The fight isn't over, but this is a major setback.
Ajit Pai. Michael O'Rielly. Brendan Carr. Three Republicans who voted to allow telecom companies control over what millions of Americans read and watch.
Ask and ye shall receive It's also available in Aerosmith format. It just occurred to me that I was copping a feel and hearing this live before you were born. About how many bills And I'm sick of all your bitchin' 'Bout your poodles and your pills And I just can't see no humor About your way of life And I think I can do more for you With this here fork and knife Eat the rich There's only one thing that they are good for Eat the rich Take one bite now - come back for more Eat the rich I gotta get this off my chest Eat the rich Take one bite now - spit out the rest'Cause I'm sick of your complainin'
What we talk about when we talk about net neutrality: competition. That's the root of the issue. This debate would be moot if we enforced antitrust laws with any teeth. In fact, in a real competitive landscape, we might even be better off without neutrality rules, because provider A could offer a neutral connection while provider B may want to offer 4k Netflix at no additional charge or something. Unfortunately, since we don't have that, and can't have that without any real antitrust enforcement (which has all but lapsed in America), this is a shitty choice. My guess is that it won't affect as much as doomsayers are predicting, but we need to vote these pricks out of office to put this choice where is should be anyway: Congress.
From what I understand, you're mostly right. Although I don't know enough about Internet infrastructure to speak definitively on the topic, I believe it's hugely expensive to run fiber cable for any meaningful distance. Any new competitor would have to run their own cable lines, and this creates a pretty high barrier to entry. It'd be like running another power source or water pipe network to your house, which is why the concept of Internet as a utility makes sense. Another problem is that corporations either sue or lobby cities and states to prevent them from setting up municipal networks, in order to maintain their control of distribution. One major exception is Chattanooga, which built an excellent network and is now one of the fastest-growing cities in America. In many cases, cities can't do that due to lawsuits or regulations proposed by telecoms. So here we are, with crony capitalist regulations on one hand and other regulations to help offset their impact on another. Only now the offsetting regulations are gone.
believe it's hugely expensive to run fiber cable for any meaningful distance.
Yeah, I've seen that and it boils my blood. That's our money going to the telecoms to use on lobbyists to even further restrict our freedoms. I need a stiff drink.
Beyond any analysis of expenses or litigation, the real question is why is this the purview of the FCC? It shouldn't be. The FCC doesn't and ought not to make laws. Congress has decided that they'd rather not make laws on complicated topics, because it makes them look bad. We can change this by voting for people with a conscience.
Well, there is a bit of shorthand happening in this whole Net Neutrality debate. The FCC doesn't make laws. They make suggestions to Congress, who then enact the recommendations into law. The assumed outcome of any FCC regulation suggested by a Verizon shill who was appointed by Trump, and has been assisting in papering Congress' chambers with $100 bills from the ISP industry, is that Congress is bought-and-paid-for, and therefore any recommendations by the FCC will be rubber-stamped by Congress.
I'm not talking about how a bill becomes law; I'm talking about the functional role that rule and regulation making has taken over from actual legislation. Congress has collectively decided over the last several decades that they would rather delegate to the Executive branch than make hard choices. The FCC shouldn't be making choices about neutrality. Congress should. Three same can be said for all sorts of ways in which our lives are regulated. Citizens have close to no recourse for challenging regulations given the nature or Chevron deference. Our only recourse for challenging most law is via elections, and the FCC (and the whole alphabet soup) is only marginally responsive to election cycles. When Congress doesn't make choices, neither can we.
I mean, this had been a foregone conclusion every since it was proposed. It was obvious that no matter how the comment period went, they were going to vote this way. Now we just have to hope Congress does something, and that this doesn't fuck up the midterms.
I don't think that's true. b_b has the right of it - the FCC is run by appointees and they don't make law. The FCC decided under Obama that the Internet was a communications utility, and the FCC under Trump has decided it isn't. Clarity would be Congress legislating that the Internet is a communications utility. Personally, I think it's funny that they decided to piss on one of the few contingencies left - alt-right technolibertarians. It's like Ajit Pai runs a get out the vote campaign for the Democratic Party. Because yeah - now we're all going to vote. And we're going to vote for something that we didn't think we had to vote for. And then special interests won't be able to change things by fiat ever again.
If we all voted, congress would better reflect the popular vote, instead of the gerrymandered GOP-friendly map. The FCC would be beholden to a congress that wouldn't support this. I don't expect we'll all start voting. I know too many people that want a representative government but don't want to vote because they don't like their choices despite the fact that abstaining makes the quality of choices worse. I do hope we get better districting processes before we lose representation altogether.
I've begun to come around to the conviction that people don't vote because we make it way too hard. Here in liberal-as-fuck Washington something like 80% of voting is done by mail. You can totally do it in California but the number of people I've talked to that are not just unaware but blown away? It's dispiriting. Either way, I think the FCC was, is and shall be an enforcement body, not a legislative body. I can see the argument that it isn't the FCC's place to decide what is and is not a vital utility but that once that's been decided, it's their place to make sure it's dealt with fairly under law. I think we benefited when the FCC ruled it a utility and I think we all lose when they decide it isn't but I also think it was a solution of expediency, not one of durability.
I think you're referring to the midterm elections, but how does that impact the FCC permanently? I'm missing some stepping stones here.And we're going to vote for something that we didn't think we had to vote for. And then special interests won't be able to change things by fiat ever again.
The FCC is beholden to Congress. When they said "we think the Internet is a Utility" and then said "we think the Internet isn't a utility" that's because Congress has not specifically said "the internet is a utility." Congress could declare Domino's Pizza a vital service necessary for communication and the FCC would be forced to regulate Domino's. However, if the FCC declared Domino's Pizza a vital service necessary for communication, Congress could say "lay off the crack pipe". They are not on equal footing. One is subservient to the other.