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.
I wish the U.S. had a healthy government.
No that's not quite right.
if it fails, they can use it as an issue against the whole Trump party.
If it succeeds, they can use that as a selling point for the Dems.
But it it fails OR if it succeeds, in every race, they can use a vote against network neutrality against the candidate. And any Republican who votes FOR this will lose money from big donors in the form of AT&T and Comcast.
Win, win, win.
This is not a pointless vote. This is good chess while being helpful for the country at the same time.
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.
That's just not true. The purpose behind Net Neutrality is not some sinister, monopolistic protection. It simply outlaws preferential treatment of data. All data must be treated with equal weight, priority, and bandwidth. The reason for the lack of competition is that ISPs have local monopolies or duopolies and they collude to keep things this way. Companies like Verizon, Charter, Comcast, etc. are given virtual monopolies at the city, township, or municipal levels. The monopoly can be easily subverted by pooling resources together and building out a community-based wireless network. There is nothing in the terms of service that explicitly states that a broadband connection cannot be shared. So your argument is founded on entirely what you've heard the anti-Net Neutrality politicians scream and yell. Sadly, you are supporting a group of individuals that seek to undermine your internet experience.
Not a single word of that is true or could be supported by anything in this bill of the original NN regulation.
It's easy to write accounts like yours off as a troll, but I think you're probably really and fucking crazy.
Title 2 just means that it's a public communications line and that no special conditions can be created to block or hinder access and that all rates must be reasonable and across the board.
No, Title 2 is a group of regulations for specific classifications and depending on the classification will decide which and how regulations are applied. Are Internet Service Providers a Information Service Provider or are they a Telecommunication Service Provider? Title 2 cannot regulate Information Service Providers because that is the way the law is written. Currently, ISPs are classified as Information Service Providers and thus are less regulated. The Obama-era FCC rules that were repealed effectively said "ISPs are Telecommunication Service Providers and we are going to pick and choose which regulation will apply regardless what the law says.". That is a horrible thing to do because not only does the FCC not have the authority to pick and choose which laws or regulations apply to which classification but it will be a matter of time before the exceptions will be applied because the law says so and as soon as the judiciary gets involved. Some of those exceptions are for example, decency rules. No more offensive content on the internet just like TV or Radio that do fall under Title 2. TV and Radio are Telecommunication Service Providers and if you classify the internet as such you will have a sanitized internet just like TV and Radio because that is the law. It would only be a matter of time and lawsuit.
What do you mean by "it's too transparent"? This move isn't trying to be subtle, there's nothing to see through here. The point is to force congressmen to be on the record about whether they are for or against network neutrality. That's it. The democrats who are pushing for this haven't claimed it's anything else, it doesn't look like it's anything else. That is clearly what it is.