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.
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.
That sentence should have read, U.S. congressional Republicans on Friday proposed legislation authored by industry lobbyists, that would set "net neutrality" rules for broadband providers, aiming to head off tougher regulations backed by the Obama administration. (additions mine).
Does anyone think the sponsors of this legialation have serioulsly considered the issues of user access and cost? Of course not. As in so many areas of public life, Republicans have adopted the mantra of "free markets". Which is another way of saying on behalf of large corporations, "Let the Wookie win". Let the big strong arm-ripping behemoth have its way. This disregards the needs of the majority of the population and lets corporations take the profits resulting from public investment and tax dollars.
The internet has never been about "free markets". The internet was developed by the government and universities (with public funding). As far as the big ISPs are concerned, most of them, such as Comcast and Time Warner, make use of public right-of-way to carry thier signals to their customers. Most of this right-of-way was obtained either through imminent domain (for the public good) or for other purposes entirely (to carry power lines). This has resulted in a protected monopoly for these ISPs. They have no competition, the exact opposite of a free market.
Title II will treat the ISPs as utilities so that their rates will be controlled and their fiber optic cables will be available to all content providers under competitive conditions. This is really a free market in content, rather than the coroporate oligarchy envisioned by this Repucblican legislation.
"He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
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.
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.
Because we have a House of Representatives and a Senate which comprise Congress. Both work independently of each other, and each can be ruled by either party. The clincher is that both the House and Senate need to agree to pass a bill. If a bill doesn't make it thru both sides it dies. The deadlock we've been seeing for the past few years has come from the Republicans ruling the House of Representatives and refusing to pass any Democrat-proposed bill coming from the Senate, even tho the Democrats ruled there, and vice-versa.
Now that both sides are Republican I don't expect anything to change really. Since they are comprised of at least 4 warring factions amongst themselves (the tea party, moderates, extreme right wing faux-christians, and libertarians) it's highly unlikely both sides of Congress will ever agree on anything, and even if they do Obama has the power of veto to block any legislation that might successfully come out of Congress. Yes, Congress can override a veto with a 2/3rd majority vote, but that's extremely unlikely to ever happen. So essentially we will have another 2 years where absolutely nothing gets done.
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
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.
Speaking as a Virginia resident, and someone who generally votes left-leaning, you're correct - though he's still a dirtbag.
The reason (as I understand) that he got reelected is that it was a special election for a state legislative office. This is the sort of race that doesn't get much attention even when it's a general election. Incumbency, and party identification, carry so much more weight than actual issues, because most people never hear about the issues. Heck, I consider myself reasonably involved and aware, and even I can't remember who my state senator is offhand (it's not this guy).
To bring this full circle, this is part of the exact problem. These races have tons of power, generally fly below the radar of most voters, and also are ridiculously easy to influence with outside money. Notice how so many state legislatures have been pushing agendas doing things like blocking municipalities from offering ISP service, all at the behest of the major incumbent providers (usually who sparked the municipal offering in the first place by refusing to upgrade service in the area to something remotely modern).
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.