-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
US Senate has forced a vote to restore net neutrality (update: passed, goes to House vote)
- Thread starter chadskin
- Start date
Excellent. How decent are the chances of a good outcome from this?
Evidence of a bribe? Absolutely not - AT&T themselves said that "Essential Consulting was one of several firms we engaged in early 2017 to provide insights into understanding the new administration,"
I'm not trying to defend AT&T or anyone else - I'm just trying to say that there is no evidence that payment was a bribe.
Considering this is a procedural vote and not a vote on NN proper, it's going to be difficult. Taking advantage of a man who can't vote due to brain cancer also isn't a good look.
No direct evidence of a bribe, just the heavy, heavy implication of one.
they're one vote shy of making things work in the senate. there's a couple potential flip targets listed in the op. murkowski especially is probably due for another round of pretending to be a moderate after voting for the tax bill. R senators from Obama -> Trump states WOULD be fantastic targets if any were up for re-election this year, but i don't think any are.
getting it through the house would require... 21? republican votes at minimum. idk if there's a public list of how things are progressing in the house though.
Depends on what you expect. It's going to lead to good press and campaign ammo for Dems running in the future. But it won't save NN in of itself.
I have a rational and irrational hate for Ajit Pai. I hate his face, I can't stand his voice, and I want o punch him when I see his grin. It's only natural he works during the Trump administration. A match made in Hell.
Man, Dems could be serving up a softball of goodwill to Trump. Trump takes credit for Net Neutrality if he signs it.
I actually think it will pass the Senate because it doesn't have a chance in the House. Republican Senators up for re-election this year could use this as an empty vote.
Pai always looks like the guy who tries way too hard to be part of asshat "cool" kids in high school -- so much so that those kids just ignore him for the most part except for the times they need him to get the booze.
I thought the consensus was that private companies were not beholden to "freeze peach" and constitutional protections for carrying and broadcasting messages on their service, what changed?
This is one of the most serious make or break topics I can think of for an elected official in this day and age. Call your senators and get this shit fucking overturned. We can do this!
Why would trump go against his own FCC? If he wanted Title II still in place he wouldn't have appointed Pai.
Can you elaborate on why you consider this is taking advantage of McCain? It's the US congress- business needs to continue despite one Senator's absence.
It's not Democrats' fault that McCain has refused to resign and let his GOP Governor appoint his successor.
I also think folks need to think carefully about what they are asking for.
I know it's not a popular opinion, but the reason NN is an issue is google, netflix, etc are dependent on ISPs to provide content. Without continuous upgrades of the fiber network netflix et al cannot grow. But who is going to pay for these upgrades? Currently it's the ISPs who then pass it on to the consumer. NN as instituted by Wheeler would ensure that customers ultimately foot the bill as speeds and infrastructure continue to expand. Without NN ISPs can charge the Netflix of the world to provide those upgrades because it's ultimately their services that are causing the need for more bandwidth. So, if the Wheeler rules are put back in place, instead of conglomerate Facebook or Netflix helping to expand and enhance internet service, it will be the user who will be charged more and more. Personally, I'd rather Netflix and Hulu foot the bill.
I know it's not a popular opinion, but the reason NN is an issue is google, netflix, etc are dependent on ISPs to provide content. Without continuous upgrades of the fiber network netflix et al cannot grow. But who is going to pay for these upgrades? Currently it's the ISPs who then pass it on to the consumer. NN as instituted by Wheeler would ensure that customers ultimately foot the bill as speeds and infrastructure continue to expand. Without NN ISPs can charge the Netflix of the world to provide those upgrades because it's ultimately their services that are causing the need for more bandwidth. So, if the Wheeler rules are put back in place, instead of conglomerate Facebook or Netflix helping to expand and enhance internet service, it will be the user who will be charged more and more. Personally, I'd rather Netflix and Hulu foot the bill.
Oh come on. Your original implication is that it's complete BASELESS to say that it was a bribe.
That's not how it works. Most improvements to telecommunication lines are partially funded by state or local governments.
And even then, the ISPs just pocket the money with no upgrades, and deal with the lawsuits from the states later.
If ISPs had their way, we'd still be on dial up. They have no care at all to make things faster. And why would they? Speed doesn't matter to them if nobody else is faster.
You're using, almost word for word (including the Netflix example) the reasons AT&T wants to get rid of NN back in 2014.
Essential Consulting is a shell company that was used to funnel money to Trump's mistress. Do you seriously believe it's a consulting firm?
It is an assumption, but it's far from baseless. $200,000 doesn't transfer itself, and it sure smells like a RICO investigation waiting to happen.
You know the ISPs would still turn around and fuck consumers over in that instance, right? Why give them more power to do so?
This is not true. Minus some rural broadband initiatives, ISPs raise their own capital and fund fiber without government help.
You're honestly concerned about giving Trump a win against the one shot that may exist for a good while in getting this rolled back?
Come onnnnnnnn
if you think nn has any bearing on his popularity, i've got a bridge to sell you
This is my thinking as well.
Net neutrality is extremely popular and bipartisan.
He'll sign it.
AT&T has received billions in subsidies to expand coverage
I don't see why we should ignore rural broadband initiatives, especially since those are the bulk of expansion.
no he won't lol
But it won't even make it to his desk because this will never leave the House, probably not even the Senate.
He's a trump voter. He soft defends Trump in every thread.
Yes, that is CORRECT. Where is the evidence to prove that these payments from AT&T were to bribe Cohen for the purpose of getting rid of Net Neutrality?
Where did I say I thought Essential Consulting was a legitimate Consulting Firm? All I'm saying is that there is no evidence to show that the payments from AT&T to Essential Consulting/Cohen were for the purpose of bribing the Cohen/Trump Administration to do away with Net Neutrality.
This is all fishy as hell and needs be investigated - my argument here is that it does not behoove those that oppose the president when people jump to conclusions without facts to back it up - it makes us look bad whether we're right or not. I don't think that's unreasonable.
Rural broadband is not the majority of expansion. Increased speeds which are usually given to customers for free is where most of the expansion has occurred. YMMV of course.
Most if not all ISPs support the principals of NN. In fact, most would support a bill in Congress that codifies these principals into law. Pai went too far in getting rid of them, IMO. What ISPs don't like is internet being put under 1930's type monopoly-style regulatory rules. Had NN stayed in place under the old rules or under a perhaps a more modern regulatory framework, none of this would be an issue.
This is now the second post you've made that is almost verbatim the talking points ISPs provided to the GOP.
I guess my opinion might be because Charter is trying to weasel out of giving New Yorkers the speed they're paying for. So excuse me for not trusting ISPs to do anything positive.
And another one for New York, Spectrum (Charter) being sued because they're not providing the required expansions that was a stipulation of their buy out of Time Warner
A world where rule34.com does surprisingly good activism just by putting NN news in bold large-print on their home page
I'm glad the Senate's getting to do this finally, and hopefully it passes there. We'll likely have to wait for a great blue wave in the House before this could pass there without ruinous compromises or poison-pill problems. Still, I have to get callin'. Texas fed/state senators ain't doing shit about this sadly.
Can you provide sources or explanations for your claims? San Francisco will be paying for a portion of their city-wide fiber network:
https://arstechnica.com/information...er-broadband-with-net-neutrality-and-privacy/
Network providers receive subsidies from every level of government, and it crosses rural/urban lines as well.
I do not know anything about the San Fran situation but I can guess they can't find a private company to lay the infrustrure under the rules that have put in the RFQ. The money is an incentive to entice a private company to play. The regulation, is my guess, is why nobody is stepping up to the plate.
Interesting... it's not like they didn't orchestrate millions of fake comments in support of killing NN.
