Slashdot Mirror
Lawmakers Are Fighting For Net Neutrality (theverge.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Lawmakers and public officials are responding to the FCC's decision to gut net neutrality with promises of action. In the hours following the FCC hearing, officials from around the country announced lawsuits and bills intended to counter the FCC's decision. In New York, Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said that he's leading a multi-state lawsuit to challenge the FCC's vote, though he didn't give further details on the suit or who would be joining him. Calling today's decision an "illegal rollback," he described it as giving "Big Telecom an early Christmas present."
Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson also announced he would sue alongside Schneiderman and other attorneys general across the country, saying that he held "a strong legal argument" and that it was likely the government had failed to follow the law with this vote. Other officials from Santa Clara, California, including county supervisor Joe Simitian, are also suing the FCC to block the decision. "We believe the depth of your ideas should outweigh the depths of your pockets," Simitian said at a press conference.
State Sen. Scott Wiener (D-CA) announced plans to introduce a bill to adopt net neutrality as a requirement in his state. He wrote in a Medium post, "If the FCC won't stand up for a free and open internet, California will."
Rep. Mike Coffman (R-CO) tweeted that he will be submitting net neutrality legislation, saying that this was a decision better left to Congress. Coffman was the first Republican to ask the FCC to delay the vote, citing "unanticipated negative consequences" on Tuesday. Furthermore, Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) and Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) are supporting Sen. Ed Markey's (D-MA) plan to introduce a Congressional Review Act resolution to undo the FCC vote. Even Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), who had previously announced on Twitter her support for Ajit Pai and the FCC, tweeted a video, saying, "We will codify the need for no blocking, no throttling, and making certain that we preserve that free and open internet." We're likely to see many others express their disappointment with the FCC's decision over the next few hours and days.
Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson also announced he would sue alongside Schneiderman and other attorneys general across the country, saying that he held "a strong legal argument" and that it was likely the government had failed to follow the law with this vote. Other officials from Santa Clara, California, including county supervisor Joe Simitian, are also suing the FCC to block the decision. "We believe the depth of your ideas should outweigh the depths of your pockets," Simitian said at a press conference.
State Sen. Scott Wiener (D-CA) announced plans to introduce a bill to adopt net neutrality as a requirement in his state. He wrote in a Medium post, "If the FCC won't stand up for a free and open internet, California will."
Rep. Mike Coffman (R-CO) tweeted that he will be submitting net neutrality legislation, saying that this was a decision better left to Congress. Coffman was the first Republican to ask the FCC to delay the vote, citing "unanticipated negative consequences" on Tuesday. Furthermore, Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) and Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) are supporting Sen. Ed Markey's (D-MA) plan to introduce a Congressional Review Act resolution to undo the FCC vote. Even Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), who had previously announced on Twitter her support for Ajit Pai and the FCC, tweeted a video, saying, "We will codify the need for no blocking, no throttling, and making certain that we preserve that free and open internet." We're likely to see many others express their disappointment with the FCC's decision over the next few hours and days.
This is akin to removing anti-monopoly laws, you moron.
It is amazing how free-market loving Republicans are so happy to sign legislation that allows a handful of companies to control a gigantic market. See also: historical stance on debt and the new tax bill.
This isn't about net neutrality mostly.
This is largely about Title II of the Communications Act of 1934.
The FCC in 2015 said broadband providers are common carriers under Title 2. This made 400 pages of onerous regulations applicable to all broadband providers, some of the regulations are ridiculous and very subjective. See this link: https://www.redstate.com/diary/freedomworks/2014/09/16/title-ii-regulation-internet-actually-means/
So Title II fosters pointless litigation and excessive regulation.
So, Title II was required for the FCC to implement net neutrality -- otherwise the FCC wouldn't have been able to mandate net neutrality because they can only do that to common carriers under Title II.
With the FCC undoing the Title II requirement, broadband providers will now instead be regulated by the Federal Trade Commission instead of the FCC.
So the Federal Trade Commission will be overseeing the business practices of the telecoms, just like before. Like when the FTC got on Comcast's case for throttling bit torrent back in 2009.
Much ado about the wrong thing. This has little to do with Net Neutrality and a lot to do with Title II having hundreds of pages of regulations that didn't previously apply to broadband.
This is akin to removing anti-monopoly laws
No it isn't. This is akin to a poorly outdated law being interpreted in 2 ways that are both correct and wrong at the same time.
Congress fixing that poorly outdated law is the proper course of action instead of the FCC overstepping their authority and ignoring the courts.
Bullshit. NN does absofuckinglutely nothing to address the real issue, namely local monopolies. You want to solve the problem, get legislation passed that eliminates anti-last mile legislation, blocks municipal exclusivity agreements, and forces prompt(within 72 hours) shifting of cable on public poles so that competitors can install theirs.
Wrong. Trump won because "Hillary bad, Trump good". I'm pretty sure that the internet is WAY more popular than Trump.
It's actually a bit more complicated than that. There's numerous laws regarding how a repeal of a recently passed policy must be carried out, including having good cause and conducting a proper public comment period. Both of those are open to challenge, and the result is far from a foregone conclusion. The principal argument seems to be that proceding with the vote despite widespread organized fraud involving criminal identity theft, without investigating much, and blocking states' efforts to do so, violates the Administrative Procedure Act. Somehow I don't think you made your comment after a thorough analysis of that law and the legal precedents surrounding it.
That would be the opposite of open and free actually.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Trump. Making America Great Again the way Inspector Clouseau solves crimes!
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Wow, so unaware of the irony. Corporations cannot make you do anything. Governments can and do, thus restricting freedom.
No, no, no. That's just wrong. Corporations can, in fact, force you do to anything but they are not legally allowed to do so. And it's the government that makes the rules that say they aren't allowed to force you to do things, unless you sign a contract and unless you are given compensation for the things you are then required to do. Without the government the corporation would be making it's own rules about what it's allowed to do, and if you think a democratic government which has to actually run elections is oppressive, you should get the chance to live under corporate rule where the corporation only has a duty to a majority of it's share holders. I doubt you'd prefer it.
Government regulations can protect your freedoms or they take them away. This should be self-evident. Laws against murder, for example, create more freedom than they remove. Government regulation is always a trade off between freedoms.
It's important to always look at the rules and try and figure whether the trade off is a good one. In this case, I think it is. Net Neutrality is trading away Comcast's freedom to monitor, intercept, modify, or destroy your communications, for your freedom to communicate on the internet without interference from your service provider. The government is taking away a freedom from the corporations to make a similar freedom available to the people.
Regulation, any regulation, just hampers competition.
I'm afraid not. The most obvious example that this claim is false is every regulation that curbs anti-competitive practices. Those regulations increase competition by disallowing behaviour that undermines competition.
Fanatically anti-fanatical