Senate Vote Passes to Save Net Neutrality

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
55,534
We would suggest that we did not see that coming! The US Senate has voted to save Net Neutrality, and that means it is on to the House of Representatives. Should you wish to easily contact your local representative, hit this link to do it the easy way!


BREAKING NEWS: The Senate voted to save net neutrality. Now we need the House of Representatives to do the same, or else the FCC will let ISPs like Comcast and Verizon ruin the internet with throttling, censorship and expensive new fees. Write your lawmakers now!
 
speed.png

Help me, Congress. You're my only hope!

:rolleyes:
 
Even if the House passes it the President has to sign it. Or they have to have enough votes to overrule his veto....I just dont see it happening.
 
Again, net neutrality laws don't actually prevent throttling or price increases. While the real problem, a lack of competition and investment in New technology remains. Net neutrality advocates can only point to incredibly extreme and unlikely scenarios to make their case, and they don't really address the real issue. I' actually in favor of "fast lanes" for certain services as long as certain rules are in place. In many ways, fast lanes already exist even under net neutrality laws. I swear, this is the abortion debate for millennials.
 
All Republicans voted against saving net neutrality except for:
Susan Collins (Maine), John Kennedy (Louisiana), and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)
 
View attachment 74388

Help me, Congress. You're my only hope!

:rolleyes:

I know this was in jest, but net neutrality literally has nothing to do with raw internet speeds. It is about the internet companies being able to limit your access to specific parts of the internet and then charging you more to access those parts or even just restricting access outright so that you are forced to use their own services and would not be allowed to even use their competitor's.
 
Again, net neutrality laws don't actually prevent throttling or price increases. While the real problem, a lack of competition and investment in New technology remains. Net neutrality advocates can only point to incredibly extreme and unlikely scenarios to make their case, and they don't really address the real issue. I' actually in favor of "fast lanes" for certain services as long as certain rules are in place. In many ways, fast lanes already exist even under net neutrality laws. I swear, this is the abortion debate for millennials.

Unlikely my ass. Care to point to me what is unlikely about what ISPs have already bloody done in the past? Are you too young to remember when Comcast throttled and blocked all torrent traffic? How about Comcast and others throttling the fuck out of Netflix in order to blackmail them into paying more for the bandwidth they were already paying for? You really think that won't happen again?
 
Net neutrality advocates can only point to incredibly extreme and unlikely scenarios to make their case, and they don't really address the real issue. I' actually in favor of "fast lanes" for certain services as long as certain rules are in place. In many ways, fast lanes already exist even under net neutrality laws.

So basically in one sentence you say that net neutrality advocates can only point to extreme and unlikely scenarios, and then in the very next sentence you admit that there are already "fast lane" services that are existing.

You're right fast lanes do already exist, and it is is 100% bullshit. Cell phone data plans should have no data caps. Period. Fast lanes to "circumvent" those data caps by not counting x services towards it is the problem net neutrality aims to fix. Not to simply get rid of those services, but by not allowing corporations to set arbitrary limits on your data to begin with. ISPs have zero right to prioritize, snoop, or control the flow of data between users, but sure keep pretending like nearly every ISP and mobile carrier in the USA isn't actively screwing over every single one of their users.
 
I wonder what the chances of this passing in the house would be, and if it did, if Trump would sign it, as his FCC chief under his guidance is responsible for killing it off...
 
I wonder what the chances of this passing in the house would be, and if it did, if Trump would sign it, as his FCC chief under his guidance is responsible for killing it off...

If the House votes down party lines? Exactly zero chance. Even without that it is unlikely to pass in the House. Reps have a pretty massive majority and most people don't have the balls to step out of line with what their party says.
 
Even if the House passes it the President has to sign it. Or they have to have enough votes to overrule his veto....I just dont see it happening.
The President does not have to sign it and it doesn't need a 2/3 majority. If he just lets it sit there for 10 days, it will pass regardless. He has to actually veto it for it to need a 2/3 majority from congress.
 
Cell phone data plans should have no data caps...ISPs have zero right to prioritize, snoop, or control the flow of data between users

Frankly, as someone that's a staunch supporter of net neutrality, and as a user that will pull down 20+ GB of data a month on my cell phone, I disagree with that. Unlike DSL/Cable/Fiber/etc., mobile services have an actual limit to the amount of traffic that can be delivered at a particular time. If you walk into a football game and everyone is trying to upload a 5GB video to YouTube, that's going to kill the speeds for everyone nearby. In that situation, prioritizing old man Kelly who uses .5 GB a month and just wants to send a text message and throttling me is fine in my book.

Where I have a problem is when they want to throttle for the sake of throttling. When AT&T first started doing their throttling, I could be in a situation that would not be excessively crowded, and I'd have speeds that absolutely crawled. That I don't like.

Prioritization during high use times is fine. Prioritization because fuck-you-that's-why is annoying.
 
What does everyone here believe the "Net Neutrality" law actually accomplished? The primary things I've noticed since 2015 is my stagnate internet speed (8MB down/ 0.5 up - yes 0.5), and Facebook, twitter, and youtube censorship of wrong think. Shouldn't a "Net Neutrality" law prevent what I've noticed the last three years? Congress isn't known for truth in titles/advertising and I don't believe a hundreds of pages long net neutrality bill was what most people think.
 
Well they sort of saved it, don't let the headline fool you...... The senate bought themselves 17 more days to swing 22 key republican senators over from pro repeal to anti repeal, and even if they do manage to swing those 22 republican votes over Trump can still veto it and cause the repeal to happen anyways.

To be fair the current Net Neutrality laws are broken and mostly unenforceable, they need a good solid rewrite from people who know how things work.
 
The President does not have to sign it and it doesn't need a 2/3 majority. If he just lets it sit there for 10 days, it will pass regardless. He has to actually veto it for it to need a 2/3 majority from congress.
And you think hes gonna just let this one slide why?
 
Every one of those are violations that the FTC would have stopped anyway. None of them are FCC jurisdiction.

The FTC might have been able to step in on some of them, but the FCC's jurisdiction is ALL interstate communication. The internet is communication therefor it falls under the FCC.
 
What does everyone here believe the "Net Neutrality" law actually accomplished? The primary things I've noticed since 2015 is my stagnate internet speed (8MB down/ 0.5 up - yes 0.5), and Facebook, twitter, and youtube censorship of wrong think. Shouldn't a "Net Neutrality" law prevent what I've noticed the last three years? Congress isn't known for truth in titles/advertising and I don't believe a hundreds of pages long net neutrality bill was what most people think.

...and this has nothing to do with Net Neutrality, it's not about your bandwidth service tier, it's about providers creating fast lanes for particular services and potentially charging for access to those fast lanes, while the rest of the network traffic without subscription is just bulk QoS speeds (limited in comparison, with high latency routing based on whatever they pay cheapest tiered bandwidth for.)
 
Why are ISP's trying so hard to get rid of it then? Think about that...

Probably because it is shitty legislation that doesn't actually fix any problems. What the legislation does is give uneven power to services to clog up the internet and not have to pay for it. Real net neutrality would necessitate a different system than we currently have and you would have Google/Facebook/Netflix actively lobbying against it.
 
Please govt save our internet because it sucked before Net "Neutrality"! ROFL!
"Affordable" Care Act. LOL!

Yep because ISPs totally never did anything that NN tells them not to before NN was put in place. Those ISPs are so fucking trustworthy. They would never do anything like block competing apps from phones, throttle the shit out of competing streaming services, throttle every video service not willing to pay them, block all peer-to-peer communication services, freely admit to the Supreme Court that they would love to do fastline bullshit, block competing internet based payment services on cell devices, redirect users' search queries to search sites that paid them a fee for every redirect. That would never ever happen if we didn't have Net Neutrality.

PS: Bush had a far large effect on increasing insurance costs than Obama. ACA has issues, but it isn't the sole cause of insurance premiums being where they are.
 
Why are ISP's trying so hard to get rid of it then? Think about that...

Perhaps ISP CEO's align with my view that ineffective regulations just waste money. If the Internet needs regulation, then don't screw around - declare internet providers as common carriers, like landline telephone. Someone can not be denied land line telephone service because they think an unapproved or unexpected way. The only online censorship allowed would be what is mandated by law instead of up being up to the whims of individual companies.
 
Even if the House passes it the President has to sign it. Or they have to have enough votes to overrule his veto....I just dont see it happening.
Good.
The only reason people think they care about this is because they think their netflix or whatever "streaming" service will go away. relax people your netflix will be fine. you gotta admit the internet and all media forms have done a good job of getting my generation espically. hyped and worried/rilled up over nothing. and frankly i expected better from the [H] community.
 
Probably because it is shitty legislation that doesn't actually fix any problems. What the legislation does is give uneven power to services to clog up the internet and not have to pay for it. Real net neutrality would necessitate a different system than we currently have and you would have Google/Facebook/Netflix actively lobbying against it.

The fuck are you talking about? Do you really think that Google, Netflix, etc don't pay for bandwidth? If these BILLION PLUS DOLLAR A YEAR ISPs actually updated their fucking networks there wouldn't be any congestion.
 
I honestly feel that no matter how many people write to their representatives and congressman, they won't save it. They could give two shits what the common folk want. They live in their own world and have their own agendas. Just look at how much progress they have made in other areas of legislation. :(
 
PS: Bush had a far large effect on increasing insurance costs than Obama. ACA has issues, but it isn't the sole cause of insurance premiums being where they are.

This is a tangeant, but that actually isn't that true. Health insurance premiums have risen just as steadily under Obama as under Bush. The difference is that the ACA was supposed to severely limit the premium increase. That was one of Obama's platforms. He even said it would be less than your phone bill. That never happened, in fact premiums have been increasing steadily much as they had before. Healthcare has also been increasing under ACA, which it was supposed to go down because of ACA. So in effect, ACA hasn't done what it was supposed to do, but its actually costing everyone more in its implementation.
 
Back
Top