Thune, Upton's Net Neutrality Gambit Unsuccessful Wednesday Feb 25 2015 07:49 EDT Senator John Thune, Rep Greg Walden and Rep Fred Upton, two of which are the largest recipients of Comcast campaign donations in Congress, had been pushing a net neutrality "compromise" in the hopes of derailing FCC passage of tougher rules. However, most realized the effort as a ploy to undermine the kind of consumer protections Internet activists have been all-but yelling for, resulting in Thune and Upton admitting this week their effort has failed: quote: And Republicans on Capitol Hill, who once criticized the plan as “Obamacare for the Internet,” now say they are unlikely to pass a legislative response that would undo perhaps the biggest policy shift since the Internet became a reality. “We’re not going to get a signed bill that doesn’t have Democrats’ support,” said Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota and chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee. “This is an issue that needs to have bipartisan support."
Of course Thune's bill failed to attract "bipartisan support" because most realized it was an effort to undermine real net neutrality rules, and not a serious attempt at meaningful compromise. Activists, including Mozilla, find themselves amazed they're at the precipice of a Thursday vote on real net neutrality rules, when a year ago at this time such rules seemed like little more than a pipe dream: quote: “We’ve been outspent, outlobbied. We were going up against the second-biggest corporate lobby in D.C., and it looks like we’ve won,” said Dave Steer, director of advocacy for the Mozilla Foundation, the nonprofit technology foundation that runs Firefox, a popular Web browser, referring to the cable companies. “A year ago today, we did not think we would be in this spot."
Of course this is just the beginning of another chapter in the net neutrality debate, and certainly not an end to the conversation. After the rules get passed this Thursday you can expect a flurry of ISP lawsuits, followed by a year or more of legal wrangling to even get the rules implemented. After that, the rules could very easily find themselves overturned by a party shift and change in FCC leadership. |
pandora Premium Member join:2001-06-01 Outland |
pandora
Premium Member
2015-Feb-25 8:42 am
KarlHave checked telecommunications donations to Congress at opensecrets? Thune isn't in the top 10.
Worse the FCC may not vote for the proposed regulation, a Democrat is concerned about regulation of interchanges. | |
| | | | | | | | Ghoul join:2001-02-04 Mastic Beach, NY |
to Karl Bode
Re: Karl...and numerous proponents of so-called "Net Neutrality" are also big recipients.
In any case, why are you such a cheerleader for this Karl? Have you managed to get a copy of the 300 pages of rules or is your support based on the title alone? Are you a believer in pass first, read later? | |
| | | | |
Re: Karlsaid by Ghoul:In any case, why are you such a cheerleader for this Karl? Because I want the Internet to be destroyed and I hate freedom, silly! | |
| | | | | Ghoul join:2001-02-04 Mastic Beach, NY
1 recommendation |
Ghoul
Member
2015-Feb-25 10:23 am
Re: KarlSeriously Karl, you're ok with hundreds of pages being withheld from the public before being voted on? | |
| | | | | | |
Re: KarlAbsolutely not. I think they should be released. For the record it's just eight pages, the rest is just supplemental material.
I do think in the absence of competition Title II is probably the best path forward, though I have my doubts that the wording of the rules will be coherent enough to prevent abusive behavior, or that they'll survive subsequent legal challenges and partisan shifts. | |
|
| | | | pandora Premium Member join:2001-06-01 Outland |
to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode:said by Ghoul:In any case, why are you such a cheerleader for this Karl? Because I want the Internet to be destroyed and I hate freedom, silly! If it were possible for me to believe as you do about the proposed regulation, there wouldn't be any debate between us. However, a secret rule proposal? Really Karl, why on earth does this have to be secret? A public comment period would be helpful, knowing what the FCC was thinking about doing is helpful to all. IMO this has tremendous potential to cause grief. If parts or the rule are invalidated (parts you or I may like) and parts are upheld (parts you or I may not like) by a federal court, this could just make Internet messier. I love freedom, and hate Comcast extorting users or providers like Netflix (or anyone else). I don't believe in caps, we should all have pipes at a rated speed, use should be up to us without grief from the provider. It is my opinion that the FCC, Obama, and most of Congress are bought by Comcast. My best guess is our Comcast CEO or a designee knows whats in the proposed rule and either wrote or influenced a large portion of it. | |
| | | | | | 1 edit |
Re: Karlsaid by pandora:Really Karl, why on earth does this have to be secret? It shouldn't be. For the record, that the agency can't publicize policy ahead of a vote has been a (bad) FCC rule for years that has impacted anything being voted on by both parties. It's bad for transparency and it has annoyed telecom beat reporters for years. That said, I think some of this whining about transparency (from Pai specifically) is just political theater designed to foster outrage that these FCC rules are somehow especially being crafted in secret. The same folks outraged over the lack of transparency here usually aren't too upset when AT&T, Verizon and Comcast non-transparently help write state and federal regulations, so for many of these folks I have a hard time taking their sudden adoration of transparency seriously. | |
| | | | | | | pandora Premium Member join:2001-06-01 Outland |
pandora
Premium Member
2015-Feb-25 11:37 am
Re: KarlIt looks like a vote will occur on Thursday, lets hope the regulation is good. As to theater, from my perspective I prefer open government, and am more or less a libertarian. Preventing Comcast from throttling Netflix (or anyone else, outside of a cyber attack or equipment malfunction) at a network interchange should be prohibited. | |
|
| | | |
to Ghoul
You're not quite understanding how the FCC works in these matters. This isn't some liberal plan to subvert the internet, it is exactly how it works on other items before the Commission. | |
| | | | | Ghoul join:2001-02-04 Mastic Beach, NY |
Ghoul
Member
2015-Feb-25 12:56 pm
Re: KarlLOL, no, it isn't. Most FCC regulations are not only visible but open to a public comment period.
It's disturbing how many people blindly trust the government to do the right thing, well out of the interfering eye of the public. | |
| | | | | | |
Re: KarlNet neutrality proceedings had a public comment period that garnered the most comments in FCC history. That's what swayed the FCC into full Title II. | |
| | | | | | | |
BBUserDude
Anon
2015-Feb-25 2:04 pm
Re: KarlHas the actual current full 332 page proposed rule change been released to the public ahead of the vote?
No. | |
|
| | pandora Premium Member join:2001-06-01 Outland |
to Karl Bode
Yeah, but the FCC regulations and net neutrality are bigger than Comcast. Even so, Comcast spreads a lot of cash to a lot of candidates, here is the list for 2013-2014 - » www.opensecrets.org/orgs ··· 00000461In 2012, the biggest receipent of Comcast cash was President Obama (who appointed the FCC folks who you think are about to rule against their interests) - Obama got 3 times the contribution from Comcast of anyone in Congress. Obama plays golf with the CEO of Comcast - » www.politico.com/blogs/m ··· 524.html does Thune? Boehner, John (R-OH) House $107,775 Markey, Ed (D-MA) Senate $53,950 McConnell, Mitch (R-KY) Senate $45,550 Booker, Cory (D-NJ) Senate $38,150 Cantor, Eric (R-VA) House $38,110 Landrieu, Mary L (D-LA) Senate $37,375 Walden, Greg (R-OR) House $37,250 Reid, Harry (D-NV) Senate $35,300 Upton, Fred (R-MI) House $34,500 Udall, Mark (D-CO) Senate $33,100 Pryor, Mark (D-AR) Senate $32,250 Durbin, Dick (D-IL) Senate $29,800 Goodlatte, Bob (R-VA) House $29,700 Begich, Mark (D-AK) Senate $29,450 Grimes, Alison (D-KY) Senate $28,850 Alexander, Lamar (R-TN) Senate $27,300 Udall, Tom (D-NM) Senate $26,600 Scott, Tim (R-SC) Senate $25,000 Toomey, Pat (R-PA) Senate $24,500 Hagan, Kay R (D-NC) Senate $24,425 Coons, Chris (D-DE) Senate $24,200 Schatz, Brian (D-HI) Senate $23,800 Shaheen, Jeanne (D-NH) Senate $21,600 Warner, Mark (D-VA) Senate $21,000 Cornyn, John (R-TX) Senate $20,300 Hoyer, Steny H (D-MD) House $19,800 Fattah, Chaka (D-PA) House $19,500 Gerlach, Jim (R-PA) House $19,500 Enzi, Mike (R-WY) Senate $19,200 Crowley, Joseph (D-NY) House $18,750 Fitzpatrick, Michael G (R-PA) House $18,500 Peters, Gary (D-MI) House $17,750 Cochran, Thad (R-MS) Senate $15,500 Dent, Charlie (R-PA) House $15,500 Brady, Robert A (D-PA) House $15,000 McCarthy, Kevin (R-CA) House $15,000 Nunn, Michelle (D-GA) Senate $14,400 Kilmer, Derek (D-WA) House $13,500 Chaffetz, Jason (R-UT) House $12,600 Merkley, Jeff (D-OR) Senate $11,500 Barrow, John (D-GA) House $11,000 Doyle, Mike (D-PA) House $11,000 Graham, Lindsey (R-SC) Senate $11,000 Reed, Jack (D-RI) Senate $11,000 Walsh, John (D-MT) Senate $10,900 Kinzinger, Adam (R-IL) House $10,750 Rothfus, Keith J (R-PA) House $10,666 Terry, Lee (R-NE) House $10,666 Butterfield, G K (D-NC) House $10,500 Cartwright, Matt (D-PA) House $10,500 Roberts, Pat (R-KS) Senate $10,500 Honda, Mike (D-CA) House $10,100 Blackburn, Marsha (R-TN) House $10,000 Castor, Kathy (D-FL) House $10,000 Clyburn, James E (D-SC) House $10,000 Davis, Rodney (R-IL) House $10,000 Dingell, Debbie (D-MI) House $10,000 Inhofe, James M (R-OK) Senate $10,000 Levin, Sander (D-MI) House $10,000 Lujan, Ben R (D-NM) House $10,000 Marino, Tom (R-PA) House $10,000 Meehan, Patrick (R-PA) House $10,000 Murphy, Tim (R-PA) House $10,000 Perlmutter, Edwin G (D-CO) House $10,000 Perry, Scott (R-PA) House $10,000 Pitts, Joe (R-PA) House $10,000 Ryan, Paul (R-WI) House $10,000 Scalise, Steve (R-LA) House $10,000 Sessions, Jeff (R-AL) Senate $10,000 Shimkus, John M (R-IL) House $10,000 Shuster, Bill (R-PA) House $10,000 Thompson, Glenn (R-PA) House $10,000 Bass, Karen (D-CA) House $9,250 Nadler, Jerrold (D-NY) House $9,000 Smith, Lamar (R-TX) House $9,000 Southerland, Steve (R-FL) House $9,000 Daines, Steven (R-MT) House $8,500 Garcia, Joe (D-FL) House $8,500 Latta, Robert E (R-OH) House $8,500 Leahy, Patrick (D-VT) Senate $8,500 Sanchez, Linda (D-CA) House $8,500 Valadao, David (R-CA) House $8,500 Beyer, Don (D-VA) House $8,250 Leach, Daylin (D-PA) House $8,200 Johnson, Bill (R-OH) House $8,166 Byrne, Bradley (R-AL) House $8,000 Hastings, Alcee L (D-FL) House $8,000 Kelly, Mike (R-PA) House $8,000 Lance, Leonard (R-NJ) House $8,000 McNerney, Jerry (D-CA) House $8,000 Messer, Luke (R-IN) House $8,000 Paulsen, Erik (R-MN) House $8,000 Pompeo, Mike (R-KS) House $8,000 Ruppersberger, Dutch (D-MD) House $8,000 Schiff, Adam (D-CA) House $8,000 Schrader, Kurt (D-OR) House $8,000 Sensenbrenner, F James Jr (R-WI) House $8,000 Coffman, Mike (R-CO) House $7,825 Rigell, Scott (R-VA) House $7,666 DeSantis, Ron (R-FL) House $7,500 Top reciepients in 2012 were - » www.opensecrets.org/orgs ··· cle=2012Obama, Barack (D) Pres $328,128 Romney, Mitt (R) Pres $95,566 Casey, Bob (D-PA) Senate $73,775 Berman, Howard L (D-CA) House $54,860 Gillibrand, Kirsten (D-NY) Senate $48,850 Cantor, Eric (R-VA) House $41,250 Hatch, Orrin G (R-UT) Senate $38,750 Murphy, Christopher S (D-CT) House $38,500 Tester, Jon (D-MT) Senate $31,000 Upton, Fred (R-MI) House $31,000 | |
| | | | Ghoul join:2001-02-04 Mastic Beach, NY
1 recommendation |
Ghoul
Member
2015-Feb-25 11:16 am
Re: KarlNo no no!
Obama cares, which is why he had a sudden change of heart and the Republicans are evil! Anyone who wants to read the text of the "net neutrality" regulations before they're voted on is an obstructionist. | |
|
clone (banned) join:2000-12-11 Portage, IN
1 recommendation |
clone (banned)
Member
2015-Feb-25 8:49 am
If you like your internet...You can keep your internet! Right guys?
Secret regulations the people can't read are my favorite in a free republic. That's exactly the spirit we're looking for! I'm really happy this is going to pass so the Internet can be turned into a Chinese-style walled garden echo chamber of "approved" content and "safe, non-terrorism-related" ideas all in a Cable TV 2.0 format. You bastards got what you wanted, again. Are you happy?
I'm still not sure how the reality distortion field works, that every piece of legislation and regulation ever passed is a boondoggle that only serves to somehow enrich the corporate masters or turn the screws on the people, yet the lemmings line up behind it, every time, like good little ants.
"Oh, but it's like, good for the little guy, or something. What, do you work for the Koch brothers? 1%'er. This piece of regulation is different, it's really going to help. This is progress."
Yeah. Fucking. Right. | |
| | | | | clone
1 recommendation |
clone (banned)
Member
2015-Feb-25 9:34 am
Re: If you like your internet...Then please, show me the text of the regulation so I can pass judgment on whether or not I support it. Until I can read it, I'll think the worst. The regulators see us as the "marks", don't you realize that?
If you honestly think the government has our best interests at heart, then you seriously haven't been paying attention lo these last few decades.
Thanks for the ad-hominem attack, though. I'm "uneducated", a "shill", or just a "moron". Come back when you can refute me, which you can't, because the regulations are secret. | |
| | | | ieolusSupport The Clecs join:2001-06-19 Danbury, CT |
ieolus
Member
2015-Feb-25 10:04 am
Re: If you like your internet...Then he will come back tomorrow, when the regulations are revealed. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
to clone
The summary is not secret and you can continue to say the government is against you all you want, however the FCC is there to serve us, the companies are the ones that only serve themselves and see the rest of us as the thorn in their sides. | |
| | | | | clone (banned) join:2000-12-11 Portage, IN |
clone (banned)
Member
2015-Feb-25 5:18 pm
Re: If you like your internet...said by Skippy25:the FCC is there to serve us Oh, I'm sure they are. We'll see tomorrow what they're serving up. | |
|
| | |
n2jtx join:2001-01-13 Glen Head, NY |
n2jtx
Member
2015-Feb-25 9:20 am
Thank You VerizonIt seems that Verizon is the main party to thank for all this. Whether you are for against Title II, it should be noted this whole net neutrality debate started many years ago when former Verizon CEO Ivan Seidman made the outrageous claim that content providers should pay him to access the customers using "his" pipes. Then after week Title III regulations were passed, having been written by Verizon, they sued and had them thrown out. Add to that Verizon's mysterious Netflix bottlenecks that suddenly evaporated when Netflix started paying them money. Just looking at the evidence one can see that the ISP's were on the cusp of screwing us royally.
If Title II passes on Thursday, one just needs to remember it is not permanent. First, there will be lawsuits and attempts to derail it in court. Even if all that fails, a future Republican administration could very well undo all of it. And there is still the possibility it would be scrapped at a future date because it proves unworkable. Nothing in government is permanent except taxes, pensions, corruption and nepotism. | |
| | ieolusSupport The Clecs join:2001-06-19 Danbury, CT |
ieolus
Member
2015-Feb-25 10:05 am
Re: Thank You VerizonUhmm... that was Former AT&T Chairman Edward Whitacre, Jr remarking about "his pipes"... | |
| | | |
Re: Thank You VerizonYeah, I remember that... I worked for AT&T at the time. Whitacre was not the sharpest knife in the drawer. | |
|
ZyXEL VMG4381
1 recommendation |
How are they going to sue?The appeals court ruled that the FCC can reclassify broadband under title II. So how can they sue when the appeals court has ruled that the FCC has the authority to reclassify broadband under title II. They can always appeal the ruling to the supreme court but that does not mean that they will take the case. | |
| | |
amarryatVerizon FiOS join:2005-05-02 Marshfield, MA |
All data is equalWhat happens to those services that depend on prioritized data?
Vonage Comcast Digital Voice All of our cell phones are going to be VoLTE soon enough.
This is what happens. When the internet gets busy, web pages will open slightly slower, but phone calls will be stuttering.
Then lawmakers will be annoyed that their phone calls are terrible. And as always, with their proactive rules they enact without any understanding of the effect, there will be new regulations, exempting voice packets from this communistic treatment of data. | |
| | •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• | |
anonomeX
Anon
2015-Feb-25 10:55 am
We'll seeThis will put us at the next step on a staircase the end of which we can't see from where we are. I'm just hoping it's not one of those M.C. Escher things where you find yourself upside down and going the other way than you thought you were. | |
| |
Net Neutrality was never really about 'Fast Lanes'I believe the 'Fast Lane' debate is just a distraction (smokescreen) from the underlying motive of the ISP's to change their business model . The real underlying long term motive was to monetize the use of the internet instead of counting data bytes and implementing usage caps.
Those who have been around for a while may remember the term 'Walled Garden'. The Walled Garden internet model is the best way to monetize customers use of the internet instead of counting data bytes. The ISP's have a strong desire to monetize services and content. There's just not that much money to be made by counting bytes and implementing usage caps.
The 'Walled Garden' business model seeks to collect hidden fees/commissions on the internet services you are using. This model is based on the ISP making prior arrangements with partners who provide kickbacks (commissions) to the ISP when you make an online transaction. If you visit your brokerage account to buy or sell a stock, the ISP wants a part of the action. After all, it was the ISP network that enabled one to buy or sell a stock. The same applies to online banking, media consumption, news, weather, whatever, airline tickets, etc.
If one goes outside the 'Walled Garden' you will encounter a 'toll both(s)' of fees for not using the preferred partner. Title 2 is not perfect but it would effectively kill the Walled Garden business model from ever getting off the ground.
-SR | |
| | ••••••
| | |
|
|