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.
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.
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
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/
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.
We also need to make sure to remove protections from prosecution from Social media platform when they fail to remove unlawful content.
Nope... Censorship is wrong.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
>"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/
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"
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?
CALEA requires a warrant but you're right when you say this isn't really about network neutrality. The democrats could have done a clean NN bill but they instead elected to keep all the Title II bullshit intact.
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.
But what are you really advocating? You're advocating that you get decide what a private company allows or does not allow under the guise of free speech.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Who gets to decide what is censorship when it comes to a private company? Do you get to decide? Censorship really applies to the government in that the government can't decide what you can and cannot say.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
So you are still onboard with Net Neutrality, you just now want platforms responsible for what users post on their sites...
Are you sure you know what NN is?
Yes it is censorship. The the reasons why a person may sensor May differ or be more or less acceptable relative to the dominant culture, but censorship is not a subjective term. If you purposely limit access to information you are practicing censorship.
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/
He doesn't have his school transcript? It took him 3+ years to find his birth certificate.
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.
Removing child pornography, Terrorist recruitment material, live stream killings, threats of physical violence is not censorship.
Yes it is. You have no right to interfere with private communications. It is none of your business.
And please sanitize your input, we don't do unicode here
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
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/