How does Anandtech feel about the FCC trying to change the rules of the Internet? (Net Neutrality)

[Engineer]

On to the courts and then CONgress. If the GOP won't do it, hope the DEMs take over and do what needs to be done.

 

[theeedude]

We need to lustrate GOP from all levels government. Conservatism is a failed ideology:
-Economic policy: Trickle down, proven failure, both in Kansas and nationwide.
-Foreign policy: Neoconservatism, also a proven failure in Iraq.
Conservatism belongs with other failed ideologies like Communism on the ash heap of history.

 

[Puffnstuff]

The FCC just scrapped the net neutrality rules in a 3-2 vote.

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/it-s-decision-day-future-internet-n829336

 

[theeedude]

The FCC just scrapped the net neutrality rules.

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/it-s-decision-day-future-internet-n829336

 

[SMOGZINN]

On to the courts and then CONgress. If the GOP won't do it, hope the DEMs take over and do what needs to be done.

I can't see the courts being able to do anything. How would that even work?
We need Congress to pass an Amendment. This is that important. I doubt our current Congress will do anything for us willingly, so we need to raise some hell.

 

[Phokus]

Ajit Pai is such a prostitute to Verizon and all the other ISPs it's unbelievable.

 

[Engineer]

I can't see the courts being able to do anything. How would that even work?
We need Congress to pass an Amendment. This is that important. I doubt our current Congress will do anything for us willingly, so we need to raise some hell.

There is a rule (or law) that the FCC can't quickly change a rule unless they can prove that the circumstances have changed enough in the short amount time to justify changing the rule. I don't think it will work so it, IMO, will take CONgress fixing it and with the GOP, who knows. A pissed off bunch of voters might, in this case, push something through (but I doubt it).

 

[theeedude]

The state law preemption may become a court issue. Although with a Republican corporatist SCOTUS, I am not optimistic.

 

[Engineer]

The state law preemption may become a court issue. Although with a Republican corporatist SCOTUS, I am not optimistic.

Did that make it into this new set of 'rules'?

 

[theeedude]

Did that make it into this new set of 'rules'?

Of course, the ISPs are scared sh!tless of liberal states enacting their own much stricter net neutrality laws. The money is in liberal states.

 

[Puffnstuff]

The state law preemption may become a court issue. Although with a Republican corporatist SCOTUS, I am not optimistic.

States have the right to protect their people as long as it doesn't interfere or contradict a federal law so that route can work.

 

[Commodus]

As people have noted: remember, this still has to go in front of the courts, and they have shot down bids like this before. I'm not betting on Congress doing anything, because Republicans love taking bribes from telecoms, but there's a chance the FCC's position will fail.

Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if Pai was doing this seeing it as a victory even if the courts shoot him down. "Well, I tried. Now how about that cushy telecom job after I leave?"

 

[zinfamous]

This gif requires more buffering.

 

[Engineer]

States have the right to protect their people as long as it doesn't interfere or contradict a federal law so that route can work.

Federal law or a rule (as is the case of the FCC)? If it has to be law, then Congress would need to pass something to keep the states from doing this. I could see a GOP CONgress trying but it won't get past the Senate.

 

[bshole]

The state law preemption may become a court issue. Although with a Republican corporatist SCOTUS, I am not optimistic.

Yes they have the Supreme Court. They have all branches of government and now have infected all the bureaucracies.

 

[theeedude]

Yes they have the Supreme Court. They have all branches of government and now have infected all the bureaucracies.

They don't have the consent of the governed, and that's going to be their downfall.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Federal law or a rule (as is the case of the FCC)? If it has to be law, then Congress would need to pass something to keep the states from doing this. I could see a GOP CONgress trying but it won't get past the Senate.

States can pass their own laws and as long as they don't invoke the federal supremacy clause its all good. This is why CA and the fed butt heads all the time over environmental issues.

Just imagine what it would be like if the GOP did the same thing to our federal highway system allowing rich people to buy access to the fast lanes and putting poor people in the slow lanes.

 

[Engineer]

States can pass their own laws and as long as they don't invoke the federal supremacy clause its all good. This is why CA and the fed butt heads all the time over environmental issues.

Just imagine what it would be like if the GOP did the same thing to our federal highway system allowing rich people to buy access to the fast lanes and putting poor people in the slow lanes.

If precedence has anything to do with it, the FCC won't be able to stop the states. The FCC tried, in 2015, to prevent states from passing laws to stop local municipal broadband networks but that ruling was overturned by the federal courts and states rights won out. I would think that would be brought up in this case as well.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Something I'd love to see, is ISPs now beholden to the traffic that crosses their lines, since they're a 'service/content provider' rather than Title 2. It'd be super to see some lawsuits for interstate transfer of child pr0n happening.

 

[theeedude]

How your Senator voted on Ajit Pai's confirmation:
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/...fm?congress=115&session=1&vote=00209#position

Nomination Description: Ajit Varadaraj Pai, of Kansas, to be a Member of the Federal Communications Commission for a term of five years from July 1, 2016

YEAs ---52
Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Burr (R-NC)
Capito (R-WV)
Cassidy (R-LA)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Cotton (R-AR)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Daines (R-MT)
Enzi (R-WY)
Ernst (R-IA)
Fischer (R-NE)
Flake (R-AZ)
Gardner (R-CO)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kennedy (R-LA)
Lankford (R-OK)
Lee (R-UT)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Paul (R-KY)
Perdue (R-GA)
Peters (D-MI)
Portman (R-OH)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rounds (R-SD)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sasse (R-NE)
Scott (R-SC)
Shelby (R-AL)
Strange (R-AL)
Sullivan (R-AK)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Tillis (R-NC)
Wicker (R-MS)
Young (R-IN)
NAYs ---41
Baldwin (D-WI)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Booker (D-NJ)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Coons (D-DE)
Donnelly (D-IN)
Duckworth (D-IL)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harris (D-CA)
Hassan (D-NH)
Heinrich (D-NM)
Heitkamp (D-ND)
Hirono (D-HI)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Leahy (D-VT)
Markey (D-MA)
Merkley (D-OR)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Udall (D-NM)
Van Hollen (D-MD)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
Not Voting - 7
Cochran (R-MS)
Cortez Masto (D-NV)
Heller (R-NV)
McCain (R-AZ)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Sanders (I-VT)
Toomey (R-PA)

 

[Puffnstuff]

If precedence has anything to do with it, the FCC won't be able to stop the states. The FCC tried, in 2015, to prevent states from passing laws to stop local municipal broadband networks but that ruling was overturned by the federal courts and states rights won out. I would think that would be brought up in this case as well.

I certainly hope so to prevent ISP's from allocating bandwidth.

 

[Engineer]

I certainly hope so to prevent ISP's from allocating bandwidth.

Of course, Pai says that the FCC has the power to keep states from passing laws to do this. I'm sure that in 2015, he said the FCC didn't have power over the states in such a way.

 

[theeedude]

This gif requires more buffering.

Maybe you now need to send a check to your ISP to see it

 

[Aikouka]

In a perfect world, the FCC is right that we don't need it. However, once you remove the rose-colored glasses and realize that things aren't perfect, it's fairly apparent why we should have these rules.

The job of a business is to make money. A business decision can lose money, but as long as the company makes more than they lose, it's (technically) fine. That concept outlines how a corporation can implement consumer-unfriendly practices and get away with it. They may lose customers, which is a loss, but the money gained is enough to make up for it. In the case of ISPs, the lack of competition in areas combined with how the Internet has become even more necessary over time means that an ISP enjoys even greater consumer retention. Essentially, a customer cannot leave for another institution, as they either don't exist or are largely unfit for today's Internet landscape. (An example would be slow DSL solutions.)

Ultimately, what I'm trying to say is that these corporations are not working for you. As long as they continue to make money through their legal practices, as shady as they may seem, they'll continue to do it. You can't trust a business to also consider the consumer's interest, which is why we have consumer protection laws in various other areas. I get the feeling like some would consider these remarks as "an attack on Capitalism" or the "thoughts of a socialist", but I challenge those people to prove it wrong.

I remember the issue between Comcast and Netflix a few years ago quite vividly. I had both services at the time, and what I think some don't realize is that the feud affected FAR more than just Netflix streaming. Any traffic that routed through that same overloaded hub saw serious slowdowns, and it made the Internet far less usable during the evening time. I remember the day they cleared it up, and it felt like I could actually use the Internet again! Did Comcast care that a modest portion of my Internet usage suffered due to their dispute? No. We don't even need to get into how ridiculous Comcast's position was back then either.

 

[Zorba]

States can pass their own laws and as long as they don't invoke the federal supremacy clause its all good. This is why CA and the fed butt heads all the time over environmental issues.

Just imagine what it would be like if the GOP did the same thing to our federal highway system allowing rich people to buy access to the fast lanes and putting poor people in the slow lanes.

I guess you haven't been to Texas lately... Expressive express lanes every where.