[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Settings Home
/news/ - Current News

4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 14 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]

Image posting is back. Expecting a more permanent fix soon!


>Washington (CNN)The Senate voted Wednesday to pass a measure that would repeal changes to net neutrality rules that were recently adopted by the Republican-controlled Federal Communications Commission.

>The measure, which was backed by all 49 Democrats and Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and John Kennedy of Louisiana, will be sent to the GOP-led House, where it'll likely go nowhere -- and President Donald Trump is unlikely to back it.

>While Collins' support had been public leading up to the vote, Murkowski's and Kennedy's "yes" vote came as a surprise to some.

>Democrats used the Congressional Review Act to force a vote -- a law that allows Congress to repeal agency rules and regulations on a simple majority vote, instead of a 60-vote threshold needed to break procedural hurdles on most legislation, the kinds of traditional roadblocks where Senate leadership could typically hold up such a proposal.

>Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer spoke after the vote to begin debate earlier Wednesday, arguing that "at stake is the future of the Internet."

>"That fundamental equality of access is what has made the internet so dynamic," he said on the Senate floor. "Net neutrality protected everyone ... that era, the era of an open Internet, will unfortunately soon come to an end."

>He continued: "The Democratic position is very simple. Let's treat the internet like the public good that it is."

>The FCC voted in December to repeal Obama-era protections. The net neutrality rules, approved by the same organization two years earlier, prohibited Internet service providers -- such as Comcast and Verizon -- from speeding up or slowing down traffic from specific websites and apps.
>Democrats argued the new FCC rules give too much power to Internet service providers, which they fear will throttle down speeds for some websites and services while ramping it up for others who pay more.

>Schumer said in an earlier statement, "The repeal of net neutrality is not only a blow to the average consumer, but it is a blow to public schools, rural Americans, communities of color and small businesses. A vote against this resolution will be a vote to protect large corporations and special interests, leaving the American public to pay the price."

>While Democrats recognize they are unlikely to reverse the FCC's rule, they see the issue as a key policy desire that energizes their base voters, a top priority ahead of the midterm elections.
by the time I die, the number of times the internet will have been made 'neutral' will be uncountable
Thank god.

The FCC policy change has not gone into effect yet, numbnuts. The government takes forever to enact new policies.
>The FCC policy change has not gone into effect yet, numbnuts
the date it went into effect was April 23, cumchugger
thank fuck for that. Now we need someone to make a video of themselves gloating and drinking out of a giant mug just to rub it in shitpile's face.
>thank fuck for that.

>celebrating early
>The measure will be sent to the GOP-led House, where it'll likely go nowhere -- and President Donald Trump is unlikely to back it.
Thank god not every last Republican is a shit eater.
Yeah, they're already one step further than they thought they'd be, given the two surprise extra Republican votes they got in the senate which broke the tie (if Pence was the tiebreaker it would have failed). Even if they managed to wrangle enough votes in the House they'd have to somehow convince Trump to not veto it, and once they got him to not veto it, they would have to further either get him to sign it or sit on it while Congress is in session thus becoming law by default (if Congress is out of session it's a pocket veto). If does veto it, they'd then have to get enough votes to override the veto, which given the narrow margin they got with the Senate and the probable narrow margin in the House they would get would be incredible unlikely.

The real purpose of this measure is to get everyone in Congress to clearly define where they stand on the issue in the hopes that it will alter the voting calculations come November in favor of the Democrats. I'm not sure how successful that will be, given the growing strength of the anti-NN movement (which I think is driven either by people who have no idea how this shit works, anti-government zealots, literal ISP agents, or plain 4chan contrarianism, there used to be a lot more unity on this subject on this site).
everyone wants net neutrality but net neutrality is actually anti net neutrality and the real net neutrality is actually anti net neutrality..
god i hate fucking media buzzwords.
Internet is just as important to national defense as roads, highways and telephones and should be regulated as such, not a private service offered to us by our corporate overlords
>everyone wants net neutrality

Normally I'd agree with you, especially several years ago, but nowadays I'm not so sure. You have these extreme elements who somehow managed to turn this into a partisan culture war thing, where being against network neutrality as a concept is a good idea because it will fuck over the "liberal companies" like google or amazon or whatever. By forcing the issue to be "if you're pro-NN, then you're with the liberals" they've managed to rally a bunch of support against the very concept itself despite being against their self-interests (hyper-partisanship is one hell of a drug).

You also have foreign individuals who think this will somehow remove Americans from the internet, though that's more of a case of "I want NN for myself, but not for those guys, because fuck them."

You're right, though, that everyone (rational) wants network neutrality, they just disagree on the best method to accomplish the idea, especially when you introduce the whole public sector vs private sector dynamic.
This is great, but the fight is not over. This still needs to go through the House, preferably with a 2/3 majority so Drumpf can’t just veto it. Keep up the great work!
>says net neutrality is bad
>also says internet should be regulated
>but the regulation that is net neutrality is bad
>so let's get rid of it
>but let's also not have something better to replace it with, let's let ISPs do as they please is a less regulated area
>but regulations are needed for this
>I'm so smart
False dichotomy, the post.

You are not required to choose between full regulation that chokes out the ISPs and no regulation that lets them choke out YOU.
Actually in this case, those are the choices because if you give ISP an inch, they'll take it a mile and throttle your connection.
no, anon. there is always a happy balance between gov't raping business and business raping customers, you dont just need to instantly gravitate towards one or the other.
The fact that people don't understand this concept is one the biggest problems in American politics.
>happy balance
Which that initial anon posting the green text pointed out isn't happening and it's really not a false dichotomy when you can see it in practice over and over in many industries due to heavy lobbying in corporations best interest
You sound like a niave boomer
newsflash: every type of business will try to fuck over their customers as much as possible to make the most efficient dollar.
is the solution the regulate the shit out of every business?
Yes, of course. Outside of fantasies, people mostly do good in spite if their own interests if they're forced to. History has shown time and time again it's laws and regulations that fix corporate greed, not faries and rainbows.
The government is not an alien entity or some "other", it is the people around you, including yourself. Any actions the "people" or free market or whatever bullshit you're thinking if that isn't government, is in fact government. Literally only difference is what you're calling the group if people making the actions.

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.