US Senate Defeats Bill That Would Have Overturned Net Neutrality

[dgstorm]

We never like to stray too close to politics here in the forums, because that's not what we are about, but this is important tech-related news that needed to be shared. Apparently, there was a very recently proposed bill (this week) that would have overturned the recently passed Net Neutrality law that facilitates the FCC's Open Internet rules. Luckily, the U.S. Senate just defeated this new bill, so the Net Neutrality law will still go into effect on November 20th as is.

According to the report, Verizon is likely to file a lawsuit to challenge the Net Neutrality law, but there are several companies that are supporters of the Open Internet initiative, including Google, Amazon, Netflix, Facebook, and eBay, among others.

Thanks for the tip, ilikemoneygreen!

Source: TheVerge

 

[Jonas]

For those of you who don't understand how big of a victory this is, I can't tell you how bad this could have gotten. Net neutrality means that there is NO restriction or censorship of content. Apparently this is looking like Verizon was going to try to block, some of our content. which in my very strong opinion is very wrong, and will lose my business for sure! We are NOT China, don't try to censor us!

 

[jerkwad]

For those of you who don't understand how big of a victory this is, I can't tell you how bad this could have gotten. Net neutrality means that there is NO restriction or censorship of content. Apparently this is looking like Verizon was going to try to block, some of our content. which in my very strong opinion is very wrong, and will lose my business for sure! We are NOT China, don't try to censor us!

Jonas,

What have you read that makes you think they were trying to block any content? Curious as to more information that might shed light on Verizon's motives to file suit against this. I figured Verizon's intentions were less about censorship and MUCH more about their ability to throttle different data types, throttle abusive users, provide for that "Turbo" feature that was discussed on this site, throttle those under an unlimited plan that are in the top 5% of data consumers, block applications that they don't like on the Market, etc..............

 

[TheOldFart]

Jonas,

What have you read that makes you think they were trying to block any content? Curious as to more information that might shed light on Verizon's motives to file suit against this. I figured Verizon's intentions were less about censorship and MUCH more about their ability to throttle different data types, throttle abusive users, provide for that "Turbo" feature that was discussed on this site, throttle those under an unlimited plan that are in the top 5% of data consumers, block applications that they don't like on the Market, etc..............

I don't know as much about net neutrality as I should, but I see it like this. If Verizon wants to throttle the top 5% of users, that is not a violation, as it does not give any certain content priority over another. However, if they throttle Netflix content because it uses high bandwidth, then that is a violation.

 

[CaptainCaveMan]

Jonas,

What have you read that makes you think they were trying to block any content? Curious as to more information that might shed light on Verizon's motives to file suit against this. I figured Verizon's intentions were less about censorship and MUCH more about their ability to throttle different data types, throttle abusive users, provide for that "Turbo" feature that was discussed on this site, throttle those under an unlimited plan that are in the top 5% of data consumers, block applications that they don't like on the Market, etc..............

Throttle = Censorship. That's the way it will be done. For instance, let us say that I'm currently using Charter high-speed internet at home. If I want to check out what kind of internet deals I can get if I switched providers to AT&T, Charter (with no Net Neutrality rules in place) could throttle down AT&T's website to the point that I just say "screw it" and just give up on switching.

Let us say that I want to choose a movie to watch off of netflix.....well, Charter could slow netflix down to a point where I just give up on it, and instead I'd have to go to some Charter Demand Movie Marketplace type thing in order to watch a flick.

 

[Jonas]

Throttle = Censorship. That's the way it will be done. For instance, let us say that I'm currently using Charter high-speed internet at home. If I want to check out what kind of internet deals I can get if I switched providers to AT&T, Charter (with no Net Neutrality rules in place) could throttle down AT&T's website to the point that I just say "screw it" and just give up on switching.

Let us say that I want to choose a movie to watch off of netflix.....well, Charter could slow netflix down to a point where I just give up on it, and instead I'd have to go to some Charter Demand Movie Marketplace type thing in order to watch a flick.

Yes, thanks. That's where I was going with that. Plus this would have set an extraordinary precedent in internet laws. I am very glad it was beat down.

 

[liftedplane]

Jonas,

What have you read that makes you think they were trying to block any content? Curious as to more information that might shed light on Verizon's motives to file suit against this. I figured Verizon's intentions were less about censorship and MUCH more about their ability to throttle different data types, throttle abusive users, provide for that "Turbo" feature that was discussed on this site, throttle those under an unlimited plan that are in the top 5% of data consumers, block applications that they don't like on the Market, etc..............

the fact that they want to file suit against net neutrality makes me want to leave vzw.

whatever their "reason" I don't care... things always start out with something. small, look at history

 

[jerkwad]

the fact that they want to file suit against net neutrality makes me want to leave vzw.

whatever their "reason" I don't care... things always start out with something. small, look at history

sometimes good (small) intentions ALSO have negative consequences...so i don't need to "look at history" to remind me of anything...i simply asked about any information out there that might shed light on Verizon's motives; don't think i'm defending their actions but i'm also NOT calling them the Devil for fighting for what they believe to be best for their company. There are always two sides to the same story.

 

[GaryCook]

The Leftist-controlled Senate is very excited that the law remains, because it opens the door for the now over-bearing U.S. government to meddle with, and attempt to control Internet content. Before this law was passed, the Internet has been allowed to grow into a money-making machine for anyone who believes in the free flow of information and products. There has been no evidence offered to show that the users of the free Internet have been unfairly treated. This idiotic Leftist (Socialist) law was passed, because the Democrat-controlled Senate claimed that there may be some kind of problem in the future, and they believe that the world needs them to have unprecedented control over Internet activity in order to police it. (Really? Who believes that?)
This is the same type of trickery the Leftists have always used to take freedom away from man. They have in this case, demonized "big business" as if they are the enemy, to create a non-existent situation in the minds of the weak. This law serves no good purpose for users of the Internet. It simply opens the door for the U.S. government to lawfully limit, dictate, or cut-off Internet services, and seize domains for any reason. The law must be repealed as soon as possible, before they destroy our ability to freely grow and develop the Internet further. Get the facts on the law before embracing the Leftists' rhetoric.

 

[wolstonc]

Guys, Verizon DOES throttle the top 5%, or at least reserves the right to do so. You guys are approaching this wrong. Net neutrality doesn't effect verizons ability to throttle or anything like that.. the news is that rules were kept in place, not changed. Verizon can still do what it currently does. Im pretty sure the net neutrality has some kind of different rules for phone plans. However, removing net neutrality would make it where home internet, such as dsl and cable, can not only censor, but have tiered plans as well. That's why we should be against it. It would pretty much be the demise of xbox live, online gaming, video steaming, etc. Democrats tend to support net neutrality and republicans usually oppose it. Att has been on both sides of the issue, but Verizon has been against it. I'd love to see what they say... "Hey Verizon didn't you justify tiered data by saying to use my home dsl wifi that I pay you for, but now that's tiered too??"

Sent from my ADR6400L using DroidForums

 

[jerkwad]

Guys, Verizon DOES throttle the top 5%, or at least reserves the right to do so. You guys are approaching this wrong. Net neutrality doesn't effect verizons ability to throttle or anything like that.. the news is that rules were kept in place, not changed. Verizon can still do what it currently does. Im pretty sure the net neutrality has some kind of different rules for phone plans. However, removing net neutrality would make it where home internet, such as dsl and cable, can not only censor, but have tiered plans as well. That's why we should be against it. It would pretty much be the demise of xbox live, online gaming, video steaming, etc. Democrats tend to support net neutrality and republicans usually oppose it. Att has been on both sides of the issue, but Verizon has been against it. I'd love to see what they say... "Hey Verizon didn't you justify tiered data by saying to use my home dsl wifi that I pay you for, but now that's tiered too??"

Sent from my ADR6400L using DroidForums

Just curious, but why should we be worried about xbox live, online gaming, etc being affected by this? The rest of your post was nicely said.

 

[GaryCook]

Just curious, but why should we be worried about xbox live, online gaming, etc being affected by this? The rest of your post was nicely said.

The interference of anyone's free use of the Internet should be alarming to all Internet users.

 

[jerkwad]

The interference of anyone's free use of the Internet should be alarming to all Internet users.

Perhaps I wasn't clear in my previous question: What I meant was "why should we expect that xbox live, etc would be affected by either decision (for or against) net neutrality"?

 

[GaryCook]

Perhaps I wasn't clear in my previous question: What I meant was "why should we expect that xbox live, etc would be affected by either decision (for or against) net neutrality"?

First off, we all need to be clear that the name given this law was designed to be unassuming and misleading. It should be honestly named, "The Internet Control Law". To answer your question, everyone, including online gamers, should be concerned about this law. Anyone connected to the Internet can be adversely affected by it. (And will be, if it's not repealed)

 

[Willyammer]

Anyone know which Senator and/or Representative sponsored this bill? Be interesting to see how much $$$ they pocketed from Verizon, ATT, and the cable companies. Goes to show - keeping politics clean means keeping out the dough.