Check out the TB2K CHATROOM, open 24/7               Configuring Your Preferences for OPTIMAL Viewing
  To access our Email server, CLICK HERE

  If you are unfamiliar with the Guidelines for Posting on TB2K please read them.      ** LINKS PAGE **



*** Help Support TB2K ***
via mail, at TB2K Fund, P.O. Box 24, Coupland, TX, 78615
or


CORP/BIZ Senate votes to overturn Ajit Paiís net neutrality repeal
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 22 of 22
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    12,141

    Senate votes to overturn Ajit Paiís net neutrality repeal

    The lesser of two evils back in play?

    Either the internet can be run by a massive monolithic organization that doesn't care what we think, or by several slightly smaller monolithic organizations that collectively don't care what we think.

    Either way, fair use cited.

    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...rality-repeal/

    Senate votes to overturn Ajit Paiís net neutrality repeal

    The US Senate today voted to reverse the Federal Communications Commission's repeal of net neutrality rules, with all members of the Democratic caucus and three Republicans voting in favor of net neutrality.

    The Senate approved a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution that would simply undo the FCC's December 2017 vote to deregulate the broadband industry. If the CRA is approved by the House and signed by President Trump, Internet service providers would have to continue following rules that prohibit blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization.


    FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has scheduled his repeal to take effect on June 11. If Congress doesn't act, the net neutrality rules and the FCC's classification of ISPs as common carriers would be eliminated on that date.

    Democrats face much longer odds in the House, where Republicans hold a 236-193 majority. Republicans have a slim majority in the Senate, but Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) broke ranks in order to support net neutrality and common carrier regulation of broadband providers.

    The vote was 52-47.

    ďArmies of lobbyistsĒ

    Before the vote, Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) urged fellow senators to disregard the "armies of lobbyists marching the halls of Congress on behalf of big Internet service providers."

    Lobbyists tried to convince senators that net neutrality rules aren't needed "because ISPs will self-regulate" and that blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization are just hypothetical harms, Markey said.

    Lobby groups representing all the major cable companies, telecoms, and mobile carriers urged senators to reject the attempt to restore net neutrality rules.

    The lobby groups complained that net neutrality rules don't apply to "the practices of edge providers, such as search engines and social media platforms." That's no surprise, because the FCC regulates telecommunications networks and net neutrality rules apply specifically to broadband networksówebsites and online services are regulated separately by the Federal Trade Commission.

    Markey said that net neutrality rules are needed because of events like Comcast throttling BitTorrent traffic and AT&T blocking Skype and other voice applications that compete against its mobile phone service.

    "Net neutrality is the free speech issue of our time," Markey said.

    Large majorities of both Democratic and Republican voters support net neutrality, Markey noted. Thousands of small businesses wrote to Congress in support of net neutrality, and "millions of Americans sent letters, posted tweets, and made calls defending net neutrality," he said.

    The FCC's anti-net neutrality vote "neglected the will of everyday Americans and gave a gift to the rich and powerful," providing ISPs with "new tools to inflate profits" at the expense of Internet users and small businesses, Markey said.

    Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) tore into the Trump administration and FCC, saying the commission "has become a puppet for giant Internet providers."

    Warren continued:

    The FCC's current chairman, Ajit Pai, has made it clear that he will work to put special interests over what's good for the American people. The FCC was once an agency dedicated to protecting and promoting the public interest, but it has morphed into an agency that exists solely to do the bidding of giant telecom companies. It is a disgrace.

    When Pai unveiled his "plan to destroy net neutrality, he made it clear that he would ignore the views of millions of Americans who weighed in to urge him to abandon that plan," Warren said.

    ďRestoring Internet FreedomĒ

    Pai criticized the vote today, saying, ďItís disappointing that Senate Democrats forced this resolution through by a narrow margin. But ultimately, I'm confident that their effort to reinstate heavy-handed government regulation of the Internet will fail."

    Pai's order that eliminates net neutrality rules was titled "Restoring Internet Freedom." Today, Pai said that the Internet "will continue to be free and open once the Restoring Internet Freedom Order takes effect on June 11."

    Internet providers claim that net neutrality rules harm network investment, but in reality, ISPs like Comcast raised their capital investment while the rules were in place, Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) said. "The notion that they are somehow going to slow down investment is just not true," she said.

    "The cable industry ranks at the very bottom of 43 industries in consumer satisfaction," Cantwell also said, arguing that Internet users need protection from the companies' anti-consumer practices.

    Repealing net neutrality would create "toll booths all over the Internet," and "those higher costs would, in one way or another, come out of your pocket," Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said.

    Republicans want weaker net neutrality law

    Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) said that all senators want to prevent blocking and throttling, and he argued that Congress should pass bipartisan legislation to protect net neutrality. But Wicker did not say whether he wants a ban on paid prioritization, which would let ISPs charge websites and online services for better access to Internet users than online services that don't pay such fees.

    "Today, some in Congress are trying to give the government more control again, applying utility-style regulations that would threaten the Internet as we know it," Wicker said.

    US Senator John Thune (R-S.D.) criticized Democrats for trying to maintain "partisan, onerous, and heavy-handed regulations on the Internet."

    Some aspects of the FCC's net neutrality regulation "lack a fundamental connection to net neutrality principles and harm consumer freedom," Thune said.

    By way of example, Thune criticized the Obama-era FCC for trying to stop certain zero-rating plans. The FCC determined in January 2017 that AT&T and Verizon Wireless violated net neutrality by letting their own video services stream on their mobile networks without counting against customers' data caps, while charging other video providers for the same data cap exemptions. Pai reversed that decision.

    "Net neutrality isn't about regulating mobile phone plan offerings to meet a government Internet standard," Thune said. "But the Markey resolution would restore rules that the Obama Federal Communications Commission used to scrutinize such popular and affordable plans."

    Thune noted that in 2015, he proposed legislation that would have prohibited blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization.

    Democrats "reached the cynical conclusion that exploiting concern about the Internet outweighed the value of working with Republicans to pass net neutrality protections," Thune said.

    Thune's proposal would also forbid the FCC from regulating Internet service providers as common carriers. Common carrier regulation can go beyond net neutrality by letting the FCC protect consumers from unjust or unreasonable rates and practices in general.

    Though Thune supports a ban on paid prioritization, there are Republicans who want to let ISPs charge for fast lanes. Thune acknowledged that his proposal "did not anticipate all of the concerns that my colleagues raised and, of course, there is always room for compromise."

    Competition keeps ISPs in check, GOP senator claims

    Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) repeated the telecom industry talking point that ISPs shouldn't face different rules than websites.

    "What we don't want to have is two different sets of rules where this set of companies, the Googles and Facebooks and Netflix, get to tell a different set of companies, the fiber, how they do their business," Lankford said. "Neither do we want the fiber companies telling the content companies how to run their business. Let them compete."

    Lankford also claimed that the broadband industry is awash in competition.

    "A lot of people say there [are] only a few Internet service providers that are out there," he said. "Well, in the United States, there are 4,500 Internet service providers that are out there."

    But except for satellite services with poor latency and a few large mobile providers, those broadband networks don't serve the whole country. Internet users generally have just one or two options for high-speed Internet service at their homes, as FCC data shows.

    Despite that reality, Lankford argued that the small ISPs will keep the big ones in check. "Yes, there are some big [ISPs], but there are a lot of small ones, and if the big ones misbehave, guess what happens: competition will beat them down and those small companies will beat them," Lankford said.

    Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) argued that customers frustrated by network limitations won't be able to easily switch ISPs because there's so little competition. "Competition does not existóthis is not a matter of competition, this is a matter of preventing discrimination," he said.

  2. #2
    We need to treat google, youtube, facebook and twitter as common carriers, they should be required to deliver all content and let law enforcement agencies deal with any illegal content (then we can fight over hate speech laws where anything leftists do not like is hate).
    Matthew 13:49 So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Blacknarwhal View Post
    snip

    Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) argued that customers frustrated by network limitations won't be able to easily switch ISPs because there's so little competition. "Competition does not existóthis is not a matter of competition, this is a matter of preventing discrimination," he said.
    You mean discrimination like the kind conservatives face every day on google, youtube, facebook and twitter? That kind of discrimination senator? What are you doing about that discrimination against conservatives senator? ..... Just as I thought, nothing.
    Matthew 13:49 So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    12,141
    Quote Originally Posted by mistaken1 View Post
    You mean discrimination like the kind conservatives face every day on google, youtube, facebook and twitter? That kind of discrimination senator? What are you doing about that discrimination against conservatives senator? ..... Just as I thought, nothing.
    He's right about nonexistent competition. There really isn't any. Free market imperatives don't apply in markets where monopolies--de jure OR de facto--exist.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Hill Country Texas
    Posts
    15,892
    I'm sorry but anything the Dimocraps completely vote vote is bad for the American public.

    Period.
    Would someone please let me know how we have spun out of control?
    Has the captain let go of the wheel?
    Or could we please try to find a way to be a bit more kind?
    I see the road to tomorrow in the haze - Queensryche

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    12,141
    Quote Originally Posted by dstraito View Post
    I'm sorry but anything the Dimocraps completely vote vote is bad for the American public.

    Period.
    So what's the alternative?

    Hint: it's not better.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Hill Country Texas
    Posts
    15,892
    Well, to start with allowing commerce with fewer regulations.

    Free market conditions will prevail and if there is an imbalance it will be corrected but we do NOT need more regulation
    Would someone please let me know how we have spun out of control?
    Has the captain let go of the wheel?
    Or could we please try to find a way to be a bit more kind?
    I see the road to tomorrow in the haze - Queensryche

  8. #8
    I did some searches about this and since I"m pressed for time and brain power, what I gleaned was that this attempt to bring back Net Neutrality is basically Dem(on)s grandstanding and largely symbolic. Somehow or other. Seems like it won't affect anything.
    https://soundcloud.com/user-309670005
    Audio Bhagavad Gita downloadable

    This knowledge is the king of education, the most secret of all secrets. It is the purest knowledge, and because it gives direct perception of the self by realization, it is the perfection of religion. It is everlasting, and it is joyfully performed.

  9. #9
    Unless the Senate, well the whole of CONgress actually, passes a law to create a net neutrality, then their vote is symbolic. They don't have the authority without passing legislation to 'overturn' policy enacted by an executive branch department. And Net Neutrality was something enacted by the Oclown FCC, if I remember right.

    And to be honest, I don't remember it having any real effect on the internet to begin with. I guess it made people feel better or something, but that was about it.


    Bad
    Follow me to http://badkarma00.wordpress.com/ for all my craziness
    So say we all. . . .
    "If you value your lives, be somewhere else." Ambassador Delenn.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Where hiking boots go to die
    Posts
    10,722
    Have to wonder at the timing of this... right before the midterm elections? The Dems can see the writing on the wall? Did it also get past the House?

    As to a solution for social media that censors and shadow bans? Why haven't conservatives with traditional American values gotten together and built acceptable alternatives? Facebook and Twitter are big that doesn't mean they can't be replaced. That's capitalism at work.
    Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it. - Mark Twain

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    The loose buckle of the bible belt
    Posts
    11,639
    Quote Originally Posted by Blacknarwhal View Post
    The lesser of two evils back in play?

    Either the internet can be run by a massive monolithic organization that doesn't care what we think, [that can't mess with your service] or by several slightly smaller monolithic organizations that collectively don't care what we think [but can and do throttle your service or tell you what you can and can't do on the internet].
    Net neutrality was the law of the land until overturned by Trump's FCC. Without net neutrality ISPs can censor and ban or slow down non-favored web activity that they want to discourage, in favor of those activities of which they approve or profit.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    796
    Quote Originally Posted by FarmerJohn View Post
    Net neutrality was the law of the land until overturned by Trump's FCC. Without net neutrality ISPs can censor and ban or slow down non-favored web activity that they want to discourage, in favor of those activities of which they approve or profit.
    And what, EXACTLY, is the problem with the owner of a network determining what their network is used for?

    That's the real issue here, despite the howls from the gimmedats on the left and the proto-fascists on the right. Either a company has a right to police it's own property or it does not. As much as I don't like Google, Facebook or Youtube, what they're doing is not only acceptable but expected. You either protect and govern your brand as you see fit or you lose it to those who would demand you bow to their ideas. Just because I disagree with their ideas does not mean that they somehow are no longer allowed to have those ideas and act on them in their own house. They provide a service and I can either utilize that service under their conditions or I can move along. It's as simple as that.

    If you aren't happy with a service, no matter what the service, your options are to either quit using the one you're complaining about and use a competitor's service, build your own service and compete with the existing service provider, or shut your mouth and move along. Anything else is just childish sour grapes.

  13. #13
    The problem is showing up already in some places where e-mails from The Solari Report for example, are being blocked (without notice or informing the intended subscriber) by ATT and T; which is "perfectly legal" under the "new" system.

    Many people in rural areas have no alternatives; that makes these groups "monopolies" in many cases and monopolies have to play by different rules than REAL private companies.

    Saying that people "can move on" where there is no practical place to "move on to" (I gather that while you can switch Email ATT is the ONLY local provider of services in certain areas, including where The Solari Report is located) is not a real choice; therefore either regulation as a monopoly or TRUST BUSTING into smaller and REAL private businesses is in order.

    This isn't just a US problem by the way; Ireland is down to one carrier willing to provide rural broadband and that is becoming a serious issue when businesses and farms can't get online because it isn't a money-spinner to "go there" and if they do, they are your ONLY choice, if they decide to block content or e-mails from site you don't like - too bad.

    There is a lot on this from the US perspective at the free information part of the Solari Report https://home.solari.com/
    expatriate Californian living in rural Ireland with husband, dogs, horses. garden and many, many cats

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    12,141
    Quote Originally Posted by Paladin1 View Post
    And what, EXACTLY, is the problem with the owner of a network determining what their network is used for?

    That's the real issue here, despite the howls from the gimmedats on the left and the proto-fascists on the right. Either a company has a right to police it's own property or it does not. As much as I don't like Google, Facebook or Youtube, what they're doing is not only acceptable but expected. You either protect and govern your brand as you see fit or you lose it to those who would demand you bow to their ideas. Just because I disagree with their ideas does not mean that they somehow are no longer allowed to have those ideas and act on them in their own house. They provide a service and I can either utilize that service under their conditions or I can move along. It's as simple as that.

    If you aren't happy with a service, no matter what the service, your options are to either quit using the one you're complaining about and use a competitor's service, build your own service and compete with the existing service provider, or shut your mouth and move along. Anything else is just childish sour grapes.
    Because you don't have the right as a consumer to vote with your wallet and go anywhere else. The owner of the network might be the only one in the area, sometimes by arrangement with local authorities. When the choice is "them or nothing", that's NOT a choice. That's not a free market.
    Last edited by Blacknarwhal; 05-17-2018 at 08:34 AM.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    796
    Quote Originally Posted by Blacknarwhal View Post
    Because you don't have the right as a consumer to vote with your wallet and go anywhere else. The owner of the network might be the only one in the area, sometimes by arrangement with local authorities. When the choice is "them or nothing", that's NOT a choice. That's not a free market.
    You have access to the network through either the ILEC for your area or a competing CLEC. I KNOW that those options exist, I have to deal with them every single day, so your argument is invalid and incorrect.

    Likewise, you have access to alternates to YT, FB and Google all three. That you refuse to use them is on you and no one else.

    You may not like the alternatives, but that doesn't change the fact that there ARE alternatives. Furthermore, access to the internet is NOT a right or a need, it is a luxury.

  16. #16
    Access to the internet isn't really a luxury anymore; just try to apply for an entire host of jobs, most now require online applications and many places refuse paper resumes.

    There ARE places in the US where they are ONE internet provider; that doesn't leave a "choice," yes e-mail can usually be sorted from somewhere else but a choice between "use us or nothing" isn't really a choice when many employers and even services require internet access.

    What was a luxury or novelty 25 years ago, is pretty much a utility today and should be treated as such if the providers refuse to be responsible on their own; the early reports on this on not encouraging and trust me it isn't most liberal media that are suffering; it is both small businesses and alternative news outlets that have already been hit.
    expatriate Californian living in rural Ireland with husband, dogs, horses. garden and many, many cats

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    12,141
    Melodi's got your number, Paladin. Just because you believe that way don't make it so.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    796
    Quote Originally Posted by Melodi View Post
    Access to the internet isn't really a luxury anymore; just try to apply for an entire host of jobs, most now require online applications and many places refuse paper resumes.

    There ARE places in the US where they are ONE internet provider; that doesn't leave a "choice," yes e-mail can usually be sorted from somewhere else but a choice between "use us or nothing" isn't really a choice when many employers and even services require internet access.

    What was a luxury or novelty 25 years ago, is pretty much a utility today and should be treated as such if the providers refuse to be responsible on their own; the early reports on this on not encouraging and trust me it isn't most liberal media that are suffering; it is both small businesses and alternative news outlets that have already been hit.
    Sorry Melodi, but I work in telecom and know that this idea that there are places where there's only ONE provider is false. There's always other providers, even if it's satellite, so don't tell me that there's not.

    Also, the very fact that the idea of something such as internet access being a necessity rather than a luxury is ludicrous, especially here on what is nominally a prepper's board. I constantly hear about how prepped up people here are, yet here you all are, arguing for the inclusion of internet access as not only a necessity, but almost a right!

    Sorry, but I ain't buying it.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    The loose buckle of the bible belt
    Posts
    11,639
    Quote Originally Posted by Paladin1 View Post
    And what, EXACTLY, is the problem with the owner of a network determining what their network is used for?
    How would you feel about your phone company deciding that it didn't like you calling certain numbers and then doing something about it?

  20. #20
    The internet worked fine for all of its existence before obama created net neutrality. Net neutrality would allow TPTB to restrict the free flow of information. The term "Net neutrality" is the scam. Its the opposite of neutrality, its gov't control.
    Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    12,141
    Quote Originally Posted by Paladin1 View Post
    Sorry Melodi, but I work in telecom and know that this idea that there are places where there's only ONE provider is false. There's always other providers, even if it's satellite, so don't tell me that there's not.

    Also, the very fact that the idea of something such as internet access being a necessity rather than a luxury is ludicrous, especially here on what is nominally a prepper's board. I constantly hear about how prepped up people here are, yet here you all are, arguing for the inclusion of internet access as not only a necessity, but almost a right!

    Sorry, but I ain't buying it.
    Speaking here as someone who has USED satellite, it's not an option. It MIGHT have been an option 20 years ago, but today? No way. Between the constant video ads on text-based websites and similar matter, you'll slam into your bandwidth cap like the fist of an angry god in minutes.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    12,141
    Quote Originally Posted by Secamp32 View Post
    The internet worked fine for all of its existence before obama created net neutrality. Net neutrality would allow TPTB to restrict the free flow of information. The term "Net neutrality" is the scam. Its the opposite of neutrality, its gov't control.
    Like they aren't already restricting it? Look at the conservative websites that have collapsed. Look at all the YouTube channels that can no longer function, and just in the last few months.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts


NOTICE: Timebomb2000 is an Internet forum for discussion of world events and personal disaster preparation. Membership is by request only. The opinions posted do not necessarily represent those of TB2K Incorporated (the owner of this website), the staff or site host. Responsibility for the content of all posts rests solely with the Member making them. Neither TB2K Inc, the Staff nor the site host shall be liable for any content.

All original member content posted on this forum becomes the property of TB2K Inc. for archival and display purposes on the Timebomb2000 website venue. Said content may be removed or edited at staff discretion. The original authors retain all rights to their material outside of the Timebomb2000.com website venue. Publication of any original material from Timebomb2000.com on other websites or venues without permission from TB2K Inc. or the original author is expressly forbidden.



"Timebomb2000", "TB2K" and "Watching the World Tick Away" are Service Mark℠ TB2K, Inc. All Rights Reserved.