Slashdot Mirror
Net Neutrality Bill 38 Votes Short In Congress, and Time Has Almost Run Out (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Legislation to restore net neutrality rules now has 180 supporters in the U.S. House of Representatives, but that's 38 votes short of the amount needed before the end of the month. The Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution, already approved by the Senate, would reverse the Federal Communications Commission's repeal of net neutrality rules. But 218 signatures from U.S. representatives (a majority) are needed to force a full vote in the House before Congress adjourns at the end of the year.
Net neutrality advocates previously said they needed 218 signatures by December 10 to force a vote. But an extension of Congress' session provided a little more time. "[Now that the Congressional session has officially been extended, members of Congress could be in town as late as December 21st," net neutrality advocacy group Fight for the Future wrote yesterday. "This means we have until the end of the year to get as many lawmakers as possible signed on to restore net neutrality." A discharge petition that would force a vote on the CRA resolution gained three new supports in the past two weeks, but even if all Democrats were on board it still wouldn't be enough to force a vote. Republicans have a 236-197 House majority, and only one House Republican has signed the petition.
Net neutrality advocates previously said they needed 218 signatures by December 10 to force a vote. But an extension of Congress' session provided a little more time. "[Now that the Congressional session has officially been extended, members of Congress could be in town as late as December 21st," net neutrality advocacy group Fight for the Future wrote yesterday. "This means we have until the end of the year to get as many lawmakers as possible signed on to restore net neutrality." A discharge petition that would force a vote on the CRA resolution gained three new supports in the past two weeks, but even if all Democrats were on board it still wouldn't be enough to force a vote. Republicans have a 236-197 House majority, and only one House Republican has signed the petition.
Except that Democrats are overwhelmingly in favor of Net Neutrality, while republicans are 99% opposed.
Hmm it's almost like there is a clear difference between the parties an a critical issue at impacts all of us.
You might even say that the bothsiderism that people who are stupid or intellectually dishonest constantly engage in is absolute fraudulent nonsense.
Well, lets see, almost all votes for NN are from Democrats, including centrist democrats. Only one single republican supports this legislation.
So when you say to vote out the Clinton democrats you are telling us to vote out the people who actually signed their name to this legislation, while fail to even acknowledge that the republican party is 99% against net neutrality.
This ridiculous claim that both sides are at fault when one is at fault while the other works to protect us is the exact reason that our country is in the mess we are in.
I hope Bernie Sanders gets last place in the primary, tied with some other sore loser who can't tell the difference between his allies and his adversaries.
Ah yes, we shouldn't forget about the freedom of our local cable monopoly to block or curtail access to the services that make the internet what it is.
Republicans favor the Net Neutrality we have today.
Yeah, it's so fucking awesome to have a single choice of broadband provider, one which now has carte blanche to implement whatever means they deem necessary to squeeze more profit out of a market they've monopolized.
Government regulation is not the best solution, but voting for regulation is all that remains when voting with your wallet is not an option. The fault is not with those of us who were forced into a corner and vote "left". The fault lies with businesses who have chosen not to play fairly at the game of capitalism. We're simply demanding they be held accountable.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
I sincerely do not understand slashdot's near religious devotion to this. I honestly want to understand what I am missing. As I understand it, net neutrality basically says that you do not want to have the cost of your internet usage be proportional to how much you use. It does not seem wrong to me that if you use a ton, pay more or get throttled. Otherwise, someone else is paying the bill for your usage.
So, am I off or is this just a case of millennial wanting free stuff?
"Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.
Please stop confounding NN with content creators like Facebook. NN is about the transport layer, not the content. Treat all content equally, blindly. If it's possible to stream X mb/s from Netflix, don't throttle it to 1 mb/s to upsell your own competing content.
NN also means that all sites on the internet are reachable. ISPs should not be curating the internet nor deciding what's best for you.