Slashdot Mirror
Net Neutrality Bill Sails Through the House But Faces an Uncertain Political Future (washingtonpost.com)
House lawmakers on Wednesday approved a Democrat-backed bill (alternative source) that would restore rules requiring AT&T, Verizon and other Internet providers to treat all Web traffic equally, marking an early step toward reversing one of the most significant deregulatory moves of the Trump era. From a report: But the net neutrality measure is likely to stall from here, given strong Republican opposition in the GOP-controlled Senate and the White House, where aides to President Trump this week recommended that he veto the legislation if it ever reaches his desk. The House's proposal, which passed by a vote of 232-190, would reinstate federal regulations that had banned AT&T, Verizon and other broadband providers from blocking or slowing down customers' access to websites. Adopted in 2015 during the Obama administration, these net neutrality protections had the backing of tech giants and startups as well as consumer advocacy groups, which together argued that strong federal open Internet protections were necessary to preserve competition and allow consumers unfettered access to movies, music and other content of their choice.
Yup. Unfortunately, it's not an issue that's going to change anyone's vote. I'm all for an open market and less government regulation, but if we're going down that road with ISPs, we should go all the way - stop giving out government-sponsored monopolies to cable companies (read: ISPs) and the like, and have real competition. Then, the cry of "if your ISP isn't giving you what you want, switch to another provider!" can really happen.
Mitch McConnell should not have the authority to deny a vote on a bill passed by the House. Nancy Pelosi should not have the authority to block a bill passed by the Senate.
We need a rule that forces a vote on any bill passed by the other body after a suitable period of time for debate. We as voters have a right to know where our elected officials stand, otherwise the people lose control to wealthy donors.
Greed is the root of all evil.
It's state-endorsed murder if, and only if, you presuppose that a fetus is a person. The majority of pro-choice people want to see less abortion... if only we could all work together to reduce abortion. The reason why it's called "pro-choice" is that it's an individual choice, even if you want a person to choose life. People believe that because they believe it reduces harm overall. According to this theory, you reduce abortion by removing the reasons for why someone would pursue an abortion. There is some evidence that this actually works.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
The opposite should happen. The government is only able to grant the monopolies through their power of eminent domain. To me, that is the doctrine that says the public's need is so overwhelming that we're going to use the force of government to seize someone's property.
Well, if it is so important to the common good that the use of force is justified, then the resource should not leave the public's control. Just like the roads, the communication and power infrastructure should be taken over by the government. ISPs and power generation should remain private businesses. The government should create rules to control how the resources are accessed and used, just like the roads. It should have always been this way.
Ever notice how the worst parts of our system are the result of poor decisions early on?
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba