Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
No opinions on net neutrality?
No opinions on net neutrality?
1. The issue is this: there are a handful of servers that basically control the Internet providers like Verizon and Comcast
They've set up a dual-highway system: a super express highway for the largest, wealthiest users, Amazon, Netflix, etc....who can pay more for the service
2. And a local-less accessible highway for the smaller companies.
3. The Net Neutrality law would say that all comers get access to the super highway. ....Internet providers have to treat all traffic sources equally. Net neutrality would be enforced by the Federal Communications Commission, or FCC, the government.
a. One example would be Comcast, which would probably like to promote NBC's content over ABC's to its Internet subscribers. That's because Comcast and NBC are affiliated. But net neutrality prevents Comcast from being able to discriminate, and it must display both NBC's and ABC's content evenly as a result. That means no slower load time for ABC, and definitely no blocking of ABC altogether.
EXPLAINED: 'Net Neutrality' For Dummies, How It Affects You, And Why It Might Cost You More - SFGate
4. The providers say we took the risk and used beaucoup bucks to build this infrastructure...and now you want to come in and tell us how to use it???
a. providers like Verizon don't like the idea of net neutrality. They feel they should be able to pick and choose what people see online and charge content providers accordingly. Imagine if Verizon has tiers of Internet access. The highest paying customers could access everything on the web. The lowest paying customers could access only the information Verizon chooses to promote.
Ibid.
Getting rid of net neutrality means Verizon or Comcast could similarly choose which content to promote based on their own self-interests.
I love this: it is politics at it's most basic!
5. It comes down to an issue of private property....and just as eco-fascists have used government regulations to de facto deprive private land owners the use of their property, once again the collectivist big government folks are out to co-opt what they have no right to.
6. So says a federal judge.
Verizon challenged the Open Internet Rules because they contradicted the FCC's 2002 decision not to regulate Internet service providers. It said, by enforcing Open Internet Rules, the FCC was trying to regulate companies like Verizon.
The court agreed, saying, "even though the Commission has general authority to regulate in this arena, it may not impose requirements that contravene express statutory mandates."
ibid
a. The court, following the Constitution, and the aims of the Founders, says the FCC simply doesn't have the authority to force Internet Service Providers to act like mere dumb pipes, passing data through their tubes with a blind eye and sans preferential treatment.
Appeals court strikes down FCC's net neutrality rules | PCWorld
7.If you like the concept of Net Neutrality, think about it like this:
if a consumer is looking to but a refrigerator, how about a regulation that all appliance stores have to have the same price for refrigerators? Even better...the same as the lowest price any are charging.
That sound like freedom to you?
The Senate approved a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution that would undo the Federal Communications Commission's vote to deregulate the broadband industry. If the CRA is approved by the House and signed by President Donald Trump, internet service providers would have to continue following rules that prohibit blocking, throttling and paid prioritization.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, accompanied by Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., right, Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., second from left, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California, left, speak to reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington, May 16, 2018, after the Senate passed a resolution to reverse the FCC decision to end net neutrality.
The Republican-controlled FCC voted in December to repeal the rules, which require internet service providers to give equal footing to all web traffic. Democrats argued that scrapping the rules would give ISPs free rein to suppress certain content or promote sites that pay them. Republicans insist they, too, believe in net neutrality, but want to safeguard it by crafting forward-looking legislation rather than reimposing an outdated regulatory structure.
'Political points'
"Democrats have decided to take the issue of net neutrality and make it partisan," Republican Senator John Thune of South Dakota said. "Instead of working with Republicans to develop permanent net neutrality legislation, they've decided to try to score political points with a partisan resolution that would do nothing to permanently secure net neutrality." Before the vote, Senator Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, urged fellow senators to disregard the "armies of lobbyists marching the halls of Congress on behalf of big internet service providers." Lobbyists tried to convince senators that net neutrality rules aren't needed "because ISPs will self-regulate," and that blocking, throttling and paid prioritization are just hypothetical harms, Markey said.
FCC Chairman Ajit Pai answers a question from a reporter after a meeting in which commissioners voted to end net neutrality, in Washington
Lobby groups representing all the major cable companies, telecoms and mobile carriers urged senators to reject the attempt to restore net neutrality rules. The resolution still faces tough odds in the House. It requires 218 votes to force a vote there, and only 160 House Democrats back the measure for now. The legislation would also require the signature of Trump, who has criticized the net neutrality rules. While Democrats recognize they are unlikely to reverse the FCC's rule, they see the issue as a key policy desire that energizes their base voters, a top priority ahead of the midterm elections.
US Senate Votes to Restore Net Neutrality
This case dealt with a South Dakota law, passed in 2016, which would require online companies that do more than $100,000 of business in the state, or more than 200 transactions annually, to collect a sales tax, even if they do not have a physical presence in the state. “It’s just not fair for the heavy burdens that it places on small businesses like us to have to reach out to 9,600 different jurisdictions to file tax,” Michael Swoape, the owner of One4Silver told CNSNews.com. “It would really be devastating.” “I’m hoping the Supreme Court gets it right,” he said, “but, if not, I’m confident that our legislators they’ll pull through for us in the end.”
Norb Novocin, owner of Estate Auctions Inc., told CNSNews.com, “And we would be liable for audits in all of those places, liable for doing the paperwork for all of these places. It would put us out of business. We can’t afford to do that.” “And if I were to have to go out and collect and remit sales tax to 9,600 different tax jurisdictions -- I’ve heard as high as 12,000 -- it could potentially sink my business,” Mac Griffiths, owner of MDG Sales, told CNSNews.com. “I have little time to sit and work out kinks in order to send envelopes to all these different places.”
The Supreme Court ruled in 1967 that states could not force mail-order catalog companies to collect sales taxes unless the company had a physical presence in the state. They reaffirmed that ruling in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota in 1992. Even if the Supreme Court strikes down South Dakota’s law, a ruling that is expected by the end of June, these small business owners say Congress needs to take action. “Well I’m optimistic,” said Griffiths. “Some of the things that have been said, I’m hopeful. At the same time, I think whether it’s decided or not, Congress is going to have to make some movement here to make a decision.” “I think if we end up with a patchwork of different laws from every state, it’s going to be very harmful as well for a small business,” he said.
A proposed bill in Congress, the Marketplace Fairness Act, sponsored by Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), would set a minimum threshold for online companies to collect sales tax at $1 million in total sales. Several small business owners told CNSNews.com that they would like the threshold increase to at least $10 million in total sales. Another issue small business owners told CNSNews.com they were concerned about is the de minimis value, or the value below which goods can be shipped into the country before duties and taxes are assessed. “Anything under $800 into the United States is not taxed,” said Griffiths. “Yet, if we ship to Canada, anything over $16 is taxed. And so this huge disparity -- we’re here to say, listen, they’re talking about NAFTA right now, if they can put some pressure on Canada and say if we can make this a bit more level of a playing field when it comes to our cross border trade, I think it opens the floodgates to small businesses within our country.”
MORE
Matt Hancock told the BBC it had given him "a big impetus" to introduce new laws to tackle what he has called the internet's "Wild West" culture. He admitted self-policing had not worked and legislation was needed. But Labour's Tom Watson said the government had "squandered" chances to "get tough on the tech giants". Mr Hancock told BBC One's Andrew Marr Show, presented by Emma Barnett, that the government "just don't know" how many children of the millions using using social media were not old enough for an account and he was "very worried" about age verification.
He said that as part of the Data Protection Bill currently going through Parliament, firms could be fined up to 4% of their global turnover - which could run to more than £1bn for the biggest firms. Asked what the threshold would be for firms to be hit with fines, in terms of underage children on certain platforms, he said: "I'm not going to give a figure because we are going to consult on it." He told the programme he "hopes we get to a position" where all users of social media users has to have their age verified. Code of conducts would be examined he said as existing "terms of reference" were often not enforced properly. Asked how many of the 14 firms invited to attend government talks had showed up, he replied: "Four."
Analysis
Governments love to talk tough, but sooner or later they have to back it up with action. The culture secretary has admitted that calling on technology companies to "step up" and "do more" has only got ministers so far. But efforts to regulate the internet have had limited success. A plan to introduce age verification for all porn sites was due to come into force in April, but has been delayed with no details given about how it might work. An "opt in" system where internet service providers ask people if they want to access adult content has seen sex education and suicide prevention advice inadvertently blocked. A new law in Germany forcing social networks to remove hate speech within 24 hours is being revised after complaints that too much content was being blocked. Two government departments are working on the new laws aimed at holding technology companies to account. They have a difficult, if not impossible, task.
He said: "One of the problems we have got is that we engage with Facebook, Google and Twitter and they get all of the press, they get all of the complaints in the public debate but there's now actually a far greater number of social media platforms like musical.ly. "They didn't show up and the companies, they have now got over a million on their site." He said that this, and the difficulties getting Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg to answer MPs' questions showed Britain did not have the power needed: "That's one of the reasons we are legislating. "The fact that only four companies turned up when I invited the 14 biggest in gave me a big impetus to drive this proposal to legislate through." Pushed for details of how quickly social media firms would have to remove terrorist content to avoid a fine, he said: "We should be very ambitious," but said a set timescale could mean companies "work up to that timescale", while he would prefer them to do so "as quickly as possible".
'Embarrassing'
