Slashdot Mirror
Republican Bill Aims To Thwart the FCC's Leaning Towards Title II
SpzToid writes U.S. congressional Republicans on Friday proposed legislation that would set "net neutrality" rules for broadband providers, aiming to head off tougher regulations backed by the Obama administration. Republican lawmakers hope to counter the Federal Communications Commission's vote on Feb. 26 for rules that are expected to follow the legal path endorsed by President Barack Obama, which Internet service providers (ISPs) and Republicans say would unnecessarily burden the industry with regulation. Net neutrality activists, now with Obama's backing, have advocated for regulation of ISPs under a section of communications law known as Title II, which would treat them more like public utilities. The White House on Thursday said legislation was not necessary to settle so-called "net neutrality" rules because the Federal Communications Commission had the authority to write them.
Republicans in both the House and Senate can propose this legislation all day long. They can even vote to pass it. But ti still can't get around a Presidential veto, and in their wildest dreams the GOP does not have the votes to override a veto.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
But that was the only time. I have a very low opinion of the electorate.
Yea, no shit. Last week in Virginia, the voters re-elected a convicted pedophile, running from jail. But don't worry - he's on work-release so he can head down to the General Assembly to cast his votes... :/
I guess it's okay since he's a Democrat.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Well, sort of. The president signs a bill into law- no passing necessary unless the president vetoes the bill and it goes back to congress and the senate in which if two thirds still want it, they can vote again and make it law independent of the president.
A bill can also become law if the president does nothing and leave it sit for ten days or longer if congress is in session. It will automatically become law then. If congress is not in session, then it sort of disappears and does not become law.
You ask a good question. Democrats could have passed a law in 2009 or 2010 when they controlled House, Senate, and White House. But they didn't, partly becasue they were busy collecting campaign contributions from these same ISPs. Obama has waited until after his personal last election and until after the next- to-last election under his presidency to propose rules that should have been in effect the whole time.
Aside from campaign contributions, there may be one other reason for the late start on Title II regulation. It is only recently that content providers such as Netflix and Amazon have started producing quality programming and distributing it on the internet rather than on the TV channels controlled by the ISPs. This has undercut the revenue stream of these ISPs and encouraged them to begin differential pricing based on content provider. Comcast now charges extra to Netflix even though Netflix customers already pay for their internet service directly to Comcast. So they are "double billing" for the same service. If allowed to get away with this, the ISPs can be expected to continue to ratchet up the cost of accessing third party content, becasue they control the pipes. But the pipes were developed at public expense and using public right-of-way and so should be treated as a regulated utility.
"He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
A bill can also become law if the president does nothing and leave it sit for ten days or longer if congress is in session. It will automatically become law then. If congress is not in session, then it sort of disappears and does not become law.
Pocket Veto (for those interested)
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Actually, it is unconstitutional to have laws enacted in ways other than the constitution proscribes. Leaving that aside, you have a serious problem here anyways. The constitutionality does require an act of congress to all the sudden include scopes of the economy into the regulation schemes that it previously was not in. Now think about that for a minute.
Can the US government with absolutely no legislative act making a change but by board or panel constituted under it- constitutionally declare pot illegal, Constitutionally revoke divers licenses for failing or refusing to take drug tests? Can these government boards require everyone to purchase a hand gun or pay a fine if they do not? Can these departments declare computers illegal unless used for work only? Can they do anything they want?
Of course the answer to that is no, no, NO. Any of those would specifically take an act of congress and unless it is specifically tied into the duties of congress, they would be unconstitutional. It's these unconstitutional laws, these unconstitutional regulations (that supposedly are equal to laws as you will still be fined, jailed, and perhaps have assets and your freedom confiscated if you ignore them) enacted by government entities outside of the constitution that makes complying with the government spying on everyone possible, It's the same that makes smoking pot illegal on a federal level which it still is on the states that "legalized" it. It will only take another administration to undo the executive order banning prosecution under the federal laws.
Here you are blabbering about die hard conservatives and free market and ignoring the problems of unconstitutional laws and unconstitutional regulation because you actually want them in place when you think you might benefit from the dictatorships of government. What you are failing to see is that those same dictatorship decrees can be used against you when someone else thinks it might benefit them. And you have absolutely no moral ground to stand on when complaining that some government agent is jerking off to your phone sex calls when you are out of town on business. Because you think those conservatives or free market capitalism is the problem and not the unconstitutional laws in place or the unconstitutional regulations. You might not like it, but you support the process that allows it to happen. Pathetic in my opinion.
That's not really true. The Democrats only had a supermajority for roughly 4 months in 2009. With a protracted legal battle, the GOP kept Al Franken out of the senate until July of that year. Ted Kennedy would die later that year and Scott Brown won the MA election. The Democrats had exactly 134 days to pass any legislation before the GOP began filibustering.
If you somehow think that is double speak, you simply have not been paying attention.
The problem is the net neutrality agenda wants to invalidate these explicit access contracts so anyone can come on and compete with the profitable sections of towns. Cities will be able to build out their own service which will pretty much kill off any competition in the area so those outside the city limits will be stuck with whatever they have now until it degrades to the point it isn't usable.
No, I'm not against regulation if that is what you are trying to suggest. And yes, I do see where governments mandating access and companies service the unprofitable areas as a condition of servicing the profitable ones has helped the economy quite a bit. But you seem to be missing the boat on everything involved. Have you even bothered looking some of this shit up yourself instead of relying on what someone posts at slashdot? I mean the guy I was replying to thought government regulation was fantastic until it came to government regulating which is the entire reason I posted what you replied to.
She was 17. It is your position that a 17-year old could never give informed consent? That's pretty much the law's position (and it is demonstrably stupid, and almost always harmful, and so out of touch with reality it's almost frightening.) If you're going with "age line in the sand" to define 17 year olds as incompetent by definition in such matters, then you are all those things the law is, and we're done -- take your torch and pitchfork and have at it.
Get here? Ok, then I presume that is not your position, and that you agree that at least some 17 year olds can indeed give informed consent. So the next question is, is it your position that such a a 17-year old can give informed consent if the partner is also 17, but not if the partner is 47? Because I have to tell you, that kind of thinking can only arise from magical bullshit, and I'm fresh out. Anyway...
I shouldn't have to even ask this, but given the twisted, peculiar nature of your post, I presume you agree that the 47 year old can give informed consent, yes?.
Also, at least get your terminology right. A pedophile is someone with a sexual interest in children. Which is horrific and creepy, because children aren't sexually mature and so sexuality, by its very definition, isn't part of their normal and customary worldview. And putting it there, or trying to, is abusive, in the fundamental sense of the term. You know, child abuse. Because they're children.
An ephibophile, on the other hand, is someone with primary or exclusive sexual interest in mid-to-late adolescents, often described as ages 15 to 19 (but perhaps much more accurately defined by the single criteria of being physically a sexually mature human being. 15 is not a magic number, no matter what your astrologer has been telling you.) Note that if this is not your primary or exclusive interest, then you're just a typical person. Because sexually mature bodies are typically of normal and healthy sexual interest to most who are sexually active. Which is not to say that the first word out of a teenager's mouth might not send most 47-year-olds running away screaming, but that's really not the same issue.
Also note that for many teenagers (I want to say all, but I have not met them all) sex is pretty much the #1 subject on their mind. Learning about it, having it, exploring it, and so on. The whole shebang, as it were. And this is precisely correct behavior from the POV of the body's various clocks. Socially, we have to deal with the hangover of superstition and Victorian insanity, but the fact is, many teenagers (definitely including the 17 year old demo) are having great, happy sex all the time and the vast majority of those so engaged are both glad of it and not even fractionally interested in any contrary opinion of yours thereof.
Sometimes sex is about relationships and all of that. Complex, interrelated, even a matter of power or submission. Which can be wonderful. Rah, rah. But sometimes it's just sex. Hot, steamy, bouncy, hanging-from-the-chandeliers physical activity with a bang. Or several. Ahem. In such a case, and in the instance of informed consent, I see absolutely no barrier to sex between a 17 year old and a 47 year old, any more than I see a barrier between a 17 year old and a 47 year old that should prevent them from playing tennis, or chess.
Here in Montana, the age of consent -- below which "sex without consent" can be charged -- is sixteen. It's still stupid as there will be (mostly) exceptions on either side of the rule, but the point is, were that guy here, no one would even blink, legally speaking.
Seems to me that you put your Outrage Panties on a little too tight this morning.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Don't be a dumb fuck. Under Title II, that couldn't happen, period.
You know why? Once it's all Title II, anyone can open up shop and offer services.
Gee - free market, lowest price wins!
Wow - we just get cheaper and better internet.
Today's market is anything but free.
Sigh.. Who told you those lies?
The FCC ignored the internet or more precisely broad band internet until the court made them classify it as an outcome of the Portland case. The FCC argued until that time that the internet was an information service residing on a regulated network just as a channel line up would have been. The court case in which Portland Oregon's franchise board attempted to hold up the sale of a cable provider unless they opened up the internet portion to others lost in court with the final decision being that the FCC had jurisdiction not the franchise board. The FCC then classified cable internet which has since become known as broadband internet as an information service subject to title one. A consortium of cable providers sued and it went back and fourth in the courts with the Supreme Court of the United States siding with the FCC. The only time it was reclassified or classified other than as an information service is when a court incorrectly overruled the FCC. The FCC has never reclassified the broad band. It has never reclassified any other object or technology under it's control without an act of congress making it so.
Read this from the EFF
Here is another you should consider.
"I don't think you know the history of what's going on here. I don't think you know what you're talking about at all."