Slashdot Mirror


Senate Votes To Save Net Neutrality (gizmodo.com)

In a monumental decision that will resonate through election season, the U.S. Senate on Wednesday voted to reinstate the net neutrality protections the Federal Communications Commission decided to repeal late last year. From a report: For months, procedural red tape has delayed the full implementation of the FCC's decision to drop Title II protections that prevent internet service providers from blocking or throttling online content. Last week, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai confirmed that the repeal of the 2015 Open Internet Order would go into effect on June 11. But Democrats put forth a resolution to use its power under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to review new regulations by federal agencies through an expedited legislative process. All 49 Democrats in the Senate supported the effort to undo the FCC's vote. Republicans, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, John Kennedy of Louisiana and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska crossed party lines to support the measure. Further reading: ArsTechnica.

12 of 288 comments (clear)

  1. Not Save... Authorize... by Tulsa_Time · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The FCC was never authorized.

    --
    5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
    1. Re:Not Save... Authorize... by Tulsa_Time · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

      Let a few states pass laws that say they will not do business with ISPs that are not Neutral and problem solved...

      10th Amendment - Underrated and under appreciated.

      --
      5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
    2. Re:Not Save... Authorize... by pots · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The FCC very obviously falls under the interstate commerce clause. Are you seriously trying to claim that a simplistic reading of the constitution is enough to invalidate their authority? An argument that eighty years of extremely litigious broadcasters and telcos and ISPs have never been able to sell in a courtroom, with judges who actually know something about constitutional law?

      Where does this constitution-thumping bullshit come from anyway? This stuff is complicated, and thoroughly examined. Is some laymen really going to come along and say, "Hey, I read the constitution once. Did you know that everything I don't like is illegal?"

  2. Re:Gesture is great but toothless, at this point by barc0001 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes, but all the House seats are up for re-election in November. It could very well be by January they no longer need any Republican support if the Dems take the House.

  3. Everything that's wrong with U.S. politics by nwaack · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This should not have been a vote across party lines! This vote, and others like it, just prove that congress-critters couldn't give a flying f#ck about the people they're mean to represent.

    1. Re:Everything that's wrong with U.S. politics by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This vote, and others like it, just prove that congress-critters couldn't give a flying f#ck about the people they're mean to represent.

      Actually, it proves that 52 of them do

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    2. Re:Everything that's wrong with U.S. politics by psmoot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sure. That's why they should have tried to pass a bill under the previous President. Oh wait, that would have been DOA in Congress too.

      This, and things like the Iran Nuke deal, underscore how shaky it is to bypass Congress and administer "with a pen and a phone". Anything done unilaterally by one administration can just as quickly be undone by the next, as we're now seeing. If a President wants to accomplish something lasting, he or she needs to get Congress to go along with it and pass some legislation. Otherwise, your legacy is built on a foundation of sand.

      Yay Founding Fathers for making it harder to implement controversial policies without getting broad support. That's not sarcasm, this is why we have separate branches.

      In this case, I'm happy with current outcome. The Net Neutrality regulations were a bad solution to a non-problem. I'm sure there are other cases where I'll be less glad policy is flip-flopping every four to eight years.

  4. Re:Gesture is great but toothless, at this point by GregMmm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Not true. Everyone could vote for it in the House, and then it will go to the president...

    Veto. Dead and done.

    One the other hand, how about those same people in the Senate and the House stop wasting time with this stupid gesture and make a law. Eh that would take real work... Lets just play the politics game.

  5. Re:Gesture is great but toothless, at this point by mysidia · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Act of congress" or not, Acts under the Congressional review act have been made invalid by a presidential veto 12 times --- every time it was Obama.

    There's no real provision in the constitution for an act of congress that can't be veto'd, aside from setting house rules, impeachment proceedings, or constitutional amendments.

  6. Re:Not Anything Actually by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Symbolic bullshit.

    Yes, but as a Texan I note Senator Ted Cruz voted on behalf of the mafia, so I will support Beto in November. Plus the very insincere form letter I received full of republican chicken speak helped me understand he doesn't even know what he's talking about. It would be nice to see a vote in the house to figure out which representatives also need to be replaced.

    Of course, Cruz will probably win anyway because Texas. Yee haw.

  7. Re:Not Anything Actually by youngone · · Score: 5, Insightful
    It seems a shame that if you don't like the Republican on offer your only realistic option to replace him is a Democrat.
    Some of us live in democracies. We might even have the option of 5 or 6 different parties.
    Some of those parties may not even sell us out for corporate money.

    It's nice.

  8. Internet's National by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    it's not even a stretch to put it under the commerce clause. How do you think Title II got created in the first place. Commerce Clause was created for _precisely_ these situtaions (e.g. having a level playing field among states for things that impact the business between states).

    Also, if you'll allow me to go off the rails a bit and vent: I'm getting a tad tired of folks hoping NY and CA will pull their fat out of the fire everytime the red states do something boneheaded (and yes, killing NN happened by a Republican and the vote that kills it in the House in a week or two will be along party lines, so let's stop kidding ourselves about which party is killing NN). I swear, I wish we'd have just let the bloody South go.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/