Posted on 04/09/2019 8:58:48 PM PDT by Republican Wildcat
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said on Tuesday a Democratic bid to restore the 2015 net neutrality rules is "dead on arrival in the Senate."
The U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday debated a Democratic plan to reinstate the Obama-era rules and overturn a December 2017 decision by the Federal Communications Commission to reverse the rules and hand sweeping authority to internet providers to recast how Americans access information.
Late Tuesday, the House opted to delay a vote on the measure and a series of amendments until Wednesday because of an unrelated issue over a separate budget measure.
(Excerpt) Read more at kfgo.com ...
Like the Paris Accord and DACA, it was never voted on, passed or signed.
WAY past time to begin ignoring all of these and more.
I don’t actually understand the net neutrality bill. It means they restrict your ability on the net? Is that it?
Outstanding! Now, bury it deep.
It deals with the priority and speed of data traffic on networks built, expanded, and maintained by a provider.
It means that Comcast doesn’t have the right to give network priority to their own customers network traffic, and would have to treat Verizon and Sprint the same way.
It sounds good on the surface like most leftist socialist schemes.
It is bad for the Internet.
Basically, it would remove the incentive for providers to expand and upgrade the capabilities of their networks. Why should Verizon upgrade their network, when another Internet provider can scrimp on theirs and simply piggyback on the work Verizon does?
If Verizon wants to install new high speed switches, Comcast isn’t going to spend money to upgrade if they can simply leech off of Verizon’s work. If Comcast wants to extend service into a new area and Verizon can simply use their infrastructure, why would Verizon extend service to that area?
They wouldn’t.
Net Neutrality is bad for consumers, and anyone who tells you otherwise has no idea what they are talking about.
'The men behind the curtain' want iron-fist control of the internet on the pretext of keeping us safe from 'hate'.
Well, that was incoherent.
I wish we would stop showing our cards before we should. Let them waste time on it and don’t say a word, just let it die. And please President Trump, stop with the threats, just do it and catch the rats by surprise.
the left are bound and determined to squash conservative voices any way they can- and they scream about conservatives being power hungry?
Nice summary logic correct. But a simpler explanation is when was the last time gov regulated anything and made it better?
Yep! That is indeed the nut of it.
Net neutrality: Obamacare for the internet.
When something seems complicated to me, like educating kids once seemed, I ALWAYS look at who is lining up on which sides, and virtually every time I do that, I make the right decision.
In this case, the Left is DEMANDING Net Neutrality - that’s good enough reason to oppose it for now, and make the Left explain to me (and us) why it is so desperately needed.
...and they haven’t come close to doing that.
The carriers are not they issue. It is the content providers. NN is designed to force the carriers to treat all content the same. Which means Netflix gets handled the same as Freerepublic. So a Netflix user which is data intensive pays the same as a Freerepublic user which doesn’t even scratch bandwidth usage.
The core issues though isn’t about guaranteeing the right to unlimited high speed porn, it’s about the government controlling content and access. Once the government can regulate carriers ability to prioritize traffic and hiwnthe charge for data usage then the gov can regulate what traffic gets carried and how. Think hate speech regulations for internet traffic.
The good and the bad of it is not what I was getting at. I just didn’t understand what it really was. Tell the truth from your explanation I still don’t.
I know it’s not good but why is it that when someone discusses something on one score the other has to be brought in.
Well sure. The government regulation is the bottom line.
The person was asking about what it is. The answer isn’t “Government Regulation” unless it is an ideological discussion, because that ends the discussion. And I am fine with that.
I am simply stating the technical aspects. And you and I are looking at it from different angles.
You are looking at it from a consumer level, who uses what services and how it transits infrastructure.
I am looking at it from an infrastucture and capitalism angle for the purposes of explaining what it is to someone who might not have a good picture of it.
I don’t think we disagree on the bottom line.
You sound a bit peeved, you asked a question and I was trying to be helpful...was my response not what you expected?
What is the “one score” and what is the “other” brought in?
Was the “other” that I simply said it was “bad” which it most defnitely is? Should I have just left it at my apparently sub-par explanation?
Just curious, your response left me a bit puzzled.
House Dems know it is DOA.
This is all about whipping-up Millenial voters for 2020.
To them this issue ranks just slightly behind “climate change” that is going to kill us all in 12 years as an urgent legislative priority.
Under NN, Verizon would not be forced to carry Spectrum’s Internet traffic. NN isn’t about how the carriers interact with each other. It is about how the carriers interact with content providers. It is about the carrier telling Netflix or a Netflix customer that they will pay or pay more for streaming movies. Or the carrier may strike preferential deals that favor one content provider over another. But it is not about one bandwidth provider freeloading on another’s bandwidth.
The only thing NN is about is government regulation and it is the beginning of the conversation. The technical details are brought up to distract from purpose.
I have to disagree to a point...In this case, I am not saying the carriers interact with each other at all, because in that sense, they don’t.
At the fundamental level, denying a company the right to determine how traffic tranits its infrastructure and what content is transiting it (by government intervention and thereby removing the ability of a company to capitalize on its better infrastructure as a selling point) is the same as freeloading on it.
If I own the infrastructure for a portion of a network, and I want to give preferential treatment to my own customers (who I may have deals with) I should be free to give their packets priority at expense of people who don’t pay me money, and thereby make my system more competitive and attractive due to its higher speed.
I wholly agree with your last two lines. I am referring to the how. You are referring to the why.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.