no', my friend, you are being played by those who do. That much is obvious, even when you aren't bashing away with your caps lock on.

      1. Claverhouse Silver badge

        Re: 86% of Americans agree with *THEM*? Since *WHEN*?

        He's got a helicopter, inside a yacht, on top of his own island. So there !

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: 86% of Americans agree with *THEM*? Since *WHEN*?

        > "...you are being played by those who do."

        It couldn't be that some of them actually earned enough to buy those things? Statistically, most people with nice stuff earned it or have a parent who did. Even yachts and helicopters. Heck, they need those items just to reach their islands!

    5. Geoffrey W

      Re: 86% of Americans agree with *THEM*? Since *WHEN*?

      Mr Bob, I don't think you really understand net neutrality and what its trying to do. Your own political motives/prejudices are getting in the way.

    6. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: 86% of Americans agree with *THEM*? Since *WHEN*?

      @Bob

      Have you ever seen a film or TV villain that you found repulsive so repulsive, that you felt actual rage whenever they were on screen?

      I know that I have, and I've often wondered if they ever realize just how much a dick they actually are?

      I've seen it play out both ways, some antagonists are self-aware and actually get off on the fact that they're being the villain, and other times they're oblivious to what everyone finds obvious.

      For example, take Negan on The Walking Dead. Clearly, he feels like he's a playing the role of the hero in his version of the story. He even calls his group "The Saviors" because, as he he keeps telling the people that he's harming, that he's trying to "save people." I'm sure that in his own fucked up way, that he truly believes that by subjugating people by force, that he's doing the right thing even though everyone thinks he's a dick.

      Since you clearly aren't aware either, I figured that I'd point out the fact that you're the Negan around these parts. I'm sure that you see yourself as a renegade, speaking the truth, and fighting against people that oppose your righteousness--but to literally everyone else, you're just an annoying dick.

      Nobody here ever agrees with you on anything, and I suspect that any upvotes are actually trolls just trying to egg you on further, or purely accidental.

      1. Geoffrey W

        Re: 86% of Americans agree with *THEM*? Since *WHEN*?

        RE: "Nobody here ever agrees with you on anything, and I suspect that any upvotes are actually trolls just trying to egg you on further, or purely accidental."

        Not strictly true. Occasionally he does write something with which I agree and can, reluctantly, up vote. I suspect, however, it might be rather like that proverbial room full of monkeys sitting at type writers, whose typing Bob's own typing somewhat resembles; quite randomly the thoughts issuing from his fingers just happen to resemble coherent thought.

        I think he just commits to forum anything and everything that pops into his head, no matter where the thoughts came from.

        He may also justify his ramblings by pretending that he's trolling, but, like the drunkard, he reveals more than he intends. In vino veritas...He has become a kind of celebrity here, which might be triggering a stream of endorphins into his head, making him feel good and encouraging his slightly deviant behaviour

    7. TheVogon

      Re: 86% of Americans agree with *THEM*? Since *WHEN*?

      "But STOPPING people/companies from BEING ABLE to pay extra to get better bandwidth, quality, etc"

      It has never stopped that. People and companies are both able to pay for bandwidth and quality (contention) under net neutrality. What net neutrality does is prevent carriers from deciding to treating traffic differently once inside their networks for commercial or arbitrary reasons. Which is massively in the interest of consumers.

      1. jayp00001

        Re: 86% of Americans agree with *THEM*? Since *WHEN*?

        "What net neutrality does is prevent carriers from deciding to treating traffic differently once inside their networks for commercial or arbitrary reasons."

        That is a half truth. "Net neutrality" as currently proposed says that the government now decides that.

    8. David 164

      Re: 86% of Americans agree with *THEM*? Since *WHEN*?

      Yes but that not the point, they want republicans to vote against the bill, they would love Trump to veto it, either of those would serve their purpose. Why? Because they believe that they can win around voters by showing republicans don't care about them and they only care about big business, in this case broadband providers and doing their bidding. They believe this is a vote winner.

      1. Ben Tasker

        Re: 86% of Americans agree with *THEM*? Since *WHEN*?

        That's probably also why it's not been allowed to go to a vote. They don't want to let this pass, but also don't want to be seen, quite so visibly, to be screwing consumers over.

    9. Jamie Jones Silver badge
      Meh

      Re: 86% of Americans agree with *THEM*? Since *WHEN*?

      Bob, you really need to deal with your paranoia when it comes to anything that's against a republican policy.

      You aren't stupid, but I believe you believe the crap you just posted because of your warped republican paranoia obsession.

      SOCIALISM - Being "social" is not a bad word to rest-of-world-outside-US-Republicans, by the way, so stop using it as such - it makes you look stupid.

      As I said, you're not stupid, so take some deep breaths and think: This is not about forcing everyone to have the same connection/speed - people can go with dsl/cable/fibre or even bloody dialup if they want - they can also choose capped packages or unlimited. No problem there... Capitalism at its finest!

      Now, at the other end, the providers have peering/transit deals that may or may not involve charging, but it's all agreed on by the companies involved.. Again, pure capitalism!

      What is NOT ON, is for cable companies to then apply extra tariffs / fines / constraints on particular services, just because they don't like them. That's not capitalism, it's protectionism.

      Now, of course, in a proper free market, you could argue that if an ISP does this, customers will move to another ISP. Of course, in America, that is rarely possible due to the anti-capitalist monopolic practices, and shady deals that have kept the big 3 (?) in control. It's a cartel, not a capitalist free-market.

      Tell me Bob, how would you feel if the owner of your phone company had an argument with your doctor, so decided to bar phone calls to him? Or -- shock-horror -- the owner is a democrat, and come the local elections, decides to add noise, and random drop-outs to all the republican representatives, and PR groups?

      Cabel and telcos see their cartel power dropping with net neutrality - they want it to go away so that they make it less worthwhile for you to get netflix, and therefore stick with their mediocre package.... And why would you use anything other than their sports channel, when all your internet choices are made to drop-out and continuously rebuffer?

      The cable companies aren't capitalists, dear boy. If they were government, they'd be described as communist.

      Not every government decision is bad, you know. No companies are looking out for you.

      Government has control on food standards, pollution, medicine etc.. because if they didn't, you can bet that these glorious industries would sell you all sorts of dodgy crap.

      As a final aside, people here have been calling you a dick.

      This is because you switch off all critical thinking when it comes to politics, and think republican==good - democrat==bad.

      Republicans AND democrats exploit this tribal "team-worship" ideoligy, because it means people end up fighting amongst themselves rather than fighting against the politicians.

      It also means both sides can pass whatever the hell they like, because their fans will always cheer them on regardless.

      Until you realise the 'enemy' is the politicians from both sides, and not the voter from the other side, you'll never get your democracy back.... And people will keep calling you a dick.

      FINALLY, before you downvote me, please realise I'm currently compiling a bug fix I'm working on against some FreeBSD base code! You're welcome :-)

    10. Hollerithevo

      Re: 86% of Americans agree with *THEM*? Since *WHEN*?

      Strane as it is for me to say, I believe, @Big John is correct when he says the paymasters have been, up until now, Google, facebook and the other big corporations. The change will mean other big corporations will control the tubes. It won't be socialism, as our dear @Bom.Bob fears, but plutocracy as usual, but with different owners.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: 86% of Americans agree with *THEM*? Since *WHEN*?

        > "...the paymasters have been, up until now, Google, facebook and the other big corporations. The change will mean other big corporations will control the tubes."

        Yes, rather than the ones which are currently starting to dominate the political dialogue of several big countries, by virtue solely of their position as gatekeepers.

        Frankly, the idea of giant entities having that much say-so in our lives, AND permanently wangling themselves a cushy broadband deal via government interference just doesn't sit well with me.

        Let the providers do what they've been doing so far, and watch them like hawks. If injustice occurs it will get fixed at that time, not before there's actual wrong doing going on, as NN attempted to do.

    11. Dave Rickmers

      Re: 86% of Americans agree with *THEM*? Since *WHEN*?

      Artificial Scarcity is the basis of Capitalism. ISPs should get out of the way. They should not insert themselves between us and the world.

      1. Tom 38

        Re: 86% of Americans agree with *THEM*? Since *WHEN*?

        ISPs should get out of the way. They should not insert themselves between us and the world.

        Inserting themselves between me and the rest of the world is what I pay my ISP to do. If they stopped doing that, I would be very unhappy.

    12. Tom 38

      Re: 86% of Americans agree with *THEM*? Since *WHEN*?

      I think the Demo[c,n][r,R]ats need to stop it with the DISHONESTY.

      I downvoted you for your RE. Are the "Demo,,ats" really that dishonest?

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    No Chance

    of this measure getting passed.

    Emperor Trumpeteer has decided that he wants a wild west 'free for all'.

    Nice new clothes you have on today POTUS. :)

    Well done for putting your country well on the way to 4th world status.

    The rest of the world will just get on with life and ignore your trade barriers (Not for sale in the USA) and move forward while you decide who pays for that Wall and continue to bask in the wonders of 'Good Clean Coal'.

    Even my GOP supporting friends are against the dismantling of Net Neutrality (and a whole raft of other Trump policies) and won't be voting for him next time around or any Trump supporting candidate.

    They feel conned..

  4. Niarbeht
    Meh

    Just a reminder.

    It's never good to have a discussion about the law without actually bringing up the law.

    From the 2015 Open Internet Order: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1.pdf

    > A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management.

    > A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management.

    > A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not engage in paid prioritization.

    Note that paid prioritization above has nothing to do with consumers purchasing bandwidth.

    Where does the FCC gather the authority to make such regulations?

    Let's look to the 1996 Telecommunications Act (A reminder, the Internet was over a decade old at this point): https://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/tcom1996.pdf

    > p119 sec 706(C)(1): ADVANCED TELECOMMUNICATIONS CAPABILITY- The term `advanced telecommunications capability' is defined, without regard to any transmission media or technology, as high-speed, switched, broadband telecommunications capability that enables users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications using any technology.

    We see above that Congress has descriptively defined the Internet. The Internet is, indeed, switched, and does, indeed, allow users to originate and receive "high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications". Thus, the Internet is, according to Congress, a form of "Advanced Telecommunications Capability". Let's dig deeper into what the law has to say about telecommunications providers.

    > p7 sec 3(43): TELECOMMUNICATIONS.--The term "telecommunications" means the transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user's choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received.

    > p7 sec 3(44): TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIER.--The term ''telecommunications carrier'' means any provider of telecommunications services, except that such term does not include aggregators of telecommunications services (as defined in section 226). A telecommunications carrier shall be treated as a common carrier under this Act only to the extent that it is engaged in providing telecommunications services, except that the Commission shall determine whether the provision of fixed and mobile satellite service shall be treated as common carriage.

    We see here that the Internet fits the definition of Telecommunications even further. As a particular example, when I stream video from YouTube, if a change in video codec bitrate is necessary, YouTube's servers, and not the Internet service provider, are responsible for the change. YouTube changed what was being sent on their end, instead of the ISP changing the contents in-flight. As such, Internet service providers transmit data without change. Indeed, ISPs changing data in-flight is by far the exception, not the rule, and in the cases when it has happened the courts have clearly ruled against the ISPs, as the traffic is not theirs to modify.

    Further, we see that Congress has defined that Telecommunications Carriers, which Internet Service Providers count as, are to be treated as "common carriers" when they engage in telecommunications service, with the FCC deciding whether or not satellite service also counts as common carriage. Further, the aggregator exception does not apply, see:

    > SEC. 226. [47 U.S.C. 226] TELEPHONE OPERATOR SERVICES. (2) The term ''aggregator'' means any person that, in the ordinary course of its operations, makes telephones available to the public or to transient users of its premises, for interstate telephone calls using a provider of operator services.

    Finally, according to Congress, the FCC regulates common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act ( https://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf ). The below is an excerpt from Title II:

    > TITLE II--COMMON CARRIERS PART I--COMMON CARRIER REGULATION SEC. 202. [47 U.S.C. 202] DISCRIMINATION AND PREFERENCES. It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.

    As we can see, Net Neutrality, writ large, by Congress, with authority given to the FCC.

    Of course, none of this matters, because conspiracy-laden nonsense with no bearing on reality and ludicrous claims made with no reading of the relevant law.

    I am a product of public education in the United States and I can bother to read the law. What's your excuse?

  5. Ugotta B. Kiddingme

    don't hold your breath

    Paul Ryan announced earlier this year that he will not be seeking reelection, so he has no reason to fear public backlash or outcry. As pointed out in the article, the House action was just a formality with zero chance of success.

    This is one of the things I find most frustrating about our two party system. In my limited understanding of your parliamentary system, it seems you lot have (in theory at least) more options from which to choose and (also very much "in theory") more chances for a reasonable compromise outcome.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like