Slashdot Mirror
Can the FCC's 'Net Neutrality' Decision Be Overturned in Congress? (newsweek.com)
"Cancel the funeral and get ready to fight: Net neutrality is far from dead," argues Evan Greer, the campaign director for the pro-net neutrality group Fight for the Future in Newsweek:
Our elected officials in Congress have the power to reverse what is swiftly becoming one of the U.S. government's most unpopular decisions ever. And if they don't, they'll pay for it come election season... 26 senators have already signed on to a Resolution of Disapproval under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), a vehicle to overturn the FCC's net neutrality repeal with a simple majority vote in both the Senate and House. [UPDATE: 28 Senators have now co-sponsored the resolution]. It's not going to be easy, but it's increasingly within reach with Democrats in lock step against the FCC rollback and half a dozen Republicans already publicly criticizing the move.
Outside of Washington, DC, net neutrality is not a partisan issue. Voters from across the political spectrum overwhelmingly agree that they don't want their cable companies controlling where they get news, how they stream music and videos, or which apps they use to pay for things, get directions, or communicate with friends and family. Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T poured money into misleading advertisements, ghost written op-eds, and astroturf campaigns, to fool customers into thinking that they would voluntarily abide by the principles of net neutrality... But after all of that, they've completely failed to build any real grassroots support for their attack on net neutrality, from the left or the right. And every member of Congress knows that. 75 percent of Republican voters support the net neutrality protections the FCC just slashed... No matter how hard they try, telecom lobbyists will just never convince a meaningful number of Republican voters that killing net neutrality, and ending the internet as a free market of ideas, is a good thing. And that's what gives us a unique chance to get our normally gridlocked Congress to take action and overrule the FCC's politically toxic order.
Lawmakers in every state have been getting hammered for months with millions of phone calls, emails, protests, constituent meetings, media requests, and pressure from small businesses at volumes that just never happen. Net neutrality is becoming one of the most talked about political issues in recent human history... The FCC did something that a supermajority of people in this country oppose. Our elected officials have to decide whether to rubber stamp that betrayal or overturn it. The internet makes the impossible possible. If we harness our anger and direct it strategically, we can get the votes we need to restore the net neutrality protections that should never have been taken away in the first place. Any lawmaker who refuses to listen to their constituents will have to go on the record right before an election as having voted against the free and open web. They would be wise not to underestimate the internet's power to hold them accountable.
Outside of Washington, DC, net neutrality is not a partisan issue. Voters from across the political spectrum overwhelmingly agree that they don't want their cable companies controlling where they get news, how they stream music and videos, or which apps they use to pay for things, get directions, or communicate with friends and family. Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T poured money into misleading advertisements, ghost written op-eds, and astroturf campaigns, to fool customers into thinking that they would voluntarily abide by the principles of net neutrality... But after all of that, they've completely failed to build any real grassroots support for their attack on net neutrality, from the left or the right. And every member of Congress knows that. 75 percent of Republican voters support the net neutrality protections the FCC just slashed... No matter how hard they try, telecom lobbyists will just never convince a meaningful number of Republican voters that killing net neutrality, and ending the internet as a free market of ideas, is a good thing. And that's what gives us a unique chance to get our normally gridlocked Congress to take action and overrule the FCC's politically toxic order.
Lawmakers in every state have been getting hammered for months with millions of phone calls, emails, protests, constituent meetings, media requests, and pressure from small businesses at volumes that just never happen. Net neutrality is becoming one of the most talked about political issues in recent human history... The FCC did something that a supermajority of people in this country oppose. Our elected officials have to decide whether to rubber stamp that betrayal or overturn it. The internet makes the impossible possible. If we harness our anger and direct it strategically, we can get the votes we need to restore the net neutrality protections that should never have been taken away in the first place. Any lawmaker who refuses to listen to their constituents will have to go on the record right before an election as having voted against the free and open web. They would be wise not to underestimate the internet's power to hold them accountable.
But they can disband the FCC.
Tax cuts and gut regulatory agencies!
Iâ(TM)m as Pro net-Neutrality as anyone however Title II was the wrong solution. Pass a real bill in Congress that focuses on filtering and throttling without Title II garbage.
Can the FCC's 'Net Neutrality' Decision Be Overturned in Congress?
Of course it can. Congress created the FCC, so it can make whatever law it wants to override FCC's decision. Will it is a better question.
Isn't this a basic US Government question?
The FCC's operates under the Administrative branch, and it's charter was created by an act of congress in 1934. The net neutrality repeal is just a application of it's authority to make rules, not laws.
Congress can enact laws to direct it's behavior, so long as those laws are constitutional. Which, I imagine would be a pretty straightforward application of the interstate commerce clause?
Why aren't you encrypting your e-mail?
Congress can certainly pass law that makes the net neutrality decision illegal going forward, and thus FCC must replace it. That's not overturning it, though.
The problem is that congress has turned into a binary partisan farce where votes are cast not based on what the congressman thinks, but whether it opposes the adversary. So it won't happen. There's really no way out of this quagmire either, from within the system itself.
The problem with the 2015 approach is that it only covered the bottom 3 of the 7 layers of the OSI model of modern networking. So neutrality only applied to about 43% of the layers.
What we need is 100% net neutrality, all the way up to the Application layer, where social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Hacker News, and even Slashdot would be classified.
Social media platforms like those aren't really any different from ISPs, conceptually. Both are just conduits for getting information from a sender to one or more receivers. ISPs transmit IP packets between computers. Social media platforms transmit ideas in the form of comments and submissions between people.
When we transmit data via an ISP, we should expect it to be delivered to the destination in a neutral manner, irrespective of its content.
The same standard should apply for social media providers. When we transmit an idea through a social media platform, we should expect it to be delivered to any and all recipients in a neutral manner, irrespective of what this particular idea is.
The main result is that platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, and Slashdot could no longer censor, hide, or delete any comments, submissions or other content that are otherwise legal.
It also means that such platforms could no longer censor users acting in a legal manner by banning, shadow-banning, or silencing them.
The 43% "net neutrality" of the 2015 approach is nearly useless as it ignores the partiality that we see at higher layers within the network.
We can only have true net neutrality when neutrality is guaranteed for all 7 layers of the OSI model. We need 100% net neutrality, not the 43% net neutrality of the failed 2015 approach.
And how is that different from US elections themselves?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Congres does what people will pay it to do. On an issue that the public won't care one way or the other enough to turn an election this is strictly a quid pro quo issue for congressmen. Perhaps a few, like Rush Holt, will truly have some passion in these issues but to get enough to pass a bill without horse trading one other issues requires cash on the barrelhead. Netflix and google are not going to do that even if they offer sympathetic public faces because in the end they know they are now big enough that they will benefit from it not be harmed.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
First, as several others have already pointed out, Congress can make any law it likes, subject to judicial review. So, they can make a law that requires the FCC to implement net neutrality, just like there are laws requiring all sorts of federal agencies to do specific things.
Second, this line is a real gem:
Our elected officials in Congress have the power to reverse what is swiftly becoming one of the U.S. government's most unpopular decisions ever. And if they don't, they'll pay for it come election season (emphasis added)
This statement makes it clear that Evan Greer is unwilling to accept reality. Please name one elected official that "paid for" their action or inaction on any of the following issues:
The system in the US has become one that so long as a politician adheres to a particular ideology, the voters who adhere to the same ideology will support the politician and those who oppose the ideology will oppose the politician. This is largely the case even in the face if criminal or other behavior which should make someone unsuited for public office.
Look at how many people still voted for Roy Moore in Alabama. Or how many people immediately called for the resignation or removal of a politician or high profile figure of an opposing political party while being silent or slow to speak out against those in their own party.
It is all a complete a mess and believing that net neutrality will be the thing that gets people to put aside their political apathy and vote some bums out of office is beyond laughable.
Internet freedom is one of those few issues that effects everyone and is bi-partisan. As long as an issue effects both the 1% and the 99%, you can almost guarantee that it will be bi-partisan. Some multi-billion dollar companies stand to take a hit from a lack of net neutrality so you can bet your ass this one will be the hot topic of next year's legislation efforts. And, of course, Donald Trump will tout it as some sort of victory - even though he appointed Ajit Pai to overturn net neutrality. Wow, America is supremely fucked!
What!? I guess the comment above is from the lunatic fringe.
How much money does Verizon have?
Verizon probably does not have enough money to plug the hole in this dam. They ought to save their sheckles instead of investing them in a hopelessly lost cause.
You know, not Obama's version of monopoly carriers that bundle services or the post-Bell monopoly all-in-one carriers. We need to split up Spectrum, AT&T and cohorts, allow free access to any fiber/copper and poles that had government subsidies or land grabs involved (which is almost all of it) and split Internet from TV and phone carriers.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Government agencies can only operate in the bounds that Congress sets for them. Congress can bind them however they want.
They are in the business of campaign contributions. And as you point out those contributions tend to come from the hard right or left.
OK,,,now does anybody doubt there's a concerted effort by the alt right to take over the Slashdot comments section?
Fuck you and fuck whatever white supremacist organization you're a member of, you Nazi-worshipping cocksucker.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
The Congressional Review Act (CRA) needs to be passed in both the House and Senate, which both have Republican majorities (or to put it differently, Democrats do not have a definitive majority in either House or Senate). To get a perspective on the chances of this passing look at the 28 cosponsors of the bill NONE of which are republican. Suppose that somehow there are a few republicans do end up voting for this, then it heads to President Trump who can veto it.
Trump is the person that appointed Ajit Pai to head the FCC, and of course Trump knew that Pai would repeal net neutrality and undoubtedly they have discussed the issue in detail. Trump has praised Pai, so we know that Trump has no problems with net neutrality being repealed. It is virtually certain that if this reaches the Presidents desk, it will be vetoed.
Of course Congress can overturn a veto, with a 2/3 supermajority. While there is a slight chance in a republican congress that a simple majority can be found to overturn the repeal of net neutrality, there is *NO* chance that the hard line far-right will vote to repeal. Recent elections have purged moderate or "soft" politicians of both political parties. There aren't enough moderates to overturn a veto.
Congress can certainly pass law that makes the net neutrality decision illegal going forward, and thus FCC must replace it. That's not overturning it, though.
The problem is that congress has turned into a binary partisan farce where votes are cast not based on what the congressman thinks, but whether it opposes the adversary. So it won't happen. There's really no way out of this quagmire either, from within the system itself.
It's pretty much overturning it though.
You're spot on about the Congress. Until voters realize that gaming the system into a two-sided duopoly that constantly gridlocks the people's business ("because of the other side").
A similar sentiment in 2015 when Obama's team instituted the net neutrality rule:
Congressional committees have launched probes to determine whether the White House exerted “improper influence” on the development of the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) recently approved net neutrality rule. The FCC is an independent agency headed by five commissioners, one of whom is selected by the President to be the Chairman. Critics of the approved rule argue that it noticeably deviates from initial proposals put forth by the FCC and, instead, closely aligns with the approach the President publicly outlined in November 2014. Because of this shift, and reports that the White House was involved in “thwart[ing]” the FCC in its initial proposals, the committees question whether the President has overstepped his authority in a manner that threatens the independence of the FCC. It is generally thought that because the President cannot control independent agency action, such agencies are free from presidential influence; however, news of the events at the FCC has given rise to the age-old question—just how independent are independent agencies? This two-part post examines whether there are any legal limitations that prevent the President from influencing independent agencies.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
So what you're saying is... there's no hope at all. I agree, at least for the next 50 years or so.
There isn't a single one of those justices that wouldn't tie themselves and their clerks into a sophist knot getting 'round what the actual, obvious intent of the constitution is, much less require an actual amendment to implement legitimate change.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Life, yes. But that's not the same as humanity. The grass you walk on is alive. Still, you mow it, crush it, kill it, doesn't rise to the level of any particular level of notice.
The reason that pre-birth humans matter is because - when - they're human... not because they're alive.
And humanity cannot be present prior to the development of a nervous system.
Somewhere during pregnancy there is a fuzzy line that all of us here crossed, where the nervous system formed up sufficiently, and pain and suffering and previously unrealized potential potential becomes an actual thing. That's the line to draw, if indeed one is to be drawn at all, IMHO, but you'd better check with the female half of humanity before you decide even that is a done deal.
This business of "life begins at conception" is addled nonsense. It does, sure enough, but it's completely irrelevant. Any such law is just codified stupidity.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Either the people asking this question failed "basic civics 101" or the idea of overturning needs more "juice" so they're asking it kind of like a strawman: they know what the answer is, but need to gin more fear.
Either way, *I* don't think I'd listen to them. They're either stupid or manipulating you.
-Styopa
What!? I guess the comment above is from the lunatic fringe.
Why? Because he accurately points out that implementing NN by classifying ISPs under Title II puts them under CALEA compliance laws, the same as all other telecoms under Title II?
Why do you feel that ISPs *must* be placed under Title II when it is not necessary for implementing NN, and that anyone who disagrees is the "lunatic fringe"? Is it not sufficient that Congress pass laws implementing NN without placing ISPs under Title II and CALEA compliance requirements (and a bunch of obscenity and 'hate speech' laws under Title II as well)?
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
A bill, passed by Congress and signed by the President is *exactly* how Net Neutrality should have been implemented. If you remember at the time, the FCC Chairman said at the time the FCC was acting because Congress hadn't/wouldn't.
Ken
But the Potus can choose to not enforce the rules and laws that Congress ratifies.
Just because previous administration did it doesn't mean it is legal, proper.
Ken
and ban them if they don't play ball the way we want them to? Only instead of asking them to do help us do bad things we could make them do good things. You don't have to accept the world as a bad place. This isn't the middle ages.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Of course our elected officials can overturn net neutrality – unfortunately, it’s a majority GOP and they live in a world that believes every single thing touched by Obama is poison and must be killed. Secondly, ALL of our representatives have collectively taken $101M from the communications cabal. Some of the GOP have introduced bills that even block State/Locals from implementing their own version of NN.
The sad fact is the only way to fix this is to get corporate money out of politics. Till we do, our information, resources, and people are up for grabs to the highest bidder/ lobbyist.
No, it's not a partisan fight. It's a fight to keep psycopaths in check.
Let's take, for example, the Zadroga act. Out of all the legislation I can think of, this is about as no-brainer as you can get. It's not ideological. It's just basic human compassion and decency.
Now in case you don't know what this act is, it's about providing for the first responders of 9/11, many who have become sick or died as a result to various toxic materials.The compassionate and dare I say patriotic thing to do is to pass the measure. Now due to republican shenanigans the first go around the act was limited and set to expire (and it did).
So you'd think "Hey, this is republican bread and butter here so they'll renew it". But the psychopaths won't even allow it on the floor. They said if they can find the money for it then they'll be more than happy to bring it to the floor. Kind of a piss poor response, but we are running quite a large debt so that's at least a little bit understandable. Dickish, yes. But understandable.
That was several months ago. And what did these pricks just pass? A huge fucking cash giveaway to the rich and massive amount of debt to go along with it. I bet those first responders are so happy...well actually they're beyond caring because quite a few of them have died waiting for the republican congress to act.
Partisan? That was at least a decade ago. The fight now is trying to preserve some sense of basic human decency.
~X~
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Article I, Section 1. "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
So the big question (for silly people like me): How is an Executive Branch agency writing laws (under another name) that the Congress might consider overriding?
Not that it really matters, in post-constitutional America.
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
I'm not insulting you. I'm describing you.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.