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.
The intent isn't to repeal it of course. It's too embarrass the republicans.
It's also to expose all the republicans who oppose it, so when the abuses start, and they will, the dems can target them with ads come election time.
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/
And piss off your biggest donors? No, You want your constituents to believe you are working in their best interest without having to actually commit. Rattling a sabre at the FCC's new rules accomplishes this without getting any blood on their hands because they know the actual vote will fail. Then when the voters complain they just point out there just weren't enough votes.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
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
Um, guy, there's two new Senators. Think before you type.
LOL, so much promise, yet not a clue about how the Senate works.. NN is dead in this congress.
Cloture requires 60 votes. Democrats only have 49, plus any republicans they can get. If you don't have 11 republicans, it isn't going to happen...
Unless the point is to just get everybody to vote so you can claim a campaign issue this is pointless....
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
But really will it change anything in terms of votes?
It will make every politician take a stand one way or the other then answer for it down the road when they come up for reelection. I'm just hoping it's harder to buy off hundreds of senators and congresspeople than it was to buy off Mr. Pai.
...and republicans are with republicans, even when they're pedophiles. http://goodizen.com/list-of-co...
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
That was 2017. It's 2018. Pay attention.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
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/
Your premise is incorrect.
From the Congressional Review Act wiki page:
The law provides a procedure for expedited consideration in the Senate. If the committee to which a joint resolution is referred has not reported it out within 20 calendar days after referral, it may be discharged from further consideration by a written petition of 30 Senators, at which point the measure is placed on the calendar, and it is in order at any time for a Senator to move to proceed to the joint resolution.[10] If the Senate agrees to the motion to proceed, debate on the floor is limited to 10 hours and no amendments to the resolution or motions to proceed to other business are in order. The Senate may then pass the joint resolution with a simple majority.[10] A joint resolution of disapproval meeting certain criteria cannot be filibustered.[11]
For a regulation to be invalidated under the CRA, the Congressional resolution of disapproval must either be signed by the President or be passed over the President's veto by two thirds of both Houses of Congress.[11][12]
Under the CRA, cloture is irrelevant because filibustering is impossible. Democrats would therefore need only two Republican votes to pass the joint resolution of disapproval in the Senate. That said, it remains unlikely that they will manage a simple majority in the House, much less getting the President's signature, so your assertion that "NN is dead in this congress" still has merit, if not for the precise reasons you stated.
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.
You mean like everyone has to pay per minute for local calls on their landline? That kind of regulated like a utility? Sounds better then being charged on which of your neighbors you phone or not being allowed to phone any of your neighbors who the phone company doesn't like the politics off.
The phone company does own the lines, so perhaps they should be able to control how you use them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism