Slashdot Mirror
Senate Will Force Vote On Overturning Net Neutrality Repeal (theverge.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) has mustered the 30 votes necessary to force a vote on the FCC's decision to repeal net neutrality. Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) announced that she's signed onto Markey's request to overturn the new rules, under the Congressional Review Act -- which lets Congress nullify recently passed regulations with a simple majority. Markey announced his intention to file a resolution of disapproval in December, just after the FCC voted on new rules that killed net neutrality protections from 2015. These new rules were officially published last week, and with 30 sponsors, Markey can make the Senate vote on whether to consider overturning them. If this happens, it would lead to a debate and final vote. That's not remotely the end of the process: if it's approved, the resolution will go to the House, and if it passes there, the desk of Donald Trump, who seems unlikely to approve it.
Shanghai Bill is polishing the inside of his faggot asshole and having it enlarged to SUV size so obese Trump can just drive right in. What a cowardly faggot nazi.
I can see the Democrats wanting to force all senators to want to vote on this issue...
But really will it change anything in terms of votes? Democrats are with Democrats, even when they take huge sums of money from rapists. No-one non-technical will care about this issue, unless there were major changes in ISP's over the coming year that people did not approve of, but that seems really unlikely.
So while it makes for fine posturing, I don't see it having much of an effect. However I do applaud them for putting forth a real bill to vote on, that is exactly where any kind of net neutrality rules should come from.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I like to masturbate on trolls comment...
Kinda moot if the original FCC rules under the Obama administration were never submitted per the Congressional Review Act.
Any documentation on that available anywhere?
...what you think it means.
Otherwise, NN would still be in place.
Otherwise, tax legislation would not have passed.
Otherwise, Trump would not be president...
In fact are you sure you don't work for Trump? It seems like you are trying awfully hard to ensure people they should not pay attention to what Trump tries to do by claiming he is "incompetent".
let's all listen to the BROWK BROWK BROCK BORWK BROWK CA-CA!
What's that I hear? More senseless clucking from the Chicken Littles? (AKA Small-Minded Cucks). Well OK then!
Now they've got a whole NEW list of people they need to get paid off.
go on record opposing Net Neutrality. So far when the issue's come up they've mostly said they support it while putting 3 folks in charge of the FCC who are against it at all costs. The Republicans have been able to kill NN without much political fallout. This aims to end all that. If it doesn't pass it means the Republican lead Congress opposes NN, despite what they've said. If it _does_ pass it means their party head, Donald Trump, personally killed NN.
Right now everybody's blaming Ajit Pai for the loss of NN. This aims to ship the blame where, I would argue, it rightfully belongs.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
That's what I am saying though, I agree that is the goal, but I don't think it will have that effect because too few people really care about the issue - only a handful of super-technical / super vocal people. In recent demonstrations against the NN repeal they had terrible turnout in DC for example (like. handful of people). Only in CA was there significant turnout.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Child molesters to the Right,
rapists to the Left,
Here I am, stuck in the middle without you.
This is dead folks.... Until the number of supporters allows a cloture vote to pass, this is dead. The Republicans, who currently control the Senate majority, cannot make things happen there, how would a democrat make it happen along partisan lines? This is dead, no way it manages cloture.
So getting it to the floor isn't going to make anything happen here. Why bother with this? Why to map out a campaign issue of course... Nothing more... It's like the House passing an Obamacare repeal 20+ times, full knowing the Senate wouldn't take it up and Obama wouldn't sign it, then when it actually would be passed and signed they wiffed it. It was for show, not for substance, just like this NN thing.
It's 2018.... Get ready for silliness in politics where weird things are done in an effort to get donations and get elected..
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Are there are computer models showing the eventual ruination of the Internet by the repeal of net neutrality? How long will it take, what are the negative outcomes, etc...? This seems like such a small thing compared to the other future doom and gloom predicted by lefties.
All I know now is that the coasts will soon be underneath fathoms of low ph water, all weather will be more severe, the corals are dying, we do not have enough Mexicans in the country, especially if they are gay or trans or fluid, no they are less apt to be criminals and that I am impacted negatively in so many different ways above and beyond the tax cut I am about to receive. I am amazed that Republicans can muster any votes at all.
Why don't they just vote on making neutrality an ACTUAL LAW.
Oh right. laws are harder to twist
unlike arbitrary rules from non-elected positions that change with the administration.
For those of us, like me, who were confused how Democrats could force a vote when bills could only be brought to the floor for a vote by the House Majority Leader. It turns out that the congressional review act specifically allows a vote to be schedule by 30 senators sponsoring a bill, bypassing the House Majority Leader.
I stole this Sig
If internet is 'net neutral' and 'regulated like a utility' guess where that leads? It leads to getting billed for how much you use like any other utility. Current ISP model in USA is Grandma pays $100 a month for high-speed cable and uses it for a couple hours of eBay and some Facebookery every week. Meanwhile, next door, Billy Hacker is paying $100 a month too - and he's running a torrent server, a couple crypto miners, and his sad sex life at 4K high quality 24/7. Who do you think is subsidizing the internet for whom in that scenario? If internet actually is regulated/billed like a utility Grandma is soon getting a deal and Billy Hacker's sex life is going to get a lot worse. Oh, and Grandma thinks its a good idea to regulate the internet to get all the smut off...and she votes a lot more than Billy Hacker. Careful what you wish for net neutrality peeps. You just might get it.
How about, instead of passing a bill telling the FCC to keep pretending the internet is a phone service and regulate it as such, pass a bill allowing the FCC to regulate the internet as a data service, ONLY for the purposes of equal access. The reason this is all happening in a round-about fashion is the FCC was never directly given the authority to regulate the internet directly. I'm for them keeping out of it as much as possible, but if you want net neutrality, pass a law saying the FCC can enforce net neutrality.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
wanted him to be. Trump could have kept the FCC as is. The law only says 3 Republican _appointees_, it says nothing about the personal party affiliations of those appointees.
And as for Trump, he was in favor of single payer healthcare until the Republicans talked him out of it with what looks like one meeting. He's pretty obviously just doing what the party tells him.
Bottom line, this _is_ a partisan issue. The Dems favor NN and the Republicans oppose it. To suggest otherwise is to ignore mountains of evidence to the contrary; and this is a site for nerds. The one thing we should hold sacred is evidence.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Like amoral I-have-no-qualms-with-the-Holocaust George Soros and company giving hundreds of millions of dollars to try to subvert a free Internet through vague and ambiguous wording providing an extreme amount of power to whatever administration he tries to install next time to stomp out the dissenting voices?
regulated/billed like a utility = fair meter
That is why they don't want to do to full metering with an read out on the meter at your home.
Right now you get changed for network resend data due there poor lines
Get changed for data that trying to go to your address even when your modem is off / no power.
Get changed for docsis arp traffic
Maybe get changed for some overhead with things like the Comcast wifi hotpot
Forced to rent / use the ISP router that sends data back to network (likely changed for that data use)
So you're telling me BizX, LLC supports the Holocaust? ;)
-pods
captcha: morally (I kid you not)
Yes, because "bits" are a lot like "water" and "gas". right?
Transmission and reception time slots on your ISP's upstream connection are scarce resources. So are DOCSIS transmission and reception time slots on your neighborhood's CMTS. Thus if Billy Hacker uses 90 percent of the bandwidth during congested time, he ought to be footing 90 percent of the bill for the bandwidth.
This is what a coup looks like folks. Did you see what happened to people who opposed the coup in Turkey? Soon once the the liberals and democrat party takes over they will do the same thing to ANYONE who dares to question their agenda. It starts with overturning the internet free market and ends with your family in prison or worse.
Good luck getting the House to take up this issue.
Net Neutrality is a foundation stone for how the internet got here and became successful. It wasn't called that in the early years because the rich and powerful weren't attacking it every day and internet regulation was in the hands of good people. Who knew their responsibilities (unlike Johnny Lining His Pockets Every Day).
All your scary stories would already be true, if they were true. And you know what? Grandma does subsidize Billy Hacker, right now, today. Billy Hacker is living in her basement and is her Grandson. The subsidy is real and not worth talking about.
Your "Careful what you wish for" scenario has been time-tested and the internet works great. It's one of the most successful systems in the world. So bugger off and try to scare little kids by offering them candies from the back of a van. You'll be more successful at that.
Anything you'd do to the internet would make it worse.
Sorry folks, but net neutrality should never have been foist on the country by an unelected, unaccountable regulatory agency. This and pretty much everything done in the last 8+ years and probably longer should have been put through the congressional law-making process and let the chips fall where they may. However your elected representatives and senators vote will be subject to the mercy of the voters. This is how the country is supposed to work.
I am for rational NN. And i am 100% Republican.
If your party votes no on NN, will you change your vote?
I'm not the person you're baiting, but here's my answer: I will not. [Change my vote]
I'm also 100% a Republican, but there are issues on which the party and I disagree.
That being said, I try to sort the differences by importance to the country, and find other issues are of much greater significance. I believe that immigration is a road to disaster for our country, and needs to be reined in.
National security is also high on my list, although of lesser importance than immigration.
I'm a nerd who wants NN, but I also see the larger picture.
Ask me again if DACA amnesty ever happens.
immigration. Trump could have rescinded the Obama executive order allowing H1-B spouses to work in the country at any time with one stroke of a pen, and he did not. As soon as all eyes were off he let the guys at Carrier twist in the wind.
I've seen zero movement from Republicans to meaningfully restrict the flow of cheap labor from overseas. Just a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
I suppose you might be more worried about immigrants committing crimes (MS-13 and the like), but statistically you'd be better off having those resources spent policing local crimes. Immigrants don't do a lot of crime because they're mostly trying to keep their heads down and keep their jobs. Yes, there are outliers, but they're just that, outliers. The statistics back me up here.
I'm not expecting the Dems to stop the H1-B program the way they are now. But get more of the Bernie style Dems in office and it'll happen. It just means showing up to your primary (and if you're not in a state with open primaries, registering as Dem). Meanwhile, the left wing Dems support things like ending the wars, single payer healthcare, college for all and minimum wage increases that would benefit me directly (I don't earn min-wage, but it's a great way to get money out mega-corps warchests and into the economy doing real work).
I guess my point is: I'm not sure what your goals are, but I'm going to assume the best. And if you're goals are the best, you're throwing in with the wrong crowd. Come on over the the Dems. We'll actually help you and your family. Just don't forget to vote in your primary.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Start voting third party, and show your bipartisan dissent by not giving either party the votes?
If people had done that earlier, maybe Bernie could have stuck to the Independent vote, or Johnson or Stein on the Libertarian and Green tickets could have made an impact.
The fact that everybody chose to blow off third parties because OMG *THE BAD PARTY* could have one is the reason we still have this mess election after election. If you want to bring about meaningful change to America, the first step is to vote out the incumbents wholesale. It doesn't even really matter if they are on the right or wrong side of the issues at this point, purge the parties from the states, congress, and the whitehouse, then if you really need to go back to them do it after they are kowtowing to their consittuents for a tiny opportunity to regain a bit of power. And while they are out of office, finally fucking reform the Electoral College and first past the post voting to something that allows every vote to count in order of preference to the candidate. Sure it could make some of the voting forms large, but a side effect of it is that we'd stop having presidents who start their term with less than 51 percent approval rating, because in order to become president they would have to be approved by 51 or more percent of the population, even if they were otherwise that persons 2nd or 3rd overall choice.
captcha was 'oration', how quaint given that we're discussing this on the internet :)
of taking over the Democratic party from the corporate Dems (Nansi Pelosi, Diane Fienstien, Chuck Schumer, etc) then getting a third party in place. Also, I think the too most viable third parties (Libertarian & Green) are hopelessly naive when it comes to policy. Libertarians would gut the gov't to let the free market take over, but there's a reason that 'Libertarian Paradise' meme exists. Sure it's a caricature, but in practice weak gov'ts don't work in complex societies. If all else fails someone comes along and makes a strong one on you lose out by not participating in it.
As for Green.... probably fine but they're a haven for a lot of the really radical feminists. I can sympathize with those people (we're allies with Saudi Arabia, who treat women awfully), but they're not helping. They tend to make men feel threatened, not by a strong women, but by a women who'll lock them up if they make a pass at them. I'd rather see them integrated into the Dems with their good parts (equal opportunity, wage parity, etc) intact and like any radical mellow out and focus on realistic policy.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
under the Congressional Review Act -- which lets Congress nullify recently passed regulations with a simple majority
What bullsh**. Congress created these regulatory agencies so that un-elected bureaucrats would pass laws^h^h^h^h regulations that Congress doesn't have the balls to pass on their own because they know if they voted yes for many of these regulations they would have to face the voters each election. Because these agencies are allowed to have people fined or arrested, that means they are passing laws and according to our Constitution only the Legislative branch has the authority to do this.
So all of the agencies should be declared un-Constitutional, or modified so they can't create regulations only enforce what is made law and then the spineless a**h**** in Congress should be required to vote for every regulation they believe is legitimate and passed to the President for signing.
I would image the 81k pages of regulations in force would drop precipitously if they had to do that.
Congress needs to have committee. In this committee they need to meet with different people on their viewpoints on how net neutrality should work. They need to listen less to FAANG and more to smaller companies and individuals. Then they need to craft a bill and label the bill the Net Neutrality Act of 2018 and vote on it. THIS IS THEIR FUCKING JOB NOT THE FCC, FTC, FAA, NSA, NRA or any other stupid acronym. It also better have some consequences for privacy issues.
I bet Trump would even sign the damn thing if it got support and took a few more regulations off the books.
Net Neutrality is not the arbitrary function of the FCC nor should it ever should be. The very fact that it was squashed in the manner that it was is the fundamental example as to why congress needs to quit screwing the pooch and do their job or get out.
Whatever the outcome, this is wonderful news! Lawmakers are back into, you know, making laws — instead of delegating the responsibility to the unelected "commissions" and "agencies".
Though of questionable Constitutional standing, these issue "rules" and "regulations" that are no less binding than actual laws...
Well, I say, if the would-be ordinance is too complex for Congress to properly discuss and vote on, perhaps, it should not be considered at all! That government is best, that governs least — remember?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.