Slashdot Mirror
'There Will Be a [Senate] Vote' To Reinstate Net Neutrality, Schumer Says (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he will force a vote on a bill that would reinstate the Federal Communications Commission's net neutrality rules. Legislation to reverse the repeal "doesn't need the support of the majority leader," Schumer said during a press conference Friday, according to The Hill. "We can bring it to the floor and force a vote. So, there will be a vote to repeal the rule that the FCC passed." The Federal Communications Commission voted to repeal its own net neutrality rules last week, and the repeal will take effect 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. But Congress can overturn agency actions by invoking the Congressional Review Act (CRA), as it did earlier this year in order to eliminate consumer broadband privacy protections. A successful CRA vote in this case would invalidate the FCC's net neutrality repeal and prevent the FCC from issuing a similar repeal in the future. This would force the FCC to maintain the rules and the related classification of ISPs as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act. A CRA vote lets Congress "undo regulations with a simple majority," without the possibility of a filibuster, as a Washington Post story said in February. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) announced a plan to file the CRA resolution last week. "It's in our power to do that and that's the beauty of the CRA rule," Schumer said. "Sometimes we don't like them, when they used it to repeal some of the pro-environmental regulations, but now we can use the CRA to our benefit, and we intend to."
Now we find out exactly how unified the GOP is. Spoiler: They're not unified at all. If it's a simple majority I think Ajit Pai is going to have his ass handed to him by Congress, and rightly so.
Unless they have a couple of Republicans who are willing to go against Trump and the FCC this ain't gonna happen.
I support Net Neutrality but the FCC was the wrong place to enact those rules.
Just need a simple majority. Doug Jones will be in the Senate, they can't likely wheel McCain's corpse in for a vote, and Collins (R) supports Net Neutrality. Couple this with only 16% of Americans and ignorant enough to believe repealing NN is somehow a good thing for them, the Senators that have a fight on their hands for re-election are going to do whatever they can to get re-elected, even if it means voting to kill off the FCC vote. BTW, fuck Ajit Pai.
Fuck Ajit Pai
The proper way to implement significant policy changes is to change the law.
Because what's done via a pen and a phone are just are properly undone by a pen and a phone.
Nothing but political theater to dot the I's and cross the T's for democrats to say this tried to do something.
I hope this caused some synapses to fire.
Is a 1 page constitutional amendment, with no riders or dependencies.
Otherwise it's just pointless, and will be subject to continual lobbying and see-sawing debates forever.
Most people do not understand what the "Net Neutrality" debate is really about. Videos in this article show MSNBC anchor OWNED by someone who actually knows how this stuff works.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/14/msnbc-anchor-loses-net-neutrality-debate-with-former-fcc-chairman-video/
Well, Net Neutrality is about preventing ISPs (dumb pipe providers) from charging content providers extra to have their content delivered. It's about keeping all traffic prioritized equally and not charging extra for higher priority. It is also about not charging consumers extra for services like social networking or streaming. The idea is that the internet should be completely neutral and open. I am fine with charging more money for higher speed connectivity.
There's no way this will pass the senate and house and survive a presidential veto, and he'll certainly veto it if it comes to his desk.
So, there will be a vote to repeal the rule that the FCC passed." The Federal Communications Commission voted to repeal its own net neutrality rules last week
So this is a vote to repeal the FCC repealing an original action - three levels removed!
When will this insanity end? Why not put together a REAL bill that would lay out what Net Neutrality really meant? They are using this weasel technique to try and avoid actually having to state what Network Neutrality is, because the original FCC order was to the benefit of companies, not consumers.
I have all along said that I don't dislike the concept of Net Neutrality, but what the FCC actually had was the opposite of that because it bound ISP's in many ways that had nothing to do with equal network access, and also provided a foothold for government dictating how the internet worked.
I would love to support a simple bill that clearly laid out REAL network neutrality - but you can bet you'll never see such a thing from ANY party in DC.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Did anyone really believe our government didn't contain checks and balances? That's why there are three branches.
Once the dust settles, network neutrality is re-established, and the US 'net is back on track, are there to be any consequences for the people who created this mess?
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
There needs to be a vote to reinstate Net Neutrality and to never allow another vote/bill to get rid of it ever again.
There's no such thing. Even a Constitutional Amendment can get overridden by another amendment later.
Democrats REALLY want the Federal Government to gain control of the Internet.
I am a progressive. I do not want the government to control the internet, and I sure don't want the corporations with government granted monopolies to control it either.
Here's a thought for you: If you don't want the government to step in here, then pass "One Touch Make Ready" and strike down the laws the telecoms got enacted to prevent cities and counties to establish co-ops for internet. They don't have to allow tv, just internet. That would restore open market freedoms and elemenate the telecom monopolies.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
Step back and think about this on a purely tactical level.
If the measure passes, the Democrats will be given credit even if every single Republican voted for it.
If the measure loses, the situation for the Republicans is not any different than it was today since it's something almost no-one will every know about, and certainly very few voters will care about way off in November.
Republicans voting for this can only lose, there is literally nothing to gain.
Some may still do so though, so it may pass. Not sure what the repercussions are of passing something that denies the FCC has the ability to choose what to do, but if you actually think about things long term it seems like a super-bad precedent to set in terms of choices other agencies make being overridden in similar ways.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Does anyone have any insights into ISPs and their access to utility poles after this FCC rule making? From what I can find online, only utilities and communications providers under FCC control can gain access to private land for the purpose of running wires, etc. If ISPs are not utilities and not under the control of the FCC, then can they still demand access to my land? Granted, most of them are also telecommunications or cable TV providers, but can I force them to declare if they are fixing someone telephone service or their internet service.
It could become true - will it?
- the US political system seems to be financed by contributions to the candidates or incumbents to get elected or reelected or - the candidates or incumbents (let's call them "seats" from now on) are independently rich - multi-billionaires - to pull it through on their own.
I financier of a "seat" has a certain interest in a "seat" to get his/her ideas promoted and implemented. A "seat" then is in a bind to go by that line of the financier, or s/he will need to look for other financiers next time and considered "unreliable". Can't imagine the Koch's sponsoring someone promoting workers right, unions etc. It's called bribery in other places outside the US.
Self-financed "seats" are independent in their actions and can actually do what they want if they get elected, but what frame of mind do they have as multi-billionaires? One needs to justify inwardly to be "rich" and many others visible everywhere are not - can happen in multiple ways - nevertheless creates a certain mind set, often detrimental to the "underlings"... One example of idiocy mind-set: Everyone can make it, if someone doesn't s/he is doing something wrong and needs to learn to do better, just look at the examples A, B, C where it worked .... bullshit!
The political system needs to become independent from outside influences, like a government financed budget to "seats" with a certain vote count.
Will that ever happen - NO because all those string-pullers, who are doing so well how it works right now, just look at the latest tax system getting implemented, will no longer be able to play their games.
Now, looking at the 2-Party system - all hope is that the Democrats, once again in power will make it all right - wanna bet on it?
Why are there no more political parties in the government? String pullers again at work....
Good luck hoping, there is no hope.....
If it's a simple majority I think Ajit Pai is going to have his ass handed to him by Congress, and rightly so.
Even if the Senate Dems were to vote in lockstep, which is less than clear, this would have to pass in the House as well, then survive a presidential veto. That's not going to happen, and TFA says as much. This is nothing but political posturing on Schumer's part.
It might very well pass, both House and president.
The main problem with the existing legislation was legal, not technical. It was passed in opposition to Congress' explicit instructions.
NN is a good idea, when viewed on its technical merits, and if a law gets passed that's a good thing.
Ajit Pai won't be getting "his ass handed to him", he'll be getting explicit direction from congress which is the correct way to do this.
Business is constrained by uncertaintly. So consider this: Even if this doesn't passm the ISPs will hesitate to violate neutrality. It is hard to push forward with a business model that is constantly threatening to be overturned. Imagine offering paid fast lanes today, only to have them made illegal in 3 months by congress, or in 2 years after midterm elections, or in 3 years with a new presidency. It's just a big risk for them to do. They would be better to play it safe and look like good guys.
Healthcare companies face this too: companies hesitate to open up to the ACA (Obamacare) markets given that the Republican majority keeps threatening to repeal it.
Then it's a good thing that Net Neutrality rules don't put the government in control of the internet.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Do people not remember the origin of "The Internet"? It started as a Defense Project to ensure communications in the event of a nuclear war... They opened it up to universities, and then to the public. Back then they did a fairly decent job of being hand-off. It wasn't until they turned over to private corps, that it started to go downhill.
The fact of the matter is that if all the money and time spent on NN was instead spent on the one touch make ready stuff and eliminating municipal exclusivity agreements you would have laws that bypassed the need for NN entirely.
I find it weird Americans are more divided over whether or not to support having health care than they are over whether they're okay with slow Internet connections. They'd rather be dead than have porn that buffers.
The true test is how they want to properly enact Neutrality. If it is the same âoeredefineâ as a common carrier trick from before and pinky swear that although theyâ(TM)ll have so many other powers they wonâ(TM)t use them, then it was a scam all along. If they put in narrow language to the current definition of telecommunications provider, then fine. I donâ(TM)t have any doubt theyâ(TM)ll keep with the redefining to common carrier though.
FANG = Four companies. Each company has person-hood status. So you're saying that four entities should equally pay for the same costs as four residence? ROFLMAO! NICE! You sure know where your loyalties lay Mr. Socialist you.
Clueless, Ever one of you in favor of this Marxist form of legislation - only it's NOT. It's pure corruption; crony capitalism. What's brilliant about it is that you're convinced of it being the exact opposite
Life is not for the lazy.
Regulatory agencies create these rules as they see fit... with no congressional oversight or explicit approval.
That is the point of the CRA. Congress can direct an agency to repeal any regulation.
This is different as the FCC is saying that it does not have the authority by statute to create a national NN regulation.
States are welcome to legislate and congress can pass a law to create a regulation (NN). So far none of that has happened.
I am fine with the philosophy that congress makes the laws. not a regulatory agency.
5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
This bill will be referred to committee and never emerge to see the light of day. I'm guessing it will never come up for discussion by committee either. Shame on you Senator, you know this already, but you don't care.
Ah yes, grandstanding for political appearances.. Go Chucky!
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Even the most rabid libertarian agrees that government is necessary for the common defense. In this case, we need a common defense against corporations. Regulations are necessary to prevent free market abuse, and anyone who thinks zero regulation makes the free market work best doesn't know very much about about history.
The whole point of NN is that nobody controls the Internet.. therefore if the DNC wants NN, then they want to 'control the fact that nobody controls the Internet'. That's how I see it, anyway.
Except a true libritarian would only want to solve the real issue which is allowing government regulated monoplies to exist. Why regulate an already regulated monopoly when you can remove all/most regulations, open up the free market, and cut government costs.
I am a progressive. I do not want the government to control the internet, and I sure don't want the corporations with government granted monopolies to control it either.
Then fight the monopoly-establishing local regulations, not what an ISP can do, or not do at the Federal level.
So we're free to have a municipal ISP without government regulation interfering?
Given than municipalities have pretty much unlimited funds and the full force of the law to raise money at-will under threat of (legal) violence, no.
Then open up the last mile to competition _at the local level_.
Gigabit connectivity sure sounds like "going downhill". Look at France, Internet didn't grow until the late-90's because of the state run telecommunication company own regressive service/monopoly, the dreaded "Minitel".
Sorry, I don't get and pleasure by being pegged by my otherkin friend.
I know, this is why all plans to put them in place also have the common carrier rules with nothing more than a pinky-swear promise not to apply them. If Net Neutrality was the goal, then those rules could just be put in place. Of course, when putting in a trojan horse, find a horse that someone wouldn't mind having and sell it to everyone... but don't forget to put a lot of fangs in it no-one will notice.
There is no such thing as a "free market". Free markets do not exist in nature. Markets are only created where there is sufficient government.
You are welcome on my lawn.
No, they don't. There is nothing in net neutrality rules that would affect who or what can connect to the internet. Once again, I guess I have to post a simple, straightforward definition of net neutrality:
https://www.eff.org/issues/net...
You are welcome on my lawn.
IMightB inquired:
Do people not remember the origin of "The Internet"? It started as a Defense Project to ensure communications in the event of a nuclear war... They opened it up to universities, and then to the public. Back then they did a fairly decent job of being hand-off. It wasn't until they turned over to private corps, that it started to go downhill.
As it turns out, that's a common belief - and it's wrong.
While it's true that a 1962 RAND Corporation white paper authored by Paul Baran theorized that a packet-switched data network could allow military communications to survive a general nuclear war, that was entirely a thought experiment. The Department of Defense filed it away and largely forgot about it.
It wasn't until 1965, after accepting a position at DARPA, that an electrical engineer named Robert W. Taylor first got the idea for what would eventually become first the DARPAnet, then the ARPAnet, and finally the Internet.
As a condition of the DARPA grants that helped fund their experiments, research teams at three different major research centers were required to install remote terminals at DARPA for their - entirely separate and self-contained - multi-user mainframe systems. These were the first computers to operate interactively, rather than in what mainframers call "batch mode", and support multiple, concurrent user sessions via dumb terminals with line printers as their "displays". One of Taylor's assignments was to monitor and liase with the scientists who built and ran this trio of individual experimental systems, and he quickly noticed that something very like what we would think of as newsgroups spontaneously appeared on all three systems. (That is to say that computer scientists who had accounts on all three, separate, not interconnected in any way systems had each decided that something very much like a computer BBS or Usenet-style messaging system would be a useful addition, and had - again, independently - hacked such a tool together for the users of each of these systems to communicate with each other in a way that had some degree of persistence and which was accessible to the entire user community of that particular machine.)
The fact that users on each system had more-or-less-simultaneously decided such a tool was desireable, and had developed code to create it - and we're talking three different sets of code here - without ever communicating with the other two teams greatly interested and excited Taylor. He immediately wondered what would happen if all three systems were physically connected together in a way that would allow their users to communicate not only with each other, but with users on the other two systems, as well. He took that idea to his supervisor, one Charles Herzfeld, who thought it might have merit. Herszfeld asked Taylor to draw up a formal proposal, and committed, sight unseen, to fund it to the tune of a million dollars (which was real money in 1965).
So Taylor wrote a proposal, and with a million bucks to spend on it approached the managers of the three, separate multiuser systems with his idea to interconnect their systems. All three turned him down flat.
Robert W. Taylor was from Texas, where they grow 'em stubborn, so he persisted in pitching his idea to the three managers of different, multiuser mainframe systems, despite their continued objections that each saw no merit in his proposal, and each considered it a potentially major distraction from the purposes for which each of their disparate systems had been created. Eventually, over the course of time, he wore them down to the point where he got two of them to agree to at least test the idea. It took nearly two years from then before all the ducks were duly aligned, the necessary equipment designed and built, and the long-distance, dedicated telephone lines contracted for.
At 22:30 hours on October 29, 1969, the first two nodes of what was dub
Check out my novel.
Economy is going great
"Great." The economy was also going "great" before the election, and none of the problems that existed then have really been solved now.
stock market is soaring
It was soaring well before the election. It's why Donald Trump mentioned as a candidate that the stock market was a bubble, that you couldn't trust its then-18,000 number. It was hitting record highs under Obama's watch, but Trump poh-pohed that, saying the economy was a disaster. He said this in Dec 2015, he said it in Apr 2016. In Sep 2016, he said "The only thing that is strong is the artificial stock market." Strange how once he got into office and the stock market continued its upwards trajectory that he's crowing about the numbers and incorrectly claiming that the mainstream media never mentions it.
ISIS is defeated
You present this as if this was a 180 from what was happening under the previous administration.
The timeline of ISIS: They made rapid gains since their 2013 founding, peaking with the Caliphate establishment in mid-2014. At Baghdad's request, US planes start striking ISIS, and Obama announced a coalition to strike back against ISIS.
Jan 2015: ISIS loses several Syrian border towns as the coalition pushes inward.
Apr 2015: ISIS loses Tikrit, Iraq.
Nov 2015: ISIS loses Sinjar province in Iraq.
Feb 2016: ISIS loses Ramadi, capital of Anbar.
Jun 2016: ISIS loses Fallujah after holding it for 2.5 years.
Aug 2016: ISIS loses Mambij.
Oct 2016: ISIS loses Dabiq, the town that they wanted to keep most of all. This is place they fervently believed would be the location of an apocalyptic battle, heralding end times.
Nov 2016: The SDF starts chipping away at the ISIS capital in Syria, Raqqa.
Oct 2016 - Feb 2017: ISIS loses Mosul, bit by bit. The last remnants are driven out by July.
Oct 2016 - April 2017: After losses of territory, ISIS conducts series of suicide attacks.
Jun 2017: Encirclement of Raqqa complete.
Oct 2017: SDF declares victory in Raqqa.
How much of the above was Trump? How much of that happened before he ever took office?
The internet itself is better but the web is horrible now.
The FCC was enforcing net neutrality by declaring them Title II carriers. That means that the FCC has a metric fuckton of control should they choose to exercise it.
Running common infrastructure is exactly what government was designed for. Having the Government run the internet, just like they run the roads and highways, is a logical choice.
And the only "free market" is one that is open for buyers and sellers to freely enter to exchange money for goods and services. The only way to maintain openness is through a set of rules that are constantly and evenly enforced. There's a term for consistent and evenly enforced rules.
Regulation.
Look back in the last 10 years : republican kept blocking anything over and over , be it nominations of peoples under the flimsiest pretense, to laws , to budgets. At some points you STILL have to govern and react to events in spite of the republican pure spiteful (pun intended) government blocking. That is where the writing of the pen come in. If you want to point finger, point finger at the republican for refusing to even govern properly.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Yes there are probably a (metric) fuckton of people that don't get cause and effect. That's sad. But what does that have to do with anything?
Hopefully the people that do get it is larger than the previous group - otherwise the US is fucked anyway.
Democrats REALLY want the Federal Government to gain control of the Internet.
Net Neutrality is a backdoor to let their SJW insanity control the Internet.
Net Neutrality Rules implying government control of the Internet is like saying Freedom of the Press in the Constitution implies Government control of the Press.
Yaz
I'd argue that a black market is a free market.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
Democrats REALLY want the Federal Government to gain control of the Internet.
Net Neutrality is a backdoor to let their SJW insanity control the Internet.
I am not, nor have I ever been a Democrat. You need to stop spreading the word of Comcast, Verizon and AT&T, because that's where the money against net neutrality is coming from. Don't believe it, then believe the links below. This is all about lobbying money into the Republican party, much like the Democrats are beholden to trial lawyers and Hollywood.
https://www.opensecrets.org/ne...
https://www.politico.com/story...
https://www.theverge.com/2017/...
Just another day in Paradise
I'd argue that a black market is a free market.
Racist!
Just another day in Paradise
"Except a true libritarian would only...blah, blah, blah"
No, there's no such thing as a "true libertarian" or a "true republican" or a "true democrat". There are agreed upon guiding principles, and a wide range of overall beliefs in all of them.
As a libertarian leaning person, I would generally agree with the removal of regulations, but not in a case where there's no opportunity for the market to be free. Nobody is going to run more cable to our homes, so you're stuck with the fiber and ISPs you've got until 5G comes along. ISPs are virtual utilities and utilities need regulation.
Just another day in Paradise
"It wasn't until they turned over to private corps, that it started to go downhill."
You might want to have a talk with the folks at BBN (now Raytheon), without whom your post here wouldn't exist.
Just another day in Paradise
One battle at a time. Municipal internet would still take years.
Cheap storage VM.
I've lived in a place where a black market was the only way to get many goods. It's actually the opposite of a free market, because the consumers rarely have a choice.
If your definition of a free market is one that is free of government restrictions, then you should realize that black markets are the ones with the highest level of government restrictions. That's why the prices are usually so high.
You are welcome on my lawn.
What's weird about this argument is (1) it never happend and (2) that option SHOULD exist and (3) people talking about this like its a bad thing
That was a profoundly interesting read. Thank you for the background information.
I still remember the days of small, local ISPs. . . before they all got plowed under by Charter/Comcast/Cox/TimeWarner. Ah, for the the old days of Digital Gateway Systems (before the Church of Scientology took it down to silence Arnie Lerma) and Huskynet (an ISP so long gone that there's no trace I can find, 25 years later. . . .)
They lose more if they vote against it. Every time some schmuck's connection makes him wait, ..... they will say "Oh this seems exactly like it has the last eight years, I guess nothing has changed after all".
What you underestimate is how crappy current connections are already, so people are simply used to random slowdowns. Campaigning on Net Neutrality is a stupid thing to do because almost no-one will even understand any impact even IF a company decides to do anything. Witless low turnout in DC for the FCC protests, no-on outside of a bunch of nerds really cares about this, and Democrats only actually care because they think it makes Republicans look bad. As far as helping you, they really don't give a fig.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Under that definition, every market is a "free market".
Name some, please.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Is it possible to have Ajit Pai removed as chairman of the FCC - perhaps by Congress?
There are absolutely no redeeming qualities with him; in his professionalism and job tasks, nor his personality.
He has got to go. He is totally unqualified for any leadership roll at all.
Any person serving in a public office MUST absolutely take the constituent opinion as a heavily weighted driver for what to do.
The more than 83% of the peoples' voice FOR net neutrality should push the chairman that way - in spite of his personal opinion.
STOP THE DICTATORSHIP ACTIONS OF THIS ADMINISTRATION!
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
But... but... black markets matter!
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
All markets matter!
Just another day in Paradise
ImprovOmega opined:,/p>
That was a profoundly interesting read. Thank you for the background information.
You are entirely welcome. Thank you for the compliment!
Check out my novel.
PopeRatzo,
I am accepting the premise of the question while knowing full well the premise is non-factual. I don't believe that NN rules place the government in control of the internet, but many that oppose NN mistakenly do believe that. One way to defuse a mistaken belief is to accept the premise, then disprove it on both the mistaken premise and the facts.
Mr. Pei's assertion that NN rules prohibit innovation and deployment of high speed internet completely ignores that fact that the Government has provided almost 50 billion dollars in grants (read that as FREE MONEY) to increase rural deployment of fiber - for less than 1% increase in deployment. By any twisted logic the telecom's apologist would care to blovate, there's simply no question that the taxpayer pumped at least 48 billion dollars into payments to stockholders that resulted in exactly zero for the citizens.
I firmly believe that the best way to solve this issue is to mandate "One Touch Make Ready", rescinding monopoly rents, enacting RAND payments for using public rights of way for all, and enforcing the exact terms of the grants and sending to prison (for life suits me down to my toenail lint) the telecom executives that have cheated the system.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.