Net Neutrality to Win Big on Capitol Hill?

The New York Times has weighed in again on Net Neutrality, this time with a hopeful message of change in the near future due to the shift of power in the House and Senate. The opinion piece takes a look at Ron Wyden in the Senate and Edward Markey in the House who have both promised to lead the charge to pass a net neutrality bill in the coming months. Lessig, on the other hand, has a somewhat more cynical view of the new Congress.

Comments

We really should start thinking of the 'net...

[PurifyYourMind]

...as less a commercial/military enterprise and more as a public utility that everyone should have a right to access, just like water or electricity.

Vital to net existance

[Warbringer87]

2 tiers is a step backward, not a step forward. Internet companies didn't create this content, in fact the content is the reason people pay them, to be able to access it. If you couldn't access the net for the stuff that you want, why bother with it? Companies that do this run the risk of users migrating to companies that don't, but not everyone has an alternative(ie, the whole wikipedia/qatar thing recently)

From TFA

The cable and telephone companies have fought net neutrality with a lavishly financed and misleading lobbying campaign

A good reminder that every politician is in someone's pocket, regardless of political affiliation.

That's because of signing statements

[BitterAndDrunk]

He doesn't have to veto, as he uses signing statements as a pseudo-line-item veto.

More signing statements in history than any other president, including gems such as (paraphrased) "I'm signing this bill into law but I don't like it so it won't be enforced"

I'm probably way off on grammar as the statement shouldn't be in quotes as it's not exact. . . but the gist is there.

Re:Vetos

[almeida]

This president has used the veto less than any other president in history.

Wikipedia says you're wrong.