Slashdot Mirror
House Democrats Plan April Vote On Net Neutrality Bill (theguardian.com)
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer announced that the House will hold a vote next month on the Democrats' bill to reinstate the Obama-era net neutrality rules. "Hoyer said in a letter to colleagues that the House will consider the Save the Internet Act during the week of April 8," reports The Hill. From the report: The Republican-led Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted along party lines in 2017 to repeal the popular regulations prohibiting internet service providers from blocking or throttling websites, or from creating internet fast lanes. Democrats and consumer groups are fighting the repeal with a legal challenge in federal court and have pushed net neutrality regulations at the state level.
While Republicans have floated their own bills to replace the rules, many oppose the Save the Internet Act because it reinstates the provision in the 2015 order that designates broadband providers as common carriers, opening them up to tougher regulation and oversight from the FCC. Though it enjoys widespread support among Democrats, the legislation may have a hard time getting through the GOP-held Senate. The "Save the Internet Act" was introduced earlier this month by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other House and Senate Democrats.
While Republicans have floated their own bills to replace the rules, many oppose the Save the Internet Act because it reinstates the provision in the 2015 order that designates broadband providers as common carriers, opening them up to tougher regulation and oversight from the FCC. Though it enjoys widespread support among Democrats, the legislation may have a hard time getting through the GOP-held Senate. The "Save the Internet Act" was introduced earlier this month by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other House and Senate Democrats.
About bloody time, for this. Save the internet!!!
First law of people: People are generally stupid.
80-90% may be for NN, but only 20% think it is an important issue, and about 0.1% will change their vote because of it.
https://www.cnet.com/news/ajit-pai-fcc-broadband-adviser-nabbed-in-alleged-250m-fraud-plan/
https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/manhattan-us-attorney-announces-arrest-former-ceo-alaska-based-fiber-optic-company
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/12/fbi-investigating-identity-theft-in-net-neutrality-comments-report-says/
https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2018/03/02/fcc-ethics-violation-gun-nra/
http://fortune.com/2018/12/05/fcc-fraud-comments-chair-admits/
That statistic is bullshit.
Nothing worse than an endless parade of bills that are voted on just to virtue signal, with no chance of accomplishing anything.
Would be nice if everyone would try to work together to solve real problems.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
'nuff said.
That's really a big problem, isn't it? To support Net Neutrality, I have to support a politician who aligns with values that are completely unrelated.
I can't blame someone who thinks other issues are more important. But we shouldn't have to make that choice in the first place.
(Just to be clear... I do personally support many of those values.)
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
I don't mean to contradict you, but he's not wrong, THIS time.
Nothing worse than an endless parade of bills that are voted on just to virtue signal, with no chance of accomplishing anything.
Lots of stuff is worse, but it is pretty stupid. We are paying millions of dollars for Congress to spend time on a show-vote. You'd be better off shutting off all Congressional salaries for a day and hiring a few extra math teachers, for example.
Would be nice if everyone would try to work together to solve real problems.
You must be new here...
This is only "Team Red" and "Team Blue" arguing in public, desperately trying to maintain the illusion of two separate political parties.
When all is said and done, nothing will change.
Go on, citizen, stamp the vote card. R or D, your choice.
the Democrats are being really stupid about this. Why on earth would they bring this to bear when they already know the president will veto it? It's just going to make it less likely that the next congress will bring up such a bill.
You have inadvertently revealed the game. Make sure to vote for things that are popular when they can have no effect, so that you'll not be voting on things later that might make the giant corporations that support you mad.
It's the same reason why neither the Democrats nor Republicans ever seem to get much passed when they control both house and senate.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The optics for the President, because 80-90% of the public supports Net Neutrality,
How many of those that "supports" net neutrality will care one whit about that issue when it comes time to vote. Maybe 0.001% of the populace would even think about it.
You are right about optics, but it seems like a really stupid use of resources given it cannot actually pass, nor do any candidate any good whatsoever.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
But in the end, we can see the real damage to the Internet is from Silicon Valley monopolies enforcing restrictions on speech and suppressing their competition to prevent any actual free speech supporting platforms from starting up. Then they say their don't "editiorialize" and thus get to benefit from protections from law enforcement when they let actual unlawful behavior roam free while at the same time, enforcing their own politics in their moderation.
What we need now is not to suppress ISP. We need an actual "Neutrality bill. We need the Internet Bill of Rights. We also need to make sure to remove protections from prosecution from Social media platform when they fail to remove unlawful content. Maybe then they'll spend time actually enforcing stuff that's illegal, rather than selecting which voices get to speak based on politics.
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
it's to get the GOP on record as opposing net neutrality. Right now a lot of the ones that run in unsafe districts will tell you with straight face that they love Net Neutrality... much like Senator Palpatine Loved Democracy, but they can't stand those icky bureaucrats misusing the Telecom Act to force it and oh, if only there were a law.
This is put up or shut up time for those schmucks, and with how much cable money and AT&T cash they're sitting on it'll be shutup. In turn that'll be an issue in 2020 that might cost them their seat and give it to a Democrat. If that happens enough times then the Dems will pass the bill.
This is how the sausage is made. Don't like it? Go vote for a Democrat in 2020. And if you don't like the candidates vote in your primary dammit.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
where the GOP oppose the will of voters. Get enough of them and folks will stop voting for them.
Most Americans support a $15 minimum wage, Medicare for All, ending the 8 wars we're in, tuition free college and even a federal jobs program of one kind or another. This is one nail in the coffin of the guys who've been screwing us over since the 80s (and that goes for any Dems who don't vote for it, especially in the Senate).
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
(ISP:) "We will let you stream Netflix ultra fast, faster than most websites _can deliver_(weasel words)!"
(pol's:) "We want to ensure fairness in regards to internet traffic."
Now which statement will win the heart of minds of the majority of the populace?
Nothing worse than an endless parade of bills that are voted on just to virtue signal, with no chance of accomplishing anything.
It's not virtue signalling if they really do want to pass it into legislation. It indicates to voters who is preventing legislation from being enacted that is widely supported by the public.
Would be nice if everyone would try to work together to solve real problems.
Alternatively, the public can be shown who should be voted out because they are not acting in the interests of the public.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
I became politically aware during Reagan and Bush1's presidency, with control of Congress split. I thought it was was the worst thing ever that Congress couldn't get anything done. Then I got to experience the Democrats controlling both branches of Congress under Bush1, Clinton, and Obama; and the Republicans controlling both branches under Clinton, Bush2, and Trump. Trust me, it's better when control is split.
See, Americans are on average centrist. Unfortunately, our plurality wins election system means the optimal solution is for there to be only 2 political parties - if you vote for a third party it's essentially a vote for the opposition party, as it takes away a vote away from the major party you more closely agree with. So when one of the two major parties has complete control, it results in laws and policies being passed which are either to the left or right of what Americans on average want. Worse yet, the extreme left and right are disproportionately effective at controlling both parties because those in the middle are split between two parties so their influence is halved, and each party is completely missing the opposite opposing viewpoints needed to balance out the extreme positions.
So as bad as do-nothing split control is, it's preferable to one party being in control and passing stuff which is far to the left or right of what most Americans really want. The only real fix is some sort of instant runoff voting system, which allows you to vote for the candidate you really want, without fear of wasting your vote if that candidate doesn't really have a shot at winning.
>"I can't blame someone who thinks other issues are more important. But we shouldn't have to make that choice in the first place."
Yet we always do, because we don't have much choice [in the USA]. There are actually only two parties (because of our horrible voting system). So the two take set stances on a whole sets of things, many of which most don't necessarily agree, so most voters are just SOL. We are forced to pick which issues are the most important- sometimes it might be only ONE issue, and all the other stuff we might not like comes along with the vote.
Currently, the only other option is voting "3rd party." And that almost always ensures you are not only "throwing away" your vote, but also ensures the party you LEAST agree with will benefit from that vote due to the very real spoiler effect.
The only solution is to have more parties so additional ones can form that more closely represent various positions and also help force the large/established parties to change and become more responsive. And that can only happen with some form of ranked voting system in the primaries and elections (like Instant Runoff Voting).
http://fairvote.org/
Worse, this isn't about what you think of "network neutrality." This is 100% about pushing CALEA requirements onto the internet. You do want all of your data snarfable without a warrant, right?
Yep, or Approval or Score voting methods.
We are forced to pick which issues are the most important- sometimes it might be only ONE issue, and all the other stuff we might not like comes along with the vote.
And I've noticed that over time, it is easy to become agreeable with those other stances, to the point we fight for them as hard as our primary issue. I did that for a while until I decided not to immediately dismiss the "other side".
Now I tend to dig deep and look for compatibilities between each side, and from my perspective they are fairly agreeable for the 90%+ of circumstances which people don't talk about in political discussions.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
To keep your internet slow thanks to new federal rules and laws.
No innovation, what of new innovative community broadband?
Back to more federal rules and laws to keep existing network speeds.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Speaker Pelosi is doing exactly what Speaker Ryan, Speaker Boehner, Speaker Wright, etc all did --- Having votes on bills the party base voters care about but which will never go through the Senate and never be signed into law by the president. Same thing Boehner and Ryan both pulled with Obamacare --- those guys had votes in the House something like 60 times to repeal Obamacare and they really ramped up the enthusiasm of their base voters who were thus manipulated tnto thinking "if we just turn-out better in the next election then this stuff will obviously pass and become law." Of course, it's NOT so obvious to career politicians that this will pass [wink]...
The dirty little secret in DC was exposed by the last House: when it finally DID have the "right" Senate majority and President then suddenly could not pull the trigger -- and that was no mistake. The secret is that neither party establishment has any intention of solving anything --- actually solving anything would eliminate a fund raising and get-out-the-vote mobilizing theme. The Republican establishment was just as terrified of Trump as the Democrats were, since he was serious about doing stuff they'd been yammering about for decades and they suspected he actually meant it --- their response was to help the Democrats stop him. The Democrat establishment is the same. They will rant and rave about all sorts of stuff like this without actually doing it --- for now they'll blame the failure on the Republican Senate or President Trump. If they get an establishment Democrat into the White House in 2020, they'll have all sorts of procedural reasons why it cannot be done, and if they get a wild-eyed bushy-tailed progressive into the White House, then the establishment will align with their uniparty pals in the GOP establishment to stop it.
Young people who want cheaper access to Netflix are far less important to politicians than the wealthy special interests who fund their campaigns. It's the same for the DNC and for the RNC and voters need to wake up and stop being so easilly manipulated.
Cause that's all these kinds of bills are good for. Slipping in some pork at the last minute for high dollar contributors or some pet project(s) back in the home district for the bill's sponsor. Oh just never mind that small paragraph on the 2nd to last page, it's just "legal boiler plate"
In the Senate, under sham votes to get the other party on record.
GOP attempted to pass a bill protecting live born babies from being "aborted" after born alive. DNC voted in block NO on it.
GOP is bringing up Green New Deal for vote in Senate, Schumer was upset saying they were trying to kill it by bringing it up for vote.
So we have DNC on record supporting killing live babies and against voting on Green New Deal. We have GOP on record against NN which you have trouble explaining to the average person.
DNC, and you, appear to be far dumber than average. Keep telling us how killing live born babies is a good thing.
I see the Democrats are still trying to reign in control of the internet with their obtuse and incorrectly worded "save the internet act" which does anything but save the internet. For Democrats saving the internet means government controlling the internet. Ah, well. Democrats can apparently do no wrong.
that he pre-states will be blocked by the democrats? And why haven't you JAQed off THIS question when it's come up MULTIPLE TIMES BEFORE, but only when it's the democrats trying to do something? Are you trying to pretend concern so that the dems won't try anything? That reason fits the data we have available.
And to do so you both maligned the politicians trying o do something positive AND everyone who isnt your enlightened educated self who knows what NN is, even though you never say what YOU think it is.
Kinda fucked up your concern there to show it wasn't genuine concern, just concern trolling to get people to think that politicians TRYING to do something positive is a bad idea if it's democratic politicians doing the trying against the wishes of the republicans.
You are a conservative so you gave the conservative view and the conservative's view on the non conservative's view.
Remember your post about how "nobody knows" what NN is, so the 80-90% stat is to your desires "worthless"?
You DESERVE the insults, shithead.
Because NN has always meant that you treat the source and destination equally in priority, and it is only the pro-corporate shills, the trolls and the cantankerously-against-the-democrats-no-matter-what who insist that either THEY have the "right" definition or everyone else gets it wrong.
Getting politicians on the record opposing popular legislation is just as important as getting them to support it. So you can vote them out of office in the next election, after which your bill is brought up again. If it's still blocked, repeat the process until it is passed.
It wasn't "both sides refused to comply". Trump refuses to comply, Obama did comply. Tax returns were never asked for from Obama because he gave them up without asking. His birth certificate was given over when demanded. If he doesn't HAVE something, it isn't refusing to not give what isn't there.
Oh, and when the demands for Sec State info came out from you rightwing nutbags, not only was the info handed over, it included personal emails from Hillary too, which wasn't legally required to be handed over.
oppose Net Neutrality. Folks like Nancy Pelosi & Chuck Schumer (though at the moment I think the party's base has dragged them in line).
Basically, there's a class of right wing Democrats who vote like Republicans on just about everything (except maybe Abortion & the ACA). These are typically called Corporate Democrats, "Clinton" Democrats of (if you're one of them) "New" Democrats. They're functionally identical to a Republican but run as Democrats.
This is why it's important to show up to your primary. There's right wingers on both sides and they both support the same right wing policies.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The internet was unfair until the last year of Obama. He decided he needed to put his chosen few in charge as he was out of time. A lot of freedom loving people here seem to skip that basic fact. Power grabs hurt us all.
It's not even the Pres.
It's the Senate; McConnell will never bring up bills that have the slightest odor of not helping big donors.
They force lawmakers to take a stand and vote.
Is that what you mean by virtue signalling?
I can think of plenty of worse things.
FUD FUD FUD!
That their own taxes pay for these things, and don't consider them "free".
It is a straw man to say those who want government programs want "free" things.
#JusticeDemocrats #Wolf-PAC #TYT #TYTNetwork #TuckerCalsonFucksHisRoomba
when you explain the benefits (or, in the case of Medicare for All, that it's several trillion cheaper than our current system).
Yeah, you can game polls, but you can't game reality. The folks down in North Carolina just got a lesson in that.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Most Americans do indeed support "Medicare for all" when they are told it means free unlimited medical care at bargain prices,
But
They oppose it when they are then told the truth, namely, that Medicare only works by cost-shifting the healcare costs of the elderly onto people with private insurance, who then end up paying a lot more for their meds, tests, operations, and doctord visits - and that if you eliminate private insurance all you end up doing is eliminating Medicare and putting all Americans into a big government-run health rationing service.
No private insurance, which is what "Medicare for all" proposes, makes Medicare impossible.