Slashdot Mirror
Republicans Introduce a Bill To Overturn Net Neutrality
New submitter grimmjeeper writes: IDG News reports, "A group of Republican lawmakers has introduced a bill that would invalidate the U.S. Federal Communications Commission's recently passed net neutrality rules. The legislation (PDF), introduced by Representative Doug Collins, a Georgia Republican, is called a resolution of disapproval, a move that allows Congress to review new federal regulations from government agencies, using an expedited legislative process."
This move should come as little surprise to anyone. While the main battle in getting net neutrality has been won, the war is far from over. The legislation was only proposed now because the FCC's net neutrality rules were just published in the Federal Register today. In addition to the legislation, a new lawsuit was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by USTelecom, a trade group representing ISPs.
This move should come as little surprise to anyone. While the main battle in getting net neutrality has been won, the war is far from over. The legislation was only proposed now because the FCC's net neutrality rules were just published in the Federal Register today. In addition to the legislation, a new lawsuit was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by USTelecom, a trade group representing ISPs.
no need to post on /. ...tribute $ to D.C. works much better. rant on.
The open internet is one of the most democratizing things we have in a modern society, why is this even up for debate? What benefit would society have in enabling "Fast lanes" or "premium" connections or other nonsense? What do we get protecting commercial interests?
I say this as a conservative. The Republican establishment are dumbasses who saw that the Democrats support NN, so the Republicans feel they need to oppose it by default. If the D's came up with a bill abolishing 50% of welfare spending, and affirming individuals' rights to carry arms at all times in all locations, the R's would oppose it just because.
add I'll bet that those republicans introducing the bill are on telcom's off-the-record payroll.
The GOP have been and will be re-voting to overturn ACA and Net Neutrality so often they need ACA for their carpal tunnel syndrome.
Table-ized A.I.
So:
Some Federal agency serves up some rules on whatever
Congress, who is actually in charge of passing laws, says, "Hey, wait a minute. Shouldn't we have looked at this first?"
This seems to be one of those "We have to pass it to see what's in it." type of deals.
I am NOT saying the Republicrats are all above board in what they're doing and why ($$$), but it does kind of seem to be in their bailiwick to investigate before things like this are approved or passed.
Here is some basic information about the legalized purchase of the relevant legislation:
Lobbying:
https://www.opensecrets.org/in...
Contributions:
https://www.opensecrets.org/in...
Rep. Doug Collins
Top Contributing Industries, 2013-2014:
1. TV/Movies/Music $52,500 $11,500 $41,000
http://www.opensecrets.org/pol...
The retardlicans would have us ban cars and return us all to horse and carts if they could!
Net Neutrality is a routing rule that has been with the Internet since the beginning. You don't "overturn" it with an act of congress. How the Internet is designed is a job for engineers and no one else.
What's at issue is if the FCC's unconstitutional, unregulated expansion of power. Without identifying any previous violations, without even utilizing the courts, and without any act of Congress, they single-handedly declared their authority over one of the most free realms of commerce we have today. This wasn't OK when it was the Broadcast Flag, and it's not OK even if they call it "light touch".
Just because you can send copyrighted material over p2p protocols, doesn't make them illegal. And just because you can send VoIP over the Internet doesn't make it a telecommunications service.
Wonder what the public key field is for?
"We found a way to reframe the debate from 'Republicans vs. Freedom' to 'Republicans vs. Big Government', so we're going to do that both to hammer home that 'Democrats are Dictators' meme and because we're getting fat stacks of cash from the people who stand to profit from it".
Sorry I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of US law/politics, but aren't these republican politicians actually breaking the law by representing the interests of national corps instead of what is in the best interest of their own consituency's voters? (and if not why not?)
I used to be a republican, back in the Reagan days. But these days (hell, since Bush Jr.) my "traditional" views have all but been marginalized. The democrats aren't much better.
Although I don't (yet) feel ashamed of the D's, as I do about the R's like when shit like this occurs. Can they make it any more plain they're bought and sold??
(Well past) Time to find a new party...
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
This one goes out to all you libertarians who've been lining up behind the "New GOP", the Republican party that says it's looking out for individual liberties rather than corporate greed.
And yeah, I know what the truly die-hard among you are about to say: that the people who own Comcast have a right to assemble and agree to strangle internet commerce if they want to. But I say, if you allow wealthy corporate interests to accumulate far more power than the weakened government, they effectively *become* the government, and when they "exercise their liberties" it's indistinguishable from tyranny.
Does nothing to open up the last mile to competition.
Manages to insert the government even more in the internet.
Can't be certain what it will actually do at this point.
Still I have more hope in this than I do Comcast to do anything but completely screw things up.
... sorry that was a good laugh.
> representing the interests of national corps instead of what is in the best interest of their own consituency's voters
That's the American Way (tm). If you're small enough we'll gladly bring it to your country and help your military change the minds of any leaders who think otherwise.
"The business of America is business"
Then things get real bad when jeb bush get's rid of the min wage.
Another reason why I left the Republican Party after voting in three straight presidential elections.
The Restoration of Internet Freedom Act. Let freedom ring.
There are three branches to the government, for a reason. It sounds like Congress wants to grant themselves new powers that rightly belong to a different branch of the government.
You mean the same Congress that delegated power to the agency in question to make just these sort of rules??? If Congress wants to pass new legislation to revoke that authority (or the budget of the agency under the Executive), it is free to do so - but that does nothing to change the fact that Congress approved it in the first place. You can find similar examples on everything from pot to DADT.
didn't expect this until late january.. perhaps the republicans are losing confidence in a presidential win and majority of both houses at the next election so they need to try now instead, and try to turn it into an election issue (that part will backfire)
So does my ISP. There sorts of pay-by-usage arrangements are found throughout the system. I just find it arbitrary to deny this particular one. I'm not yet convinced that we needed government involvement to police this. I want to see it get worse first and let competition have its chance.
Why not ""men imtroduce bill to overturn net neutrality"as the title of this post? The 13 legislators are all men so that must mean that all men want to overturn the law. 13 out of 144 signed on to the bill and the title is that every republican in the US wants the bill overturned? Way to contribute to yellow journalism.
"Extortionist Appeasement Lanes"?
I'm trying to work in some combination of WWII rhetoric plus mafioso activity...
I think we should murder EVERY member of congress that votes in favor of this bull shit.
AC doesn't know what a natural monopoly is. AC probably thinks they are an expert on economics. AC only reads a certain kind of website.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
As if you don't know who Comcast is charging here.
Any more Comcast propaganda you want to regurgitate? You also know perfectly well that Netflix has offered to place storage services within ISP networks. But even if they weren't, it's none of Comcast's concern as Netflix is already paying for their access and Comcast's customer's are paying for theirs.
No reason to downvote - once your argument/reasoning devolves to "BULLSHIT" in all caps and then throw in "liberals" and "regulate" as if the last two were the equivalent of the first, you identified yourself quite clearly as on of those hyper-partisan types who intellectually (and I use that term very broadly) subsist on the cargo-cult, talk-radio crowd who feel at their best when engaging in loutish, barron-stool rantings accompanied by your favorite sayings/slogans of the day. You really should consider doing this: listen-to/watch/read *only* the following for one month. 1) PBS/NesHour for real news and *sane* discussion of current events. 2) Economist magazine for world perspective, outstanding, deep-thought analysis (of which I occasionally disagree, but still respect their perspective) of current events, including America. PS - Economist magazine is the one news/analysis source that is equally respected by Ds and Rs who have a brain. The Tea Pary types like, sadly, you, I suspect, only do Fox and talk radio.
We the American people shall vote out every one of you dumb stupid mfers who think that Net neutrality is a bad thing.
The American people shall pistol whip you. We are smart enough to know when you the evil corporations are lying to us.
The real argument is that we are paying for XMbps, but we will only get some fraction of that due to "fast lanes" (aka throttling unless the remote site pays a fee). Isn't it fair to say that there are laws in place that say that if you have a contract that says that you will get XMbps, that you could sue or not pay if you don't receive it? To turn that on its head, shouldn't an ISP be allowed to offer a lower priced service that does throttle?
It seems to me that letting the government jump into regulating the internet is an overreaction to a problem that could be solved if we simply follow the laws that already exist.
We gave them chance after chance to straighten up their act and instead of taking it they did the opposite and continued to fuck more and more people. Now they're crying foul and I laugh at them for getting what they deserve.
Reality says that 20 years of legislation just got overturned by imperial fiat ... just saying ...
Sadly, Congress can actually overturn FCC rules, and this Congress, with its Republican majority may succeed where their predecessors failed.
Since I'm not from the US, I can't understand the thing with Republicans, or why they get votes some sane people. The only logical reason for vote on them, is if your not in the following categories: 1. Big player in finance/healthcare/insurance 2. Fundamental religiuos believer or inbred abort-opponent 3. You like going to war for random reasons Does they bring anything good?
Never understood why we need net neutrality anyway. Your ISP should be like your electrical supplier, or your natural gas supply. If anything it should require pages and pages of legislation from the FCC to simply say you as a ISP supply a internet connection and the customer decides how to use that connection.
That to me would apply to any data connection no matter cellular, wireless, or landline. I agree with Republican's that if your going to impose neutrality then do it and nothing more. What the FCC did was far beyond a simple mandate of requiring ISP to not mess with data. Obviously the liberals through in some sort of neutrality clause to simply get people on board. They do that with everything. Trust us, we will take care of you.
You have no idea what you are even talking about. As soon as you say "economist magazine" you give yourself away as a left-statist to anyone who knows anything about economics. Have you ever even actually read a real economic textbook? Doesn't sound like it. Do you understand how any kind of regulation always negatively impacts the ability of the market to work efficiently? You probably wouldn't even recognize a laffer curve if someone stapled it to your eyes. And yet here you are spouting off like you are an expert, but you realy just sound like yet another slashdot-moron saying more regulations and more taxation are the only possible solution to every problem.
I hope most of you that are appalled at how badly government works, are doing something more substantial about it than griping on the web where you're less likely to convert any large number of people...
This net neutrality is not what everyone things it is. It should be overturned. Hopefully congress will not be afraid to assert its authority.
Since I happen to be a constituent of Mr. Collins, I decided to write a letter. Feel free to copy and send it to your legislator if you so choose. Mr. Collins, I am appalled that you would introduce a bill to stifle free trade in Internet Services. Specifically I am talking about your bill to overturn Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality is a major step toward allowing free trade to compete with large special interest groups such as Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, Time Warner, Netflix and so forth. By stifling this FTC action you will kill the Internet for innovation and expansion in the United States. No company is going to invest the amount of money needed to truly bring broadband into this nations homes without Net Neutrality backing up the endeavor. This means that Comcast and AT&T which are the only two providers in my area of Gainesville will never bring prices down and speeds up to par with what other countries now have to offer. Comcast currently charges me $99 a month for 50Mpbs speeds. If Google fiver were to be available, I could get 1Gbps speeds for $70 a month. That is a significant difference in speed versus price. Not only will backing major ISP's bid to kill Net Neutrality hurt Internet expansion, it will also kill off any new companies that wish to compete with large existing businesses such as NetFlix, Amazon and others. When you open the door to businesses being able to pay for preferential treatment, you have stifled the small company which has been the cornerstone of American growth. This bill seems to indicate that you are more interested in backing big business and not at all interested in your constituents. If you do kill off Net Neutrality, you will be doing more harm to the growth of this great nation. Please stop and think about the ramifications of what you are about to do. Whether big business agrees or not, Net Neutrality is good for the consumer by encouraging competition in the marketplace.
Hah. As if there is only one school of economic thought with rules written in stone.
Newsflash buddy: Laffer is a sick joke.
And you also prove you know nothing about the Economist magazine.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
So you apparently believe that liberals exist only to engage in self-destructive behavior? Why do they do so? Do you believe just because they are evil?
Keep throwing around blanket terms of ignorance too, like statist and SJW. It really helps you look intelligent, acting as if having a functional government and caring about equality under the law are bad things to be opposed.
Here's the dose of reality you need:
The internet already operates by and large under the ideals of Net Neutrality.
And it's not just some leftist plot, but a fundamental preservation of free market ideals.
Other than congressional republicants (and a few dems) who are bought and owned by the industry,
it's a concept that enjoys broad bipartisan support. Even the creators of the internet support it.
Net Neutrality isn't a new thing being pushed on the internet. It's how it already operates,
minus a few attempts by the likes of Comcast to get away with various shenanigans.
Net neutrality is the preservation of the status quo.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Do you want to send a message that to be a Republican is to be ignorant of the internet and be accepting of bribes?
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
It's just an empty gesture until January 2017. President Obama is an outspoken proponent of the net neutrality rules and he will veto anything that reaches his desk. Yet another reason it's important to keep the Republicans out of the Oval Office.
Once a regulation is published in Federal Register, it is fact and will have an effective date set in the announcement as well. Until it is published, no action against it may be taken. LIke a pit bull eyeing a potential hunk of red meat, the Republicans and the ISPs have been waiting with their documents already prepared. This legislation, if passed, would allow Congress to step in and repeal the regulation. That hasn't happened often, but the reason the U.S. is the only OECD country with no regulation concerning ergonomics and worker safety is because the Republicans did exactly this and repealed the OSHA regulation before the ink had dried the Fed. Reg.
The lawsuits are a faster way to get to this issue, but they have to hope that the argument they make is novel and not like the last because the regulations aren't like the last set. I don't think a federal judge or appeals court would stay this regulation until the lawsuit process if over, so given that it will take time for Congress to act, this regulation may become accepted practice. However, given the amount of money behind the effort to derail this regulation, it's possible that the matter may be fast tracked.
They could do it here. It matters not what the comments for the proposed rule said.
The Internet is a utility. That is all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Review_Act
This is the process being invoked, one of those "Contract With America" Hoorah moves.
It has succeeded precisely once before, in 2001, and is still subject to Presidential Veto through a Memorandum Of Disapproval, if it ever gets to their Desk, which has happened precisely... once.
I'm sure that Congress will also try to get around to disemboweling "Obamacare" a couple of more times during the process; just for giggles.
....Freedumb!
The corporapists and their fascist political puppets are relentless
in their efforts to destroy our freedom and our nation, aren't they?
Sociopaths. Every soulless, black hearted one of them.
Looks like nobody on /. has figured out that the Obama administration nationalized the whole internet yet.
Check out what it says. Check out the "logic" behind what the FCC did - what a load of crap and they know it.
Blew over everyone's head just like Hope and Change did. Guys, he's fooled you once, twice, thrice... now he has to be on the 40th time or something.
wake up.
Just beginning. Now they can regulate what we say and do. It's coming. First amendment rights are on the way out too.
The like to keep you cool, in the dark and feed you shit. If someone cracked the door and let the light in. You may never eat mushrooms again. Do you really think you need to know what is going on ? An old USN saying about the next mission intel