Slashdot Mirror
Senate Democrats Force a Vote To Restore Net Neutrality (theverge.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) and 32 other Democrats have submitted a new discharge petition under the Congressional Review Act, setting the stage for a full congressional vote to restore net neutrality. Because of the unique CRA process, the petition has the power to force a Senate vote on the resolution, which leaders say is expected next week. The Congressional Review Act allows Congress to roll back regulations within 60 legislative days of introduction, a process that today's resolution would apply to the internet rules introduced by FCC chairman Ajit Pai in December. Pai's rules reversed the 2015 Open Internet Order, which had explicitly banned blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization by internet providers. To successfully undo the Pai order and restore the 2015 rules, today's resolution would need a bare majority in both the Senate and the House, as well as the president's signature.
This is how you win votes.
Your bill will go up anyway.
I wish the U.S. had a healthy government.
We are in the silly season for the midterm elections and the Senate is in full clown car mode...
Step right up folks, Watch wile we VOTE on some pointless bill! Yea, it will be a great side show before we all dive into the clown car and head to the center ring for the mud and cream pie throwing contest between the elephants and donkeys in November, just be sure to buy your ticket!
Seriously, this is nothing more than a show vote, designed to elicit campaign donations and collect stuff to use in all the ad buys in the late summer. Politics as usual, get nothing done by not trying very hard, complain about your opponent (or their party) obstructing on some quasi issue to get elected.. No wonder Congress has such a low approval rating.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
your federal paper insulated wireline monopoly ...
How is going back to a NN protected monopoly going to move community broadband forward?
Consider the federal rules that protected monopoly paper insulated wireline for years.
That did not to result in competition, new network, faster networks.
With federal NN rules the existing monopoly networks got protection.
Time to start allowing some completion and new innovate services.
Using new federal rules to protect networks using NN will not result in innovate new services.
Open networking up to the free market and some real competition.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
as well as the president's signature.
Good luck with that.
Wasting time by voting on something that cannot become law because of a presidential veto...
are you going to watch the vote and throw out anybody who votes 'nay'? If not, this is a waste of time. Heck, is there even anybody on this forum who is gonna change their voting behavior in response to Net Neutrality? And if not, what are the odds there's anybody anywhere who will?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Even if it passes, it won't be signed by Trump.
"The President may also choose to veto the bill, returning it to Congress with his objections. In such a case, the bill only becomes law if each house of Congress votes to override the veto with a two-thirds majority."
(a joint resolution follows the same procedure as a bill, at least for this case)
We have a stupid, petty, transparent president. As the poop hits the fan about how he took what looks a LOT like illegal money from AT&T, he will sign to show he's not being bought, provided the Dems push the AT&T connection hard.
WTF? Trump did not take any illegal money from AT&T. You need to read/watch news from somewhere other than CNN. None of your liberal "poop hits the fan" schemes have panned out yet and this won't either because it is fake news.
They are ignoring 2 referrals for charging McCabe for lying to FBI during Trump investigation.
2 FBI agents fired from Muller probe for unethical behaviour, possibly illegal behaviour.
A couple prosecutors being bashed by a judge and will be held in contempt of court for not producing what the judge ordered.
Charging Flynn of lying to FBI, then redacting the part where the FBI says he didn't lie for "security reasons"
Failing to comply with MULTIPLE Congressional subpoenas about scope of investigation.
Failure to be ready to try case where they charged Russians with interfering with election and telling them they don't have a right to see evidence they are charged with.
All info based on a FISA warrant illegally obtained by Comey, Lynch, Roseinstein, and Yates lying on the FISA application to the judge.
Thats quite a LOT of illegal activity for a group of 20 people on a SINGLE investigation. Of the charges they have come up with, Flynn appears to have been charged illegally, the 13 Russians appear to have been charged without evidence, Manifort appears to be charged illegally. Not sure why Gates and Popadapoulous pled out, I bet their charges were also illegal.
Its pretty bad when the investigators have committed more in number and seriousness crimes than those they have charged.
So did they actually go and write a decent technical bill and address the issues or did they just copy the sloppy one that the FCC was smart in getting rid of?
Congress never voted on Net Neutrality. It was handed down as a regulatory fiat.
because THIS congress would never pass pro-network neutrality legislation, criticize the administration or trump's fcc, or overturn ashit pile's ramrod of anti-obama actions... this isn't some lame duck legislation (too early for that) that'll cruise through; it's fucking dead-on-arrival.
once it fails, and it will; the administration and congressional leaders (i.e. republican establishment), can bury the issue:
"see? nobody wanted it, so fuck off while i go cash this check from comcast."
"To successfully undo the Pai order and restore the 2015 rules, today's resolution would need a bare majority in both the Senate and the House, as well as the president's signature."
I can't see Trump seeing the outside of his own ass long enough to sign off on this even if the house and senate agree to roll them back.
And given that the republicans are in majority here, I can't see it even getting to the president's desk.
And what did you get? A fib to congress BECAUSE he was called up and a big fat fuck all for the other. Yet what were you all chanting? Lock her up,wasn't it?
What the hell are you babbling on about the 2nd being nearly dead you fucking idiot???
With some states passing Net Neutrality Laws, Republicans will be able to argue for States Rights and Low Regulations in voting against a Net Neutrality repeal.
It's about telling the ISPs that they can't route IP based on source or destination, thereby double dipping or using monopoly power to screw over the customers. There is a huge limit: it costs a shitload. And the big players can see it's better not to break into someone else's turf because they will break into yours, and it's more profitable to keep it that way because without any choice, the customer gets screwed.
Congress told FCC to do this, and so they have the right to do it as given by congress. Just like congress don't have to pick up guns and shoot, nor tell the armed forces where to go and what to do in each battlefield, they tell the head of the armed forces to get the hell on with it and then every "regulation" done to the army is done by the head of the armed forces.
You are just repeating a fox script.
To say it's not nearly dead compared to its original meaning ad purpose is willful misrepresentation. The original purpose was equipping the population (all able-bodied adults were automatically members of the militia, it wasn't like the Guard) for military battle; against foreign invaders or a tyrannical government. 'Arms' were all weapons the military possessed. While it's eminently reasonable to restrict weapon types now, that's severely narrowing the right. Now we're seeing that slippery slope going even further with "assault weapon" bans. Reasonable? An honest debate. Further killing the 2nd? Undoubtedly.
The other major point, what other civil right can be taken away permanently as punishment? You can't lose your right to free speech. Nor your 4A rights. The idea that you can strip someone of an entire right would be intolerable to the founders and has no basis in the constitution. To make a civil right something taken away permanently as punishment is driving a stake straight through the heart of it. However reasonable it is for violent felons, there's no rational connection to taking it away from someone convicted of something like insider trading.
That's being taken even further now, taking the right away from people who have not even committed a crime, just on a judges finding, not even a jury.
No matter how reasonable and necessary some of that is, the fact is limiting it to a tiny subset of weapons and taking it away from people as a punishment and without a conviction makes it nearly dead. It's tiring seeing people who try and claim the 2nd only actually meant whatever ultra-narrow meaning they like so they can do end-runs around it instead of just owning up and saying 'this amendment needs to be changed'.
Heh, Trump is less popular than Jimmy Carter after the botched mission to rescue those hostages the Iranians were holding.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Democrats vote keep, Republicans vote repeal. Party lines. Every time.
This is just a smart way for democrats to get votes on record to campaign against the republicans.
It's not going to get a majority in the house and a presidential signature in an election year. So the devil is in the details as they say. "need a bare majority in both the Senate and the House, as well as the president's signature." Buh-bye.
Really? He's above Obama for this point in his term, if but barely. Plus, he's been trending up since April started.
https://www.washingtonexaminer...
https://www.realclearpolitics....
I think you are a bit misinformed.
The fact that one cherry-picked poll, Rasmussen, has a favourable number doesn't mean much. There are many other polls that have Trump as low as 39 percent.
An article talking about some nuance in these types of numbers:
* https://www.factcheck.org/2018/04/presidential-approval-numbers/
As usually, 538 has some good data with their weighted average:
* https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/
Scroll down a bit and you can get comparisons with previous presidents: on Day 476, Obama had a weighted average approval of 49.5% to Trump's 42%.
The decisive action against the Second actually dates to 1986, when owning an automatic firearm made after that date became illegal. Because of that bill, civilians can't buy modern infantry rifles. The Second mentions militia, which is military, so if it had any intent it was to allow people in general to own military weapons.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Thanks for at least somewhat caring; if anything, it shows the govt. officials that actually seem to care about the issue.
Even if this ends up passing, I wonder if there is any technical solution to this? It'd be nice if there was a way to keep this kind of problem from being able to adversely affect users of the internet without having to rely on constantly making sure that our civil liberties are not being eroded; I guess that is political participation and democracy for you-and what the ACLU, EFF, and the friends are for ðY.
And issues I have read in a while.
We can't stave this off though because the majority of the public doesn't care enough to become educated about their rights, why they are important, or why they need to defend them now, because unlike when our forefathers rebelled, boots won't be required on the ground to purge the insurgents, and unless a huge quantity of the populace rebel, quashing them will be easy to cover up or rebrand in the media, as has been carefully cultivated in foreign campaigns for going on 200 years now.