Republicans Move To Block Net Neutrality Rules

I think everybody saw this coming.

With regional monopolies created by the infrastructure, net neutrality rules are a requirement. If the infrastructure was owned by a separate entities than the service providers, the rules wouldn't be necessary. The lack of regional competition is the problem. DSL vs. cable vs. satellite vs. wireless vs. fiber isn't adequate for competition since the infrastructure for each has different characteristics. Multiple providers for each would be much better (DSL is the closest to that).

Seems to me that it is good for ISP companies, bad for the end-user.

Gonna be interesting when ISP companies start charging a premium to allow un-throttled bandwidth for online gaming.

But, at least it is rather entertaining watching my die-hard republican roommate get pissed at his own political party.

The same Republicans who are symbolically are cutting $100 billion for food safety inspections, schools, WIC, etc... not that it will even come close to balancing the budget, they just hate to think someone's getting something for free...

Of course, they could balance the budget by slashing defense spending to about what China or Russia spends, putting a 4 year moratorium on attacking or occupying another country, and letting the tax cuts for the wealthy expire.

Thanks for spending trillions on a war that no one wants. But a billion to keep the internet working as intended? Pfft. . . that's a waste of money.

You people are doomed

Pfft, billions (http://costofwar.com/en/). And more money was spent on Obama's stimulous than the entire Iraq war (http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/little-known-fact-obama039s-failed-stimulus-program-cost-more-iraq-war).

This is why I'm no longer a Republican. Thanks Bush (both of them, particularly #2).

Did they ever find those WMD'S?

"We all want an open and thriving Internet," "That Internet exists today."

This is exactly what the FCC is trying to protect with net neutrality. And no, the Internet in the US is definitely not universally "open" or "thriving" at this time. As long as the activity is legal, net neutrality prevents ISP's from discriminating against users based on individual usage, or blocking content or services from competitors. I, and many others, don't understand how this in any way stifles competition. If anything net neutrality should bolster competition. I guess this is what happens when your logic and reasoning are driven primarily by your ideology (currently the vast majority of the Republican party).

@FrozenGpu Ya they did media did not think it was news worth to run a story that showed there full of crap for years. And on Net Neutrality I pretty sure I don't like the Idea of a group of non elected person making up there own rule. The FCC is trying to bypass the system, we have checks and balances for a reason. Lets see what the GOP does after they remind the FCC who tells who what to do.

Good for them. The FCC is ran by a bunch of socialist leftist who have never had real jobs. The FCC has no business whatsoever sticking it's useless nose into the internet.

War nobody wanted? Ask the average Afghan if they prefer life under the Taliban.

Republicans = Attack abortion rights
Attack internet freedom
Attack the right to organize unions
Attack the right to sue corporations
Fight for corporations to abuse the environment and it's workers
Fight to lower taxes on people who never have to work again because of insane amounts of wealth

Who's freedom are they fighting for? The common man's or corporation's that aren't human?

Dude, the FCC is trying to protect the Internet form unnecessary Corporate influence and restrictions. If we gave the Right there way on this we would lose some Information freedoms. The Right always screaming about the right to freedom of speech, but the stance against Net Neutrality goes against it in many ways. It seems the only thing there after is to give there corporate buddies more ways to control us.

Nothing ever gets better when its handed over to a Bureaucracy.

It will only be a short matter of time before the FCC starts censoring the net "For Your Benefit". Not to mention censoring people reporting news that what ever administration currently in control doesnt agree with.

We do not currently live in the Democratic Republic created by our founders. Instead we live in a Corporatist State where corporate and Federal interests are as one. So never think that one is doing something to inhibit the other.

Net neutrality is about not giving your ISP the ability to decide what sites or content you access, how fast you access them, and whether those sites have to pay your ISP for said access. In short, the ISPs want to be the troll under the bridge that can act whimsically and unreasonably, when what the people want is a safe and reliable bridge.

Imagine if phone companies could control who you could call and could randomly decide to drop your connection whenever there was more profitable traffic they could send over any of the links! And what if the phone company was allowed to sell lists of phone numbers you called?

I think the phone company analogy is a good one. In the same way that phone companies are allowed to charge different rates for local calls vs. long distance, I would be okay with ISPs charging different rates for prioritized, low-latency traffic vs. bulk data, or to charge different rates for different levels of usage. However, there needs to be regulations to make sure that consumers understand the fee structure & limits. And just like the electric and water utilities have to provide a meter that lets you check your usage, so should ISPs.

C'mon people, this stuff is just common sense. Don't let politicians sell us out!

Really? Have you gotten sick from eating tainted meat, recently? Have you been poisoned by unsafe FDA-approved medicines? Have you ever wanted to know what was in packaged food you ate? Have you been able to use cellphones or broadcast radio/TV largely without issues of interference? Have you applied for a credit card and wanted to know how much interest you'd be paying? Have you ever flown anywhere on an airplane and did you arrive safely?

There's a time and a place and a proper role for regulation. In the best case, it aligns self-interest of corporations with what's good for the consumer and prevents them from profiting at the expense of conumers' health, safety, or ability to make an informed choice.

[citation]It will only be a short matter of time before the FCC starts censoring the net "For Your Benefit".[/citation]You mean like how they censor your phone calls?

Did you miss the biggest piece of legislation the government has passed in it's history? It effectively mandated that Americans whom are required to buy health insurance be required to buy a more expensive version (which may not necessarily be better for them) but as well expanded the number of people whom had to purchase it? Anyone see those "shrinking premiums" that were promised. Anyone notice how Wall Street watched the stocks of the major insurance companies sky rocket after the bill was signed into law?

Who did that help? The common man or the insurance company executives who haven't worked a real job in their life?

I can go on if you like, but I am sure you can see that both sides play that game. And don't give me the load of crap that one side is worse than another.

On topic: this is a very scary issue to talk about. On one hand, you have people talking about censoring the internet, metering the bandwidth provided to certain kinds of files, etc. On the other hand, you have consumers who are basically paying for people to whatever they want on the internet.

If I as a consumer only visit my e-mail, Tomshardware, and facebook, then it doesn't make sense for me to pay for internet that is intended for gamers, file sharers, and other power internet users. It would be cheaper for the average consumer to allow more intensive materials to cost more than less intensive, because the average internet user doesn't use extremely intensive applications.

It also makes sense that a site like Tomshardware would be outraged that this would be going on because they are likely power users (I personally am) and enjoy the common man paying for their right to game, file share, youtube, etc.

It goes beyond simple metering though. While some may cringe at the idea of an internet filter, it could be argued that an internet filter could block potentially harmful content from entering the computing eco-system. We could restrict information like "how to make a bomb" or "how to shoot an assault rifle" from common people so they have to consult an expert on these matters who can make decisions on whether it's safe to hand out such information.

Obviously, this is a very very very touchy subject. It's one that should be thought out immensely.

Furthermore, the current Net-neutrality rules are abysmally bad for everyone. The FCC did a terrible job with them. I wouldn't fund them either. I can't say it's for the same reason the Republicans are blocking this, but it's definitely a reason.

well i already emailed my congressmen my intentions to creat a bill eliminating interstate commerce and roadway neutrality. i said if the FCC gets blocked by this then i am going to put forth a bill to block and limit commerce and travel in my state citing the same principals used in stripping this regulation. after all fair is fair. every one should have to have my states lisc, registration, tabs, regulations and taxes whether they are just passing thru or comming to my state from another. i stipulated this could go further even down to the county and city level because of the country and city sales tax involvement.

this is what i did instead of fumming at the screen and ranting to you guys XD
i did something that matters yea me! you guys gotta try this!

a good senator who understand this and knows what it means and stands for the consumers is al franken, he is pretty much right on top of this and capable of shooting down any arguement to the contrary since telecoms lines are subsidized by tax payers. i personally got to talk with him about it back when the FCC was mulling imposing these regulations and he was way on top of it then even.

as for the idiot with the WMD's, yes there were, and how can you not have realized this since there was even nightly televised news reports of the actual WMD's being used by Iraq in the iran-iraq war. only germany, france, britian, russia, and america openely had that technology despite the ban. iraq suddenly popped up over night with that tech and using it within days. and to fight the people who toppled the iranian shah, who america put in power, and for what benefit? it was widely televised the CIA's involvement with training the iraqi army. i can cast some doubt in here as to who supplied the WMD since iran was a former colony of britian, but reality speculates other wise. it can't ever come out who provided that tech other then iraq itself because of the huge issue or non proliferation treaties and geneva conventions violations.
you failed history, you should forfeit your diploma to me now.

Not sure "net neutrality" impacts this issue directly, or vice versa, but I heartily agree that the regional monopolies are a serious problem in America. They are what most stifle competition and innovation.

The Democrats and Obama had 2 years full majority Congress, Senate, and White House already to try to fix this country and only racked up trillions more in debt and almost doubled the unemployment rate. Now we have record deficits and Obama releases a $3.7 TRILLION dollar budget and you are talking about the Republicans being so bad. How about the guy and the party behind him that wants to spend the country into oblivion.
Kids this is what you brain is like on Bama Koolaid.

Agreed, I don't think anyone could've said it better. This sounds reasonable and logical, and you'd think this would be common sense or a matter of fact, but amazingly it isn't. No new regulations could ever be socially or economically beneficial for consumers, regardless of the form, nature, or purpose of that regulation. It's this type of ideological absolutism that's becoming increasingly common in the Republican party, and it's not only hurting the party itself but the country as a whole.

It must be a terribly paradoxical situation to be in, to chose the party ideology of 'no regulation ALWAYS = better' over a reasonable regulation that effectively guards consumer rights while stimulating what little competition currently exists in the ISP industry. It's too often I see this paranoia driven illogical equation tossed around, any regulation = big government = government take over = communism, or in short any regulation = the fall of the free market. Fallacy?

Like bit_user was pointing out, I think many of the people so adamantly protesting regulation, even in its "proper role", often don't realize the extent to which some existing regulations positively affect their everyday lives, and just how many of the services and assurances they receive on a regular basis exist because of reasonable regulations that prevent large corporations "from profiting at the expense of conumers' health, safety, or ability to make an informed choice".

If anyone is expecting major results in two years then your not living within reality. Not with the situation we are in anyways. Even Kerry back in the 04 elections made it clear that if he won he would not be able to fix the economy problems within one term. He of course lost and Bush simply continued to drill the problems even deeper. Once the Republicans lost full control it created a useless government as the Democrats would just get vetoed by Bush on whatever they tried to pass.

So when Obama got in and had two years of control this was a already much worse situation.
If Kerry could honestly say he would not be able to fix it back in 2004 in one term what makes you think Obama or anyone could do so in half a term with even worse conditions? As for the rising debt and unemployment rates you would be amazed how much of that money was actually put into saving jobs. Basically Obama was handed a complete economic collapse
all he could do is bandage the wound and hope for the best but we still are certainly bleeding out but thankfully at a slower rate. The hope is for it to last long enough for a shift in the right direction to begin will it work or are we just delaying the collapse is yet to be seen.

It really didn't matter who we put in the White House or whom we even elect today in any office
this is something we are forced to endure and see where it goes any politician or candidate
who says otherwise is either a fool or a liar. I can say for certain that Obama has saved jobs because thanks to his investment into the economy/businesses thankfully the list lay-offs I personally had to come up with (they were in a wave format wave 1 would be most expandable and so on) never had to read out-loud. Saving the jobs of people who have spouses, kids, or other dependents whom depend on them. I'd rather be in debt and have these people not be able to put food on the table. Wouldn't you?

Silly Americans, you see your economic situation deteriorating and you blame Obama, Bush, socialists, corporations, unions, wars, etc. The reason you are not rich as you once were is the fact that there was no basis in it. No real reason why an American programmer would earn five times more than an Indian programmer. Same for plumbers, nurses, whoever. You are not five/ten times more productive than your counterparts in the developing world and for the first time in history your employers have the choice of giving these jobs to someone overseas.

And there is nothing that can be done, you and other rich countries will continue to get poorer, the poor countries will get richer until an equilibrium is reached where you'll earn according to your productivity. It's only fair.

GOOD! About time some of those politicians did something right. Otherwise, it would lead to alot more of this: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/D [...] 12216.html

@frozengpu - yes they did .. google for 650 metric tons of yellow cake uranium taken from iraq (i think it was in 2006)

@itchyisvegeta - Need I remind you that that happened BEFORE net neutrality was even on the table?


For all of you idiot 20 somethings that dont get what net neutrality is... think of it like this... you start a business providing a service and you stipulate how you will provide that service and people agree to use your service with said stipulations... Then the government comes in and says you cant stipulate anything and you must do what ever the feds say. Net Neutrality is a stepping stone (cause we all know NO government program EVER gets smaller... and if anyone proposes any cuts they are evil republicans trying to take money from the elderly or the poor or the children) to the government dictating what we see on the internet ala china.

Once again, The American people are thrown under the bus in favor of the corporation.

Killerclick: Apparently economics is not your strong suit; It has to do with cost of living, if I had to program for the wage that an Indian makes (living in India, not in the US), I wouldn't be able to afford even the most ghetto apartment or trailer, much less the respectable standard of living that a skilled worker deserves. You can't afford a modest new car, gas, food and a modest house on less than $50k/yr in most parts of America, let alone expensive areas like NYC and San Franscisco. Given that $50k is barely entry-level for a respectable living standard in America, $75 to $100k a year is a fair wage for a highly-skilled and experienced developer.

American currency is still worth far more than the rupee, which is a contributing factory. The problem is that for the first time ever, companies are allowed to outsource all they want without the tariffs that have been around since George Washington. Reaganomics FTW.

However, the real problem is the banker and get-rich-quick types who have continued to speculate on commodity prices and artificially drive up real estate values, ie: finding novel ways to siphon money off of working people, without making any real contribution to the economy. The money comes from working people, any attempt to leach money off of working people requires higher wages to cover it. The solution is to **regulate** real estate pricing and to **regulate** commodities pricing, even if it means some poor rich SOB has to find some other way to make money.

You've mixed up cause and consequence - higher wages cause higher cost of living. As wealth of the US relative to the rest of the world goes down, so will wages and cost of living.

Oh my goodness....do my own eyes deceive me? Someone actually made sense on the internet!

I am American and I agree 100% with what you just said. No one ever seems to discuss the problems of having an economy that is based on the tertiary/services sector. While I certainly hope that all of humanity can advance themselves - I also am hoping that my fellow citizens develop their math and science skills so we can maintain our competitiveness.

After seeing the gross overuse of power last week where 84,000 websites were shut down by a freaking internet kill switch I can see why Republicans are fighting to keep this power AWAY from the federal government. I don't like the fact that ISP's are trying to throttle our internet but I also don't want something like what happened in Egypt to even be possible here in the states. No way. No fucking way.