Senate Votes Against Measure to Kill Net Neutrality Rules

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
Concerns over the FCC granting itself the power to regulate portions the Internet by opponents was voted down on Thursday by the US Senate, largely along party lines. The Net Neutrality Rules were passed by the FCC last December and remains a hotbed of contention with lawmakers on both sides of Congress.


The vote effectively kills efforts to overturn the FCC rules in Congress, although Verizon Communications has filed a court challenge to the regulations.
Click to expand...
 
What the FCC did is sort of a necessary evil in my eyes. I really don't want the government regulating the internet at all, but because in each part of the US you only have 3 choices of ISPs and all of them collaborate to offer the worst service at the highest price, that this measure is necessary. So I am glad that the bill got shot down
 
From what I understand Obama was ready to veto any measure to overturn Net Neutrality rules, so more of a political statement at this point.
 
Wow, something in the Senate got done with a simple majority vote? That's rare these days... Starting to get used to the 60 votes needed to overrule filibusters to even have something to come up for a vote as standard.
 
The title is misleading. This is not really a good thing. I wonder how many folks actually know what the FCC rules actually do? (Takes a freaking lawyer to get the interpretation right)

The FCC rules is what allows companies to rape you with no backlash. Since the rules went into effect, people on comcast have not been able access my FTP because I am on AT&T, so someone tell me how those rules are working for us again?

Keep in mind, the democrats want to control and tax every aspect of your life and they classify you as a 'subject' instead of a 'citizen' so on what grounds does anyone celebrate anything those idiots do en-masse?
 
Vote for RepubiCrats to over turn this, don't worry your voting finger won't fall off. I tried it I know :)
 
I first saw it in the Network forums several years ago, Comcast blocking or limiting P2P. It turned out to be happening to others in major cities across the US.
Comcast was later fined $16M for it in 2008. Not because it was illegal but because it was in violation of their TOS.

Some of the large telcos had been threatening to charge more for high traffic sites. Google, MSN, Yahoo etc. If they had their way it would be an extra monthly charge to go to any of them. Netflix? forgetaboutit.
Without Net Neutrality it would be legal to block, limit and redirect traffic to an ISP's preferred offerings.

I can hardly believe the opponents have ever taken the time to understand what the hell Net Neutrality means. Wait, I take that back. The bill was introduced by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison who looks like she was born in the 1800's and never used a computer.
 
ya i think many people dont understand the FCC rules, many seem to think, wrongly, that they are going to help the people, when they really dont, it gives private companies full power basically to do what they want.
 
Dzero said:
I can hardly believe the opponents have ever taken the time to understand what the hell Net Neutrality means.
Click to expand...

I fully understand what net neutrality means...this law does not further the cause. In fact, it makes it easier for companies to do what they want, which is why Comcast still blocks FTP to non comcast ISPs. It also allows wireless providers to limit bandwidth and charge more for specific data types (which they do).
 
Some of the tripe in this thread is ridiculous. "Regulation is bad because it allows companies to do whatever they want!"

huh?
 
BBA said:
Since the rules went into effect, people on comcast have not been able access my FTP because I am on AT&T, so someone tell me how those rules are working for us again?
Click to expand...

I am running an FTP serv from my house(my ISP is comcast) and am able to access it from pretty much any where. Parents house is on AT&T from uni which is on its own network etc
 
BBA said:
The title is misleading. This is not really a good thing. I wonder how many folks actually know what the FCC rules actually do? (Takes a freaking lawyer to get the interpretation right)

The FCC rules is what allows companies to rape you with no backlash. Since the rules went into effect, people on comcast have not been able access my FTP because I am on AT&T, so someone tell me how those rules are working for us again?

Keep in mind, the democrats want to control and tax every aspect of your life and they classify you as a 'subject' instead of a 'citizen' so on what grounds does anyone celebrate anything those idiots do en-masse?
Click to expand...

This I agree with.

There are a few "good points" but a hell of alot of bad points involved with this. The good points are to few to even make it truly worth it. In the end, we will pay more for crapier internet, and your information gets handed off to whoever wants it regarding whatever they want it for. This is bad!
 
BBA said:
I fully understand what net neutrality means...this law does not further the cause. In fact, it makes it easier for companies to do what they want, which is why Comcast still blocks FTP to non comcast ISPs. It also allows wireless providers to limit bandwidth and charge more for specific data types (which they do).
Click to expand...

Comcast isn't blocking FTP to non Comcast ISPs. ISPs don't want you running servers on their connections unless you pay for a business plan, so they block the incoming ports. The point where they start blocking ports will vary. I ran into this when I tried to set up a Counter-Strike server on my cable connection. My friends that are on the same node as me could see the server fine, but no one else could.
 
RogueKitsune said:
What the FCC did is sort of a necessary evil in my eyes. I really don't want the government regulating the internet at all, but because in each part of the US you only have 3 choices of ISPs and all of them collaborate to offer the worst service at the highest price, that this measure is necessary. So I am glad that the bill got shot down
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with Net Neutrality.

Dzero said:
I first saw it in the Network forums several years ago, Comcast blocking or limiting P2P. It turned out to be happening to others in major cities across the US.
Comcast was later fined $16M for it in 2008. Not because it was illegal but because it was in violation of their TOS.
Click to expand...
and they quit throttling because of public backlash, not because of the FCC.
Not to mention that many forms of BT traffic shaping are valid under the FCC rules.

Some of the large telcos had been threatening to charge more for high traffic sites. Google, MSN, Yahoo etc. If they had their way it would be an extra monthly charge to go to any of them. Netflix? forgetaboutit.
Click to expand...
The closest any of them came to "threatening" was watching a presentation from a company claiming to have expensive technology to implement that stupid idea.
Of course that hasn't stopped uninformed people from parroting the tiered internet FUD.

Without Net Neutrality it would be legal to block, limit and redirect traffic to an ISP's preferred offerings.
Click to expand...
Yet nobody has ever done this. You tremble and assert that it could happen. They could also turn all internet images upside down. We need Upside-downternet Neutrality!


I can hardly believe the opponents have ever taken the time to understand what the hell Net Neutrality means. Wait, I take that back. The bill was introduced by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison who looks like she was born in the 1800's and never used a computer.
Click to expand...
I can hardly believe that the proponents have done the same. They don't know what the rules do, they don't know what the bills do, they haven't considered any fringe cases.... but since some schmuck in DC said their rules are good, that means it's good. It's the internet freedom plan, right? Who would oppose freedomternet?

Now you do what they told you.
 
LightningCrash said:
......................
Click to expand...

Yeah thats nice and all, but pardon me if I dont put faith in the ISP's to hold my best interests at heart. They come up with these concepts for a reason. If you dont think the major telco companies are spending millions of dollars thinking of every possible way they can nickle and dime you to control the internet then you are a fool. All neutrality seeks is to make sure these things never see the light of day. There's no downside at all, other than making you uncomfortable about the mere idea of gov't control, which is in itself ironic, since the control the gov't is establishing is one of "no control", a basic set of tenants saying ISP's will continue to function as they have been. There are no limitations being imposed which will hamper the internet, yet there are countless ways the ISP's are seeking to do just that.

I direct you to the following image. I assure you, without protection this WILL become reality one day.

TieredInternet.jpg
 
McFry said:
Yeah thats nice and all, but pardon me if I dont put faith in the ISP's to hold my best interests at heart. They come up with these concepts for a reason. If you dont think the major telco companies are spending millions of dollars thinking of every possible way they can nickle and dime you to control the internet then you are a fool. All neutrality seeks is to make sure these things never see the light of day. There's no downside at all, other than making you uncomfortable about the mere idea of gov't control, which is in itself ironic, since the control the gov't is establishing is one of "no control", a basic set of tenants saying ISP's will continue to function as they have been. There are no limitations being imposed which will hamper the internet, yet there are countless ways the ISP's are seeking to do just that.

I direct you to the following image. I assure you, without protection this WILL become reality one day.

http://www.gacetadigital.com/wp-content/2010/12/TieredInternet.jpg[/IMG]
Click to expand...

It's obvious the bogeyman has you scared. You've bought this concept that the Telcos are all purely malevolent entities seeking to control the entirety of the Internet. While I don't hold any illusions about telcos being benevolent, I do know when I am being made to jump.
You have personally asserted that the status quo before the FCC rules was a free internet. By your own words, then, the FCC's rules aren't needed. By your own words, net neutrality is a solution in search of a problem to correct.
The only entity wishing to assert restrictions here is the US government. The only entity devising and implementing plans for controlling the content of the internet here is the US government. Amazingly, people fall in line, grabbing whatever misformed and grossly improbable logical pitchforks they can muster. A huge number of the things people claim are bellwethers of the lack of net neutrality are still in fact permissible under the FCC rules.

I direct you to your FUD Tiered Internet image. This particularly ridiculous piece of FUD has no actual roots in historical events, but entraps easily swayed people who haven't looked into the issue. It will never happen. Ever. Sorry.

I fail to understand this slavish devotion to repeating incorrect and irrelevant mantras.
 
Telco's want to do with Internet plans just what they do with Cell Phones. Limits, overage charges, throttling etc. That is simply good business - monitize as much as you possibly can out of the service you provide. Thinking otherwise is naive.
 
Data caps are COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE and LIMIT the INNOVATION these very dumbasses want our country to have...... typical BASS ACKWRDS republicans trying to think about money in a situation they CLEARLY KNOW NOTHING ABOUT.

Fucking clueless old rich pricks! At it again! Fucking up something that was 100% NOT BROKEN. Oh no, comcast lost 500 million in extra bandwidth charges.... now they are forcing others to limit their internet use, while other countries go off and have unlimited like america USED TO HAVE.

Thanks you rich, greedy dumbasses! Making America stupider and poorer, 1 stupid idea at a time!

I can't believe some of the nonsense and TOTAL BULLSHIT they are feeding the house and senate on CSPAN about this... I scan through and see the "Internet neutrality" in the topic bar, and I'm like ohh wow, this should be good... it's some rich, old white lady. Yeah, she knows a lot about the internet....... :rolleyes:

Why don't they ever get REAL PEOPLE to talk to the politicians? Oh, that's right... they are after money for their own pocket..... and could care less about the common joe.
 
Dreaz said:
Some of the tripe in this thread is ridiculous. "Regulation is bad because it allows companies to do whatever they want!"

huh?
Click to expand...

Yeah, it makes total sense.

Here's what happens....

they have these things called "lobbyists" -- these guys do nothing but party and sway people with free gifts and money. What people you ask? OUR POLITICIANS.

And it's all technically "legal" to do this.....

So you have America, as a whole.... who DO NOT WANT THIS, clearly as you can see from talking to any normal person for 5 seconds. And then you have comcast/AT&T/etc trying to make these laws pass.

So they hire LOBBYISTS since corporations cannot mingle with politicians, and then use these complete puppet losers to pay off and buy their polticians vote with free gifts, cards, houses, etc... (no bullshit, look it up as stuff like this happens daily)

So yeah..... regulations are sometimes made BY THE CORPORATIONS, FOR THE CORPORATIONS, so they can all control of those regulations.
 
Greene420 said:
So yeah..... regulations are sometimes made BY THE CORPORATIONS, FOR THE CORPORATIONS, so they can all control of those regulations.
Click to expand...

All businesses are for regulation as long as it hurts the competition and gives them a competitive edge.

Just look at cane sugar quotas.
 
LightningCrash said:
You have personally asserted that the status quo before the FCC rules was a free internet. By your own words, then, the FCC's rules aren't needed. By your own words, net neutrality is a solution in search of a problem to correct.
Click to expand...

See this is what I see a lot of the republican opposition claim. "The internet has done just fine so far without gov't intervention". Keyword: SO FAR. This was simply a biproduct of the fact that the internet was still growing up. Companies didnt have time to figure out ways to screw us, they were too busy screwing each other in a competitive war, and learning how to deal with the burgeoning demand. But the dust has settled now. There isnt any particular great new network technology about to deploy on the world. It's just who can offer the best price and the fastest speeds these days. This has given the telcos time to consider other methods of revenue. And just like the big banks, the cellphone carriers, and any other industry you can name, their focus will quickly shift from offering consumers the most services, to charging the most for each service and seeing what consumers will put up with.

This would be fine if there were any competition left to challenge them. But with a virtual monopoly in place you wont see any such competition. Instead you will see each provider offering the same fee's and restrictions as the other. The only difference between them will be which one is in your area, and which one has better reliability ratings.

Since you agree that net neutrality addresses a problem that doesnt exist, then who cares that it's there? It does nothing and is useless, running transparently in the background. That is until "that day". You seem to think a tiered internet is a fantasy, but already we're starting to see the signs. I used to have unlimited data with comcast 10 years ago. Now I'm capped at 250GB.
 
McFry said:
Since you agree that net neutrality addresses a problem that doesnt exist, then who cares that it's there? It does nothing and is useless, running transparently in the background. That is until "that day". You seem to think a tiered internet is a fantasy, but already we're starting to see the signs. I used to have unlimited data with comcast 10 years ago. Now I'm capped at 250GB.
Click to expand...

I snipped out most of the FUD here. I don't feel the need to waste government and corporation resources on a problem that doesn't exist. Sorry.

and data caps don't have anything to do with net neutrality. SPI is a whole lot harder than data caps.
 
LightningCrash said:
I snipped out most of the FUD here. I don't feel the need to waste government and corporation resources on a problem that doesn't exist. Sorry.
Click to expand...

And some days I bring an umbrella to work, so I'm not left standing in the rain.
 
It is the government's job to look out for the best interests of the people. When a business has the ability to screw the entire country over, the government should step in.

Just because monopoly ISP don't discriminate against traffic doesn't mean they couldn't or wouldn't. If an ISP mounted cannons on their rooftops and pointed them at the city, you'd have these anti-net neutrality people going "Well, they haven't fired them at anyone yet, so let them build their cannons. The government shouldn't regulate businesses!"

Net neutrality isn't a case of the government regulating the internet; it's the government preventing one citizen from doing wrong to another.
 
And the fact that the senate voted against it is comforting. It shows that the people still have some kind of sway still, rather than just corporate lobbyists.
 
Dantrax said:
Vote for RepubiCrats to over turn this, don't worry your voting finger won't fall off. I tried it I know :)
Click to expand...
Why vote for the republicans just to get rid of the FCC net neutrality rules? I suspect Hermain Cain doesn't even have a stance on net neutrality and only will develop one should be find himself unable to access his google search results for 'hot sexy secretary action'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top