Senator Franken and Net Neutrality: Nothing at All Might Be Better

December 17, 2010 -

Senator Al Franken (D-MN) does not like the new net neutrality proposal and has said publically that it could do "more harm than doing nothing at all." Franken says this for a number of reasons: it exempts wireless broadband from any nondiscrimination provisions, it gives a nod of approval to paid prioritization. In his view, the FCC would be better off waiting and doing net neutrality the right way.

Franken is not alone in his criticism; Republicans don't want any form of net neutrality, while Democrats -- including advocacy groups such as Free Press and the ECA - don't like it because it doesn't do enough.

"I am very worried that the draft Order does not do enough to preserve that openness," he wrote to FCC Chair Julius Genachowski. In fact, as presently written, it could do "more harm than doing nothing at all."

Franken goes on to say that, "absent significant changes to the draft Order as it has been described to me, adopting these rules as they are may actually send signals to industry endorsing any closing off of the Internet that is not specifically prohibited."

Source: Ars Technica


Comments

Re: Senator Franken and Net Neutrality: Nothing at All ...

It seems to me that the current version would actually do the opposite of what neutrality means to do. I escpecially don't like the section that encourages ISPs to charge by usage. That gives them the power to make cutting the cable more inconvenient. They don't want us to stop using their expensive legacy services, it's too profitable and competition is scarce. If I want to watch my favorite shows by way of the internet, I shouldn't be punished because it happens to be a large file. They don't cap our connections because the network is overwhelmed, they do it because that makes it harder to depend solely on the internet for communications and entertainment. They're like spoiled children, throwing a trantrum because they can't be allowed to abuse the rules to their benefit. So they lie, cheat, and steal to keep their superior position while the rest of the kids at the table are feeling mistreated.

-Greevar

-Greevar

"Paste superficially profound, but utterly meaningless quotation here."

Re: Senator Franken and Net Neutrality: Nothing at All ...

"They don't want us to stop using their expensive legacy services, it's too profitable and competition is scarce"

 

Free to air sattelite.  You may not get as many channel as you would via cable but you get enough that makes dumping pay tv worth it considering alot of cable content is already on the internet.

Competition isn't scarce.  Its just badly promoted.

Re: Senator Franken and Net Neutrality: Nothing at All ...

Why would I even bother? Why can't I centralize my phone, TV, and world wide web over one line? It's all anyone really needs today. All of the others are just attempts to milk the public for more money. Screw satellite and cable! I can get any and all shows/movies from the internet and I can watch it when I'm ready to watch it, as many times as I care to watch it.

-Greevar

-Greevar

"Paste superficially profound, but utterly meaningless quotation here."

Re: Senator Franken and Net Neutrality: Nothing at All ...

@

Just give it time.  Eventually some sort of regulation hidden under the disguise of a Law intended to do something else will cripple the internet.  It happened with terrestrial radio and its only a matter of time before it happens with the internet.

If your going to make light of free satelite then something is wrong with you sir.  : P

Re: Senator Franken and Net Neutrality: Nothing at All ...

"Bam, I got you, you're dead"

"Uh, but, i'm wearing armor that's invisible and makes me invincible, so I can'tr die"

"You can't do that"

"Nuh uh, I just did"

"No, I killed you, you can't do that"

*huffs* "I'm going home!!"

Re: Senator Franken and Net Neutrality: Nothing at All ...

And that is ultimately what big business wants. No law is better than corrupted one.


I have a dream, break the chains of copy right oppression! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/2010/05/21/cigital-disobedience/


Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Let's renegotiate them.

---

http://zippydsm.deviantart.com/

Re: Senator Franken and Net Neutrality: Nothing at All ...

He's probably right. The nerfed bill is worse than no law at all.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Did Microsoft pay too much ($2.5 billion) for Minecraft developer Mojang?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Sleaker@Technogeek - How do you call someone out that anonymously calls in a SWAT team, or sends threats to people?09/20/2014 - 7:04pm
Technogeek"It also doesn't mean you're obligated to stop harassment from all gamers that are doing so." I'd say you're certainly obligated to call them out when you see it happening.09/20/2014 - 5:17pm
SleakerNow if you disagree with anything in my last 2 posts then we obviously have a difference in world view, and wont come to any sort of agreement. I'm fine with that, maybe some people aren't?09/20/2014 - 5:09pm
SleakerIt also doesn't mean that just because a news outlet says that Gamers are the problem and you self-identify as a Gamer, you're immediately the problem. It also doesn't mean you're obligated to stop harassment from all gamers that are doing so.09/20/2014 - 4:59pm
SleakerJust to re-iterate: People getting harassed is wrong. Just because someone is harassed by so called 'gamers' doesn't mean that all gamers are bad. nor does it mean that you need to pass laws or judgement on all gamers.09/20/2014 - 4:56pm
SleakerAnd furthermore just because someone doesn't 'crusade against the evil' that doesn't make them the problem. You can have discussion with those around you. There's a thing called sphere of influence.09/20/2014 - 4:54pm
Sleaker@Conster - one person getting harassed is a 'problem' only so far as the harassee's are doing it. Just because a select few people choose to act like this doesn't make it widespread. Nor does it immediately make everyone responsible to put an end to it.09/20/2014 - 4:54pm
james_fudgeno worries09/20/2014 - 4:15pm
TechnogeekI misread james' comment as "we can't have a debate without threatening" there at first. Actually wound up posting a shout about death threats and "kill yourself" not technically being the same thing before I realized.09/20/2014 - 3:59pm
james_fudgeDon't hit me *cowers behind Andrew*09/20/2014 - 3:20pm
ConsterYou take that back right now, james, or else. *shakes fist menacingly*09/20/2014 - 3:00pm
james_fudgeOur community is awesome. We can have a debate without threatening to kill each other.09/20/2014 - 2:50pm
Andrew EisenNo one's crossed a line but I just want to remind you all to keep discussions civil.09/20/2014 - 1:54pm
Craig R.tldr: I'm a gamer, and imo those who support GamerGate should feel free to take a flying leap off a cliff.09/20/2014 - 1:27pm
Craig R.Not only that, I'm pretty sure that if actual studies were done, you'd still deny them, Sleaker. After all, it's not what you'd want to hear to support your rose-colored view of GamerGate.09/20/2014 - 1:18pm
Craig R.There IS an issue. Nor do we need a study to show that if you deny it then you're part of the problem.09/20/2014 - 1:17pm
Sleakersimply oust people that do harass others.09/20/2014 - 11:34am
Sleaker@Conster - I can say the same thing if you think there's been more than a handful. Until there's an actual study on rates no one can claim to know how widespread the incidence of harassment is. Thus the best we can do is 'there might be an issue' and...09/20/2014 - 11:33am
ConsterSleaker: if you think there's only been "a handful of" incidents, you have your head stuck *somewhere* - I'm assuming it's sand.09/20/2014 - 5:38am
prh99Most of it's agitprop clickbait anyway.09/20/2014 - 5:27am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician