Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Senate Votes To Save Net Neutrality (gizmodo.com)

Posted by msmash on from the take-that,-pai dept.

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.

44 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 Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      The FCC was never authorized.

      Of course they were and the court agree.

    2. Re:Not Save... Authorize... by Anubis+IV · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How do you figure? The FCC's congressional charter and subsequent amendments specifically authorize them to classify services under Title I and Title II and then regulate them accordingly, and the courts specifically upheld the FCC's authority to either enforce (or not enforce) Net Neutrality via Title II regulation. While I stridently disagree with what the FCC has done under Pai with regards to Net Neutrality, it's still well within their authority (though perhaps contrary to their purpose and mandate) to have done it, just as Wheeler's FCC was well within its authority to have classified the ISPs in a different manner.

    3. 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
    4. Re:Not Save... Authorize... by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 2

      That's ... not how courts work. At all.

    5. Re:Not Save... Authorize... by Baloroth · · Score: 2

      Wrong. It says that any standing army raised (which it gives Congress the explicit power to do) must have it's appropriations approved by Congress at least every 2 years (this is to help prevent the President from having exclusive long-term control over the army, even though he/she is the commander-in-chief). Nothing says that it can't approve the same funding year after year to create a permanent standing army. In fact, a standing army was approved by the first Congress.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    6. Re:Not Save... Authorize... by sexconker · · Score: 2

      The FCC exists to allocate radio spectrum, full stop.

      Read the charter.

    7. Re:Not Save... Authorize... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Funny

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

      In other words, you're expecting California to save your asses. Again.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    8. 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?"

    9. Re:Not Save... Authorize... by lessthan · · Score: 2

      Years of a media diet where the underdog saves the day produces them. It is a fundamental human glitch related to our desire to be special. Our "fresh and unique" perspective sees what others, blinded by their own mundanity, cannot. Part of growing up, that many never do, is accepting that we aren't that special. Before the Pollyannas jump on me, yes, we are special to the people who care about us and those connections are why "we are here," but that doesn't grant us special insight into fields that experts have been arguing about for years.

      I would also like to rag on a particular type of religous nut who has the gall to claim god speaks to them, except god seems to only say things that let them do whatever their id wants. Similar issue, pisses me off more.

      --
      Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
  2. Gesture is great but toothless, at this point by garcia · · Score: 5, Informative

    From the article:

    Still, todayâ(TM)s vote means the proposal will have to go the House where Democrats will need to convince 25 Republicans to support net neutrality in order for the measure to passâ"and they have until January of next year to do it.

    So, as of right now, this is largely a gesture but still a good first step.

    1. 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.

    2. Re:Gesture is great but toothless, at this point by olsmeister · · Score: 2
      bah, you left out the good part that came right after that!

      The viper pit of morons in that chamber will likely get distracted by Diamond and Silk or some shit before they ever get close to a positive vote.

    3. 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.

    4. Re:Gesture is great but toothless, at this point by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 4, Informative

      This isn't a law, it's an Act of Congress (enabled by an existing law). The President has as much legal right to veto it as you or I do.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    5. Re:Gesture is great but toothless, at this point by squiggleslash · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's worse than that, due to the Hastert rule the bill will never even be allowed a vote unless a majority of Republicans support it. So it's essentially dead in the water.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    6. 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.

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

      > There's no real provision in the constitution for an act of congress that can't be veto'd,

      Actually, there is:

      "Congress can override a veto by passing the act by a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate. (Usually an act is passed with a simple majority.)"

      https://www.archives.gov/files/legislative/resources/education/veto/background.pdf

    8. Re:Gesture is great but toothless, at this point by Anubis+IV · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This isn't a law, it's an Act of Congress (enabled by an existing law). The President has as much legal right to veto it as you or I do.

      Aside from the parenthetical statement, pretty much everything you said is factually incorrect.

      TL;DR: Yes, it is a law; no, it is not an Act of Congress; no, being an Act of Congress isn't to the exclusion of being a law; and yes, the President can veto it.

      Getting into the specifics...
      1) The House hasn't voted on it yet, so it's not a law yet if we want to get technical, but it will be if it successfully goes through the rest of the political process, the same as any other law that began in Congress. As such, it's fair to colloquially refer to it as a "law" (e.g. "The Senate passed a law"), just as you might with a bill or whatnot (more on the "whatnot" in a minute), even though those aren't technically laws yet either.

      2) By that same token, it's not an Act of Congress yet either, since it needs to pass both chambers of Congress to be an Act of Congress.

      3) Of note, laws are Acts of Congress, so saying, "This isn't a law, it's an Act of Congress" makes about as much sense as saying that an orange isn't an orange because it's a fruit. The one isn't to the exclusion of the other.

      4) What passed today was technically an accelerated joint resolution per the Congressional Review Act (the "existing law" you referred to). Joint resolutions are basically just bills by another name, so far as you and I are concerned. Both are used to pass laws using virtually identical procedures. They get used in different situations, but otherwise the only everyday difference is that bills create laws known as Acts (e.g. Congressional Review Act), whereas joint resolutions create laws known as Resolutions (e.g. Iraq Resolution). Again, both of them create laws.

      5) As with bills, the President absolutely can veto this, since joint resolutions cross his desk the same as bills do after they pass both chambers of Congress with a simple majority (with one notable exception: a joint resolution to amend the US Constitution does not cross the President's desk). Should he veto it, Congress can override him with a 2/3 supermajority of both chambers, again, the same as with bills.

    9. Re:Gesture is great but toothless, at this point by DamnOregonian · · Score: 2

      I hope you're right. I think Trump has the uhhh... let's just call it "what it takes"... to cause a full-blown constitutional crisis and refuse to acknowledge the authority of anyone who tries to remove him. It's not like there's a fucking enforcement mechanism outside of coup.

  3. Thank goodness by Mark4ST · · Score: 4, Funny

    Thank goodness! Now I can get back to using the internet for what it was invented for: pornography.

  4. 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 Dragonslicer · · Score: 2

      The three republicans who broke ranks... well, they took an actual risk of alienating a major source of party funding and of facing a future primary challenge, so I'll give them credit.

      Kennedy, maybe, but Collins and Murkowski have already recently voted against the rest of the Republican party on issues that were more important to most voters.

    3. 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:Everything that's wrong with U.S. politics by HeckRuler · · Score: 2

      Well... no. The party lines are pretty obvious here. The Republicans like big business, and business in general. They don't like regulation and have that laisee-fare "let the market decide" attitude. Democrats also like big business, and business in general, but they like to have the government regulate them into playing nice and fair.

      And let me be REAL CLEAR about this: Prior to the FCC's ruling about common carriers, the Internet WAS AND IS (mostly) network neutral. There are some exceptions, but the the concept that any ISP would break network neutrality was enough that customers would balk and go to the competition. The free market kept American ISPs supporting network neutrality. By and far, they depended upon it. Before the market consolidated into a handful of cable companies that carved up the US into territories they refuse to compete for.

      The republicans want to go back to the old ways of that new frontier level of lawlessness because those were good times. But they fail to see how times have changed. When even Mr. moneybags Google can't make a buck and expand their fiber services, the barrier to entry is HELLA high. And that's through artificial market manipulation in the form of suing anyone that tries to touch telecom poles and selectively dropping prices wherever fiber comes to town.

      I have zero confidence in Congress's ability to craft viable Network Neutrality legislation. Oh dear god we don't want that. They'll just take whatever ComCast hands them and put that to vote. No, reclassifying them as common carriers with the nice broad language of that old bill that goes along the lines of "don't fuck with the pipes" was the absolute best we could ever hope for. And I would really like it to come back.

      Least we have:

      • Regular lanes and peasant lanes
      • ESPN360.com making deals with ISPs direct and turning the Internet into package deals like cable TV
      • ISPs deciding which protocols are valid, tyrants bribing or forcing corporations to selectively censor traffic
      • Screwing with competitors services
    5. Re:Everything that's wrong with U.S. politics by synaptik · · Score: 2

      The Net Neutrality regulations were a bad solution to a non-problem.

      Cable internet companies throttling people's Netflix streams because they want those people to get frustrated w/ Netflix and switch to their cable TV packages, is a non-problem?

      --
      HSJ$$*&#^!#+++ATH0
      NO CARRIER
    6. Re:Everything that's wrong with U.S. politics by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Actually, it proves that 52 of them do

      Actually it proves 3 do. Some of the 49 democrats may do, but then they could just be voting along party lines. Actually caring about people involves more than deciding which colour of tie you are wearing.

  5. Re:"Saved" here means nothing, right? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 4, Informative

    And then it goes to the house and then the potato-in-chief

    Half true. It goes to the House. It's not a law, so no POTUS involvement.

    Importantly, because it's not a law, it can go to the House after the next election. Your vote matters.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
  6. It won't matter by Defcon79 · · Score: 2

    This is just a minor bump, if that. The Republican party is determined to overthrow any and all measures that might actually people vs corporations. Its quite ridiculous that things have come to this. But the people are to blame, we are the ones who elected Trump, and polls show that if the elections were held today, he'd win again. After all the lies and hypocrisy. America is stupid.

    1. Re:It won't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah. Those mean old Republicans are spoiling everybody's fun. Taking away our Net Neutrality and beating up on those poor, defenseless Democrats. This meaningless gesture will show them! The Democrats won't take this kind of act laying down!

      Oh wait. They will take it laying down, because that's the part they play in this little charade. They are The Party Not Currently In Power (tm) and so they must shake their fists at The Party Currently In Power (tm) and tell the Unwashed Masses (tm) (that's you and me, buddy) how bad the other side is and how they just can't do anything.

      Meanwhile nothing gets down FOR the people, but a lot gets done TOO the people -- just like it always has. Just like it does with the Democrats are in power.

      Face it: this is all just an act. There is no Democracy. There are the Rich and the rest of us and the Rich are using this sham government to strip every last penny they can from us.

    2. Re:It won't matter by Snotnose · · Score: 2

      Yeah, we'll forget the fact that the Dems, specifically the DNC and Wasserman-Shit, did everything in their power to ensure their candidate would be the only person Trump could beat in an election.

      fuckwits. Brainless fuckwits.

  7. Three Senators, not two by jbmartin6 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Three Republican senators voted in favor: Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)

    --
    This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    1. Re:Three Senators, not two by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 2

      To be clear too - every single republican except those 3 voted against, every single Democrat voted for.

      For those who spout "both parties are the same!" ;).

  8. 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.

  9. Re:I'm angry by Dragonslicer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    She is a republican woman. She wouldn't have a chance. The liberals would call her stupid, ugly, unqualified, and any other misogynistic name they could come up with.

    Do you have any evidence to support this prediction, or is it just blind hatred?

    Also, "stupid" and "unqualified" are not misogynistic terms. Carly Fiorina wasn't called unqualified because she's a woman, it was because she campaigned based on her experience as a corporate executive, when her only such experience was nearly destroying HP. Sarah Palin wasn't called stupid because she's a woman, it was because, well, she just isn't very smart; after all, she claimed diplomatic skill based on being able to see Russia from her home.

  10. I know it's not popular to say this by rsilvergun · · Score: 2, Insightful

    but I don't think the Republican party is redeemable. The Democrats at least have the Bernie wing and Liz Warren. I can't name one person on the Republican side that seems to have American interests at heart unless you count some of the warhawks push for US Hegemony at all costs (John Bolton I'm looking at you). The Republicans have gone too far down the rabbit hole of accepting corporate cash.

    I think the defining moment for me was when those Parkland shooting victims called Mark Rubio out on the NRA donations and he counted it by saying anyone should be able to "Buy Into" him; not realizing (caring?) that if I'm "buying in" to a politician then he's not really serving me...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  11. Raspberries to the other repugs by Tough+Love · · Score: 2

    WTF happened to good government in the USA? Sense of decency in 96% of republicans?

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    1. Re:Raspberries to the other repugs by Tough+Love · · Score: 2

      the Obama administration passing the ACA without any Republican support using a legal but marginally ethical procedure. IMHO, that burned any remaining bridges between the two parties and they haven't cooperated ever since.

      The republicans were completely uncooperative, and arguably completely dysfunctional long before that.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  12. 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.

  13. Re:Not Anything Actually by Tough+Love · · Score: 2

    Stay and help retire the rednecks.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  14. 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/
    1. Re:Internet's National by DamnOregonian · · Score: 2

      I swear, I wish we'd have just let the bloody South go.

      Unfortunately, those really bright boys down in the great state of South Carolina had to go and fuck up a so-far-so-good secession by opening fire on a fucking federal fort and prompting the greatest ass kicking in American history.
      You're right though. Shoulda swallowed the ol' pride and let em keep the fort.

  15. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion