Title II net neutrality regulations will be repealed on June 11

Polycount

TS Evangelist
Staff member

The fight for net neutrality may be coming to an end soon. The FCC announced today that 2015's "open-internet" rules will officially be killed off on June 11. This news is no surprise, of course. The FCC already voted to remove the regulations back in December. However, many net neutrality defenders likely held out hope that a petition recently filed through the Congressional Review Act could reverse the commission's decision.

The petition will force the Senate to vote on whether or not they will reject the FCC's ruling.

Currently, those on the side of net neutrality only need one more Senate vote for the petition to make its way to the House. If it passes with a majority vote there, it will eventually need to receive a signature from President Donald Trump.

Barring a sudden change of heart on Trump's part, however, net neutrality is likely on its way out. This news that hasn't exactly been comforting for some of net neutrality's staunchest defenders.

FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel is one such individual. The commissioner has issued a statement today reinforcing her previous beliefs that net neutrality is essential and beneficial to the American public.

"The agency failed to listen to the American public and gave short shrift to their deeply held belief that internet openness should remain the law of the land," Rosenworcel said in the statement. "The FCC is on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of the law, and the wrong side of the American people."

Permalink to story.

 

OutlawCecil

TS Evangelist
I'm honestly curious what Trump supporters think of this. Do you think this is a good thing or are you taking a blind eye and/or don't understand what this is?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stark

psycros

TS Evangelist
"Let's keep making a ruckus until internet openness is once again the law of the land."

It never was the law of the land..ISPs were essentially being allowed to operate on the honor system. Their behaviors over the past 30 years have shown conclusively that they no longer deserve our trust, and perhaps they never did. At one point AT&T was spending more on lobbying than any other US company. Big Telecom has enjoyed mergers and acquisitions the likes of which would never pass regulatory muster in other sectors of the economy. How did a cable operator's purchase of NBC not represent a conflict of interest and excessive influence?? The physical network operators won't be satisfied until they can either own or tax all content that passes through their infrastructures. Yes, we need net neutrality - the problem is that neither the elephants or the donkeys have proposed laws that provides neutrality the way the public actually wants it implemented. The few Republicans who support it want there to be an "equal access" clause to insure that ISPs don't *block* any legal network traffic..but those content providers with deep pockets can still have better bandwidth. Meanwhile, the Democrats want the Federal government to have final say on who gets to use the "fast lane" rather than letting private companies make that decision. So much for "neutrality".
 

VBKing

TS Enthusiast
I'm honestly curious what Trump supporters think of this. Do you think this is a good thing or are you taking a blind eye and/or don't understand what this is?
I'm pretty sure they (as a majority) never thought this was a good thing. Implying that your small sampling of tainted answers are the only ones they could have just shows that you think everyone who votes one way blindly agrees with everything a party / person does.
PS: They didn't want the regulations removed and they want a free, unobstructed internet.
 

Bubbajim

TechSpot Staff
Staff member
Meanwhile, the Democrats want the Federal government to have final say on who gets to use the "fast lane" rather than letting private companies make that decision. .
I've not read anything about this - can you share any sources on this? Sounds interesting, and a position that's not really seeing much discussion or light of day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wiyosaya

OutlawCecil

TS Evangelist
"Let's keep making a ruckus until internet openness is once again the law of the land."

It never was the law of the land..ISPs were essentially being allowed to operate on the honor system. Their behaviors over the past 30 years have shown conclusively that they no longer deserve our trust, and perhaps they never did. At one point AT&T was spending more on lobbying than any other US company. Big Telecom has enjoyed mergers and acquisitions the likes of which would never pass regulatory muster in other sectors of the economy. How did a cable operator's purchase of NBC not represent a conflict of interest and excessive influence?? The physical network operators won't be satisfied until they can either own or tax all content that passes through their infrastructures. Yes, we need net neutrality - the problem is that neither the elephants or the donkeys have proposed laws that provides neutrality the way the public actually wants it implemented. The few Republicans who support it want there to be an "equal access" clause to insure that ISPs don't *block* any legal network traffic..but those content providers with deep pockets can still have better bandwidth. Meanwhile, the Democrats want the Federal government to have final say on who gets to use the "fast lane" rather than letting private companies make that decision. So much for "neutrality".
You are ill informed sir. That is all.
 

wiyosaya

TS Evangelist
@Polycount As I see it, it would be really great if in future articles about NN, political party positions are expounded upon with verifiable links. Articles like this are routinely responded to by some with posts full of fear, uncertainty, and doubt that have no basis in anything verifiable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jobeard

Polycount

TS Evangelist
Staff member

Polycount

TS Evangelist
Staff member
Bravo . . . the comment is meant to be generic for the site and the conversation flow lent itself to the appeal IMO.
Ah, my apologies. I misunderstood. If you can point out any examples you're aware of where I haven't cited sources, please do so, I'd be happy to update them - I'm not perfect. :)