House Rejects Net Neutrality... the bastards

[JNightshade]

Yeah, that's right. Say goodbye to a free internet.

Source

By a 269-152 vote that fell largely along party lines, the House Republican leadership mustered enough votes to reject a Democrat-backed amendment that would have enshrined stiff Net neutrality regulations into federal law and prevented broadband providers from treating some Internet sites differently from other

God DAMNIT, government. I've been pretty tolerant of the shit you've pulled thus far, but this is the end. You've f*cked up the internet- the last good thing we have. F*CK YOU.

 

[marksmanHL2 :)]

What the **** were the reasons to vote against neutrality?


Thats a joke.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Ha ha, America; you're ****ed.
That's what a general atmosphere of complacency gets you: a big heaping bowl of totalitarianism.

Welcome to Jesusworld. Population: You.

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

But what does it mean to us?

 

[Delirious]

Ha ha, America; you're ****ed.
That's what a general atmosphere of complacency gets you: a big heaping bowl of totalitarianism.

Welcome to Jesusworld. Population: You.

Actually, the rejection of the ammendment would reduce the government's ability to interfere with the internet.

 

[Laivasse]

I'm confused. It sounds like it was a good thing this was rejected. Yet everyone here is angry, and the Republicans are the ones that rejected it. Everyone knows Republicans are never right, right...?

Anyone up to speed on American politics care to summarise?

edit: think I get it now. There was an amendment to protect net neutrality, but it got rejected on the pretense that it would require government intervention to enforce. And its rejection was a bad thing. That right?

 

[B_MAN]

Ha ha, America; you're ****ed.
That's what a general atmosphere of complacency gets you: a big heaping bowl of totalitarianism.

Welcome to Jesusworld. Population: You.

L O L
well put
home of the brave, land of the notsofree internet

 

[Raeven0]

I'm confused. It sounds like it was a good thing this was rejected. Yet everyone here is angry, and the Republicans are the ones that rejected it. Everyone knows Republicans are never right, right...?

The Republicans can be right and the Republicans can be very, very wrong.

the House Republican leadership mustered enough votes to reject a Democrat-backed amendment that would have enshrined stiff Net neutrality regulations into federal law

The text of the proposed amendment is linked to in the source. To quote some highlights:

Sec. 715. NETWORK NEUTRALITY.
(a) POLICY. -- It is the policy of the United States --

[...]
(2) To preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the Internet and consumer empowerment and choice;
[...]

(b) IN GENERAL. -- Each broadband network provider has the duty --

(1) not to block, impair, degrade, discriminate against, or interfere with the ability of any person to use a broadband connection to access, use, send, receive, or offer lawful content, applications, or services over the Internet;

(2) to operate its broadband network in a non-discriminatory manner so that any person can offer or provide content, applications, and services through, or over, such broadband network with equivalent or better capability than the provider extends to itself or affiliated parties, and without the imposition of a charge for such nondiscriminatory network operation;

(3) if the provider prioritizes or offers enhanced quality of service to data of a particular type, to prioritize or offer enhanced quality of service to all data of that type (regardless of the origin of such data) without imposing a surcharge or other consideration for such prioritization or enhanced quality of service;

[...]

(5) to clearly and conspicuously disclose to users, in plain language, accurate information about the speed, nature, and limitations of their broadband connection.

House Republicans have voted AGAINST this.

*bangs head on desk repeatedly*

 

[JNightshade]

Basically, now, the telecommunications giants (Verizon, AT&T, etc) control internet access. Meaning they can prioritize speeds. Hence, if you try to go to a site they disagree with, they can give you horrible performance, or even block it altogether. The internet is no longer free.

FUCK. I STILL can't believe this.

 

[Ikerous]

This means that big companies can pay more money to internet providers to make thier pages load faster... no?
I can't imagine the internet providers would screw with anything. They just want to make more money on people willing to pay for stupid crap. The government shouldn't be restricting free enterprise. If you dont' like what your isp is doing, get a new one.

 

[theotherguy]

This means that big companies can pay more money to internet providers to make thier pages load faster... no?
I can't imagine the internet providers would screw with anything. They just want to make more money on people willing to pay for stupid crap. The government shouldn't be restricting free enterprise. If you dont' like what your isp is doing, get a new one.

no. they can't just magically create broadband, they have to take it from other sites, and redirect traffic. Basically whichever site pays the most to the broadband company gets the fastest speed. So joe-shmo server is going to get horrible crap speeds and huge corporations like microsoft and AOL will get much higher speeds. What this means for you is that the majority of the internet will be mind-numbingly slow.

 

[Ikerous]

I'd imagine if my isp did that then I'd switch to one that knew what it's customers wanted.

If my ISP used up so much bandwith on a few certain sites, causing me to get slow connections with all the sites i visit, then I'm switching to an ISP who knows what they're doing. That'd be a terrible move for a company to make.

 

[Raeven0]

I'd imagine if my isp did that then I'd switch to one that knew what it's customers wanted.

Because there is certainly a vast plethora of ISPs to choose from in every area of the nation

(Hint: at my home, there are all of two or three available; at another home, there was exactly one; and at a third, there were none)

 

[Ikerous]

Off the top of my head, I know of three I could be using.
My point is, no professional ISP is going to let this screw over half the sites on the internet. It'd be bad business.

 

[SAJ]

Well the republicans have done nothing other than voting for their own self interest, again.
Just kneeling down and sucking on some fat corporate pipe.

As we all know, net neutrality is just a little too .....socialist, really.

 

[Raeven0]

It'd be bad business.

Which is worse business:
A) Passing up the opportunity to tax every major Web site that doesn't want to lose 30% of its viewers, or
B) Losing a very few of your more intelligent customers

I fail to see how letting big businesses and money control the Internet is at all superior to the prior system.

 

[Ikerous]

Well the republicans have done nothing other than voting for their own self interest, again.
Just kneeling down and sucking on some fat corporate pipe.

As we all know, net neutrality is just a little too .....socialist, really.

I'm all for seeing republicans becoming more conservative.

I fail to see how letting big businesses and money control the Internet is at all superior to the prior system.

Because it's their company and they can do w/e the hell they want with it...?
And so far I have no reason to not trust my ISP to be anything other than awesome

 

[Raeven0]

Because it's their company and they can do w/e the hell they want with it...?

The Internet is not their property
Though I suppose that's the next step

And so far I have no reason to not trust my ISP to be anything other than awesome

And from what upwelling fountain of silliness do you derive this trust

 

[99.vikram]

So how is the lack of stiff regulations a bad thing? :|

 

[Ikerous]

The Internet is not their property
Though I suppose that's the next step

No, but the servers you're accessing are their property
They can run those servers and assign bandwith however they want
If they do it well, they'll succeed. If they do it poorly they'll fail.

And from what upwelling fountain of silliness do you derive this trust

My ISP has given me nothing but good service for the last five yeras. I have no reason to think they won't continue to provide great service.

So how is the lack of stiff regulations a bad thing? :|

qft

 

[Yuri]

Good job, Republicans-- you've done it again!

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

I don't foresee any large companies paying out my ISP for bandwidth.
I also don't see enough traffic going into potential "large business" to matter.

I am pretty sure most of the internet traffic around here is outbound and since nobody around here is hosting aything important, at least we have nothing to fear from this.

By the same token, we (private users) don't get service above 1Mb. I think complexes and schools already get much higher rates. When I was in high school as a techie, I'm pretty sure our line was 4-8Mb. ---(edit: It was T1. Upgraded to T3 the year after I graduated.)

Maybe some of you guys are spoiled by insanely fast connections and downloading MP3s in 5 seconds.

 

[Raeven0]

They can run those servers and assign bandwith however they want

Even if the (mis-)assignment of bandwidth restricts, squelches, and outright destroys any portion of the Internet they don't like? I'll take free and indiscriminate bandwidth assignment, thanks.

My ISP has given me nothing but good service for the last five yeras. I have no reason to think they won't continue to provide great service.

Besides the fact that it's now legal and accepted to provide crappy service, and most people wouldn't know the difference anyway.

So how is the lack of stiff regulations a bad thing? :|

I consider it a bad thing that my very ability to use Google is now in question based on how my ISP is feeling on a given day.

Maybe you don't. Then I ask you to please get a different Internet. :x

 

[Ikerous]

Even if the (mis-)assignment of bandwidth restricts, squelches, and outright destroys any portion of the Internet they don't like? I'll take free and indiscriminate bandwidth assignment, thanks.

Too bad it's not your decision. They own the company, they decide where their bandwith goes and for what price.

Besides the fact that it's now legal and accepted to provide crappy service, and most people wouldn't know the difference anyway.

If I can't tell the difference it can't be that crappy then. And an ISP can sell crappy interent now. There are faster providers and slower providers. You pay according to what kind of service you want.

 

[Raeven0]

Too bad it's not your decision. They own the company, they decide where their bandwith goes and for what price.

You totally failed to address the point.

If I can't tell the difference it can't be that crappy then. And an ISP can sell crappy interent now. There are faster providers and slower providers. You pay according to what kind of service you want.

You totally missed the point.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

It's their lines and they can do as they please. If your ISP is going to be a dick about it (which I HIGHLY doubt any will do) then switch.

Be realistic. This isn't going to be used to hurt anyone. If anything it's going to be used for optimization. If the ISP throttles your connection to anything below what it was advertised on purpose, that's false advertising and doesn't meet what you agreed to in contract. So if anything some sites will get faster/better, some stay the same. Nothing BAD.

 

[Ikerous]

I addressed exactly what you said :/

Completely with RT

 

[99.vikram]

I consider it a bad thing that my very ability to use Google is now in question based on how my ISP is feeling on a given day.

ISP's exist to serve you. Nobody will try to take away Google except the govt. and this move will reduce govt. interference, which is a good thing IMO.

Maybe you don't. Then I ask you to please get a different Internet. :x

Your govt.'s stance on the internet doesn't affect me even remotely

 

[theotherguy]

ISPs exist to make money. Without government regulation bandwidth will be distrubuted to the highest bidder. This is, in spite of what you're saying, a very bad thing. Internet will become like cable, and it will be a place devoid of small buisness and smalltime users. They can now legally charge us to access certain sites, and can keep us from acessing sites at all if its not in our internet plan.

This means speeds on most sites will go drastically down, while we will only get a small boost in speeds on ultramegasites. This also means, as ISP's now have the right to cater to any company and use bandwidth unfairly, that our internet bills will rise to cover these "extended service" sites.

Do you seriously beleive deregulation is a good thing for the consumer in a case like this? Just consider the energy market. In texas, when deregulation began in the energy market, our choices went from one government institution to one huge megacorporation, and our gas, electricity and heating bills rose by THREE HUNDRED PERCENT! It definatley does not help the market when you have absolutley no regulation and at the same time no competition.

 

[99.vikram]

ISPs exist to make money. Without government regulation bandwidth will be distrubuted to the highest bidder.

And when this happens consumers will just switch to another ISP. The only true danger to freedom is letting the govt. control everything.

Just consider the energy market. In texas, when deregulation began in the energy market, our choices went from one government institution to one huge megacorporation, and our gas, electricity and heating bills rose by THREE HUNDRED PERCENT! It definatley does not help the market when you have absolutley no regulation and at the same time no competition.

But the world of ISP's isn't ruled by one conglomerate. It's a competitive world, and the competition will keep things in check.

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

But the world of ISP's isn't ruled by one conglomerate. It's a competitive world, and the competition will keep things in check.

Depends on where you live. There are only two choices in my city. ACS owns the phones/DSL, GCI owns TV/cable.

 

[Yuri]

I can't wait for Internet Monopolies to begin. Good job Republicans, creating your company monopolies for a more oppressed, unrevolutionizing society!

 

[Reaktor4]

And when this happens consumers will just switch to another ISP.

What if they all do it?

 

[Element Alpha]

No disrespect, but I think some are pretty quick to judge this. 99.vikram has good points.

Still:

My FARMER has given me nothing but good service for the last five yeras. I have no reason to think they won't continue to provide great service.

The pig was really confident on the way to the butcher.

Welcome to Jesusworld. Population: You.

Golden

 

[Solaris]

Here's a solution - Nationalise the ISP's.

 

[Ludah]

Republicans get better and better each year.

Should've expected it. Most Americans couldn't give one ounce of a flying monkey shit about whatever happens to them.

And when this happens consumers will just switch to another ISP. The only true danger to freedom is letting the govt. control everything.

I love this mentality. Opposing government "interference" for the sake of it. For your information, net neutrality denied your ISP the ability to screw around with what you can or can't visit and established a base of fairness for all users. This effectively eliminates that and allows your freedom on the internet to be restricted and narrowed to whatever your ISP so chooses and dissuade you from accessing material they disagree with, find dangerous to them, or whatever affiliates they have. You'd have to be very naive to think that they won't take advantage of this. And I personally don't like the idea of having to switch from ISP to ISP in order to find the one golden boy who won't **** me over. In this case, this "government interference" put forth was better for the people, by and large. As it stands, this now has far more potential for harm than good.

I'm not saying ther government should always intervene. That it's always a bad thing or a good thing. But just look at the amendment. There was NOTHING unreasonable about it.

 

[Septih]

Here's a solution - Nationalise the ISP's.

Weren't you really pissed off at the ID card scheme in the UK?

If the ISP's are nationalised, the government can block you from going to anti-government sites and they can track you, imo that's worse then big business trying to get a little money on the side from big sites.

 

[JNightshade]

I absolutely don't think the ISP's should be nationalized. The last thing I want is to be redirected to www.whitehouse.gov when I attempt to look at pictures of lesbians :|

But this is bad news too.

 

[theotherguy]

I have exactley ONE choice for high-speed interent here: Verizon. I could either use them or go the route of dial-up. So don't tell me this will increase competition. If I don't like their service or if I don't like the fact that they don't give net neutrality, I can't switch to any other ISP, because generally dial-up would be just as bad.

 

[VictimOfScience]

Sure, its bad news and more evidence of what a corrupt bunch of greedy fatcats we have in our government, but its not over yet.

This vote only means it goes to the Senate now, where there is stronger bi-partisan support for the "Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2006" protecting the internet from huge businesses like AT&T and Verizon and the like.

Join the fight here.