Senate Votes To Save Net Neutrality (gizmodo.com) 288
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.
Not Save... Authorize... (Score:4, Insightful)
The FCC was never authorized.
Re:Not Save... Authorize... (Score:4, Informative)
The FCC was never authorized.
Of course they were and the court agree. [uscourts.gov]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's sort of how district representation works these days, though...as evidenced partly by this whole thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not Save... Authorize... (Score:5, 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.
Re: (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.
Re:Not Save... Authorize... (Score:5, Funny)
In other words, you're expecting California to save your asses. Again.
Re: (Score:2)
Not generally... but in this case... sure... go ahead...
Re:Not Save... Authorize... (Score:4, Insightful)
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?"
Re: (Score:3)
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
Internet's National (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The FCC literally exists to exert such authority.
Re: (Score:3)
The FCC exists to allocate radio spectrum, full stop.
Read the charter.
Re:Not Anything Actually (Score:5, 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.
Re:Not Anything Actually (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
It matters less than you think. Unlike in European parliaments where members need to vote along the party line or they'll be kicked out and replaced, the US congressmen have primarily their constituency to please. So a Democrat in a very conservative area may be pro life and a Republican in a very liberal area may be pro choice.
Re: (Score:2)
I note that in this particular vote the Democrats voted 100% along party lines and the Republicans voted 98.5% along party lines, so I guess the theory is nice, but when push comes to shove they do what they're told.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't really a good time to judge by because not only the politicians but people too have never been so polarized. They congressmen are less doing what they are told and more genuinely believing the other side are such idiots if they are pushing for something then it must be a terrible idea (or are doing it just for cheap points with their base, which is kinda what I think about this particular vote).
Re: (Score:3)
Stay and help retire the rednecks.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? Opposition to a disliked candidate makes one unsuitable for Texas? So all right thinking Texans vote the way they are told to vote and don't waste energy trying to think about it? There are plenty of armadillos to vote for instead of Ted Cruz.
Gesture is great but toothless, at this point (Score:5, Informative)
From the article:
So, as of right now, this is largely a gesture but still a good first step.
Re:Gesture is great but toothless, at this point (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.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but by then the window to invoke the Congressional Review Act will be closed.
Re: (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.
Re:Gesture is great but toothless, at this point (Score:5, 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.
Re:Gesture is great but toothless, at this point (Score:5, 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.
Re:Gesture is great but toothless, at this point (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
Re: (Score:2)
According to wikipedia - it's only been used to veto 5 times.
Re: (Score:2)
You've been watching too much interpretive news, apparently, and not enough studying in civics class.
Re:Gesture is great but toothless, at this point (Score:5, 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 [wikipedia.org] 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 [wikipedia.org] per the Congressional Review Act [wikipedia.org] (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 [wikipedia.org]). 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.
Re: (Score:2)
if they made a law, that would be subject to veto.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone could vote for it in the House, and then it will go to the president. Veto. Dead and done.
I'd love to see Drumpf veto it. Last nail in his coffin, dead indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
I think Trump is closer to gone than many people are willing to admit. When Mueller gets around to indicting Princess Ivanka, Trump will fold faster than a cheap suit.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't count your chickens until they hatch.
In politics there can be any little spark that can change the polling.
There are a good number of people who will always vote for their Party no mater what they do, Many of the state are gerrymandered in a way to keep people who trend toward a different political party separated enough to prevent a majority vote, or concentrate them so they get only one seat.
The economy is still strong.
If the democrats just run on an Anti-Trump speaking points, they may not spark en
Re: (Score:2)
The cynic in me assumes that'll be just long enough for them to stop caring about it.
You ever see those videos of dogs barking at each other behind gates. Only to stop the moment that the gate opens?
Re: (Score:2)
I live in a large city, and worked the polls yesterday. Not a single voter under 30 the entire day.
I can't remember the last election where I actually went to a polling place but I've voted in them all. Perhaps all these missing under-30's have discovered mail in ballots?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Russians can't vote here anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
You must be 12 and not remember that 8 years ago the idea of screwing with Net Neutrality wasn't even on anyone's radar as it was considered by the FCC to be settled. So are you saying it's important to now pass additional laws to protect supposedly closed policy by government agencies on everything? Cool. I think Weyerhauser just had an orgasm from the thought of all the cubic miles of paper Washington will be running through over the next decade to accomplish that.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
How would a PRIMARY tell you that?
Re: (Score:2)
Turnout.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, it tells you very little. Perhaps the Ds are pretty happy with any of the candidates but the Rs will be disgusted and stay home if the wrong R wins the primary.
Thank goodness (Score:5, Funny)
Everything that's wrong with U.S. politics (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Everything that's wrong with U.S. politics (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, it proves that 52 of them do
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
So they should have voted against this bill because in your judgement they're not pure-minded enough? I'll take my wins any way I can get them.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
If Net Neutrality is a measure of how much Congress cares about its constituents, then perhaps Congress should have actually passed a Net Neutrality bill, rather than leaving it up to the whims of the current administration.
Re: (Score:2)
a bill... which can be vetoed by the current administration?
Re:Everything that's wrong with U.S. politics (Score:4, 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.
Re: (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?
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Correct because this has never happened, or at least not to any significant extent.
If you think that's a problem needing regulation, we also need to regulate attacks by hippogriffs.
I know it's not popular to say this (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the defining moment for me was when those Parkland shooting victims called Mark Rubio out on the NRA do
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not really (Score:2)
As was discussed here a few weeks ago this bill does not reinstate Net Neutrality, that's just the name they gave it for publicity purposes. Stop being played for fools by these people.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the summary: https://www.congress.gov/bill/... [congress.gov]
Summary: S.J.Res.52 — 115th Congress (2017-2018)
This joint resolution nullifies the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission entitled "Restoring Internet Freedom." The rule published on February 22, 2018: (1) restores the classification of broadband Internet access service as a lightly-regulated "information service"; (2) reinstates private mobile service classification of mobile broadband Internet access service; (3) requires Intern
Re: (Score:2)
nor should this have been in the FCC's call in the first place.
Why not? Part of the FCC's job is to regulate interstate communication.
Re: (Score:2)
this bill does not reinstate Net Neutrality
What else would you call it?
The FCC's classification of ISPs under title ii of the Communications Act of 1934 means that they can get fined for fucking with the pipes. It was a fantastic and perfect way to force the major telecoms into maintaining network neutrality. It fullfilled the FCC's goal of promoting unfettered communication and trade. And it didn't let clueless congressmen pass along legislation written by the very companies they're trying to regulate.
This most CERTAINLY reinstates the FCC's threa
It won't matter (Score:2)
Re: (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,
Re: (Score:3)
fuckwits. Brainless fuckwits.
Three Senators, not two (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
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!" ;).
Raspberries to the other repugs (Score:3)
WTF happened to good government in the USA? Sense of decency in 96% of republicans?
Re: (Score:2)
WTF happened to good government in the USA?
A few things come to mind, in reverse chronological order. Most recent, 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.
Before that, the chaos after the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. The invasions pretty broad support at the start but the blood bath afterwards (and the slow reveal that the invasions were based on false pretens
Re: (Score:3)
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.
thinking ahead (Score:2)
So what are the Democrats going to do if they fail to preserve net neutrality and then the internet apocalypse which they forecast fails to materialize?
Suck it! (Score:2)
All the folks who voted against this (Score:2)
Alabama: Richard Shelby
Alaska: Dan Sullivan
Arizona: Jeff Flake
Arkansas: John Boozman
Arkansas: Tom Cotton
Colorado: Cory Gardner
Florida: Marco Rubio
Georgia: David Perdue
Georgia: Johnny Isakson
Idaho: James E. Risch
Idaho: Mike Crapo
Indiana: Todd Young
Iowa: Chuck Grassley
Iowa: Joni Ernst
Kansas: Jerry Moran
Kansas: Pat Roberts
Kentucky: Mitch McConnell
Kentucky: Rand Paul
Louisiana: Bill Cassidy
Mississippi: Cindy Hyde-Smith
Mississippi: Roger Wicker
Missouri: Roy Blunt
Montana: Steve Daines
Nebraska: Ben Sasse
Nebraska: D
Save (Score:2)
Welcome back to federal rules and a telco monopoly.
Strowger and Step-by-Step telephone switching (Score:2)
In the early days of telephones, you had to turn a crank and tell the operator which line you wanted to connect to. An undertaker by the name of Almon Brown Strowger was an undertaker who noticed that one of the operators was married to one of his competitors. That operator was connecting people who wanted to talk to Strowger to her husband. Strowger was thus motivated to create his Step-by-Step automatic switching equipment and the rotary dial. What Strowger's competitor's wife did is no different than
Re:"Saved" here means nothing, right? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the CRA requires rulemaking decisions by Executive Agencies to be submitted to Congress for review, and it provides for expedited congressional action to override that rulemaking that bypasses the normal rules of the House and Senate. Overriding the rule is done by passage of an act, and that needs a presidential signature, or a veto override by the normal means:
For a regulation to be invalidated under the CRA, the Congressional resolution of disapproval must be either signed by the President or passed
Re: (Score:2)
Digital Rectal Examinations (get it?) have been deprecated. They don't help. I'd suggest just tar and feathers and riding him out on a rail.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a card-carrying republican, and I'm pissed about how my party is letting the local ISP screw me over. I hate it.
I'm pro net-neutrality. Stop f*ing with me.
I am a person, not a commodity. Stop buying me, selling me, and otherwise treating me like cattle, or I can find another party to work with.
If you were then you'd be happy the legislature has taken this up instead of a regulatory agency.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a little puzzled. How exactly is your local ISP screwing you over?
They offer you a service, you willingly buy it. No one put a gun to your head. Contrary to popular belief, you can live without internet access at home. If you don't like their service, why are you paying for it?
It is possible you live somewhere where there aren't any competing ISPs. That's probably a gripe you have with your local mayor or city council. Go tell them to make it easier for AT&T/Verizon/T-Mobile to set up cell towers so
Re: (Score:2)
Without network neutrality, they're free to regulate him to a peasant lane unless he pays more. They can package portions of the Internet into different tiers and bundles like they sell their cable TV. Buying unlimited platinum level Internet (like you have now) will of course cost extra. They'll throttle protocols and services they don't like, as they been caught red-handed fucking with torrents. They could simply torpedo or creatively fuck with any of the Internet Services that compete's with their own
Re: (Score:2)
awwww, but you should notice that your card reads "Fuck regulation, let the market decide".
Big daddy republicans are keeping you from getting screwed by the government while they hold you down over the barrel. They spend big bucks bribing their way to meetings with Ajit Pai. Surely they deserve a little barrel time for all that hard work of opening up markets?
Don't you believe in the free market? Don't you expect some young entrepreneur to start their own ISP to meet your needs?
Re: (Score:3, 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 s
Re: (Score:2)
Besides the people you mentioned, Nikki Haley, Mia Love, Bachmann, etc.
And yes, I'm sure you honestly think they are all stupid
Re: (Score:2)
Besides the people you mentioned, Nikki Haley, Mia Love, Bachmann, etc.
And yes, I'm sure you honestly think they are all stupid
I don't know who Mia Love is. Michelle Bachmann is disliked because she's an ultra-religious bigot. I'm sure there are plenty of issues on which I disagree with Nikki Haley, but none of them are because she's a woman.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The last person was elected because "black guy." It's the only thing that would have worked, because she's offensive even to a large number of democrats. And let's not forget the support of the TPP.
Re: (Score:2)
And the Dems have lost 10-20% of the black vote since Trump was sworn in, depending which poll you want to believe.
Re: (Score:2)
And let's not forget the support of the TPP.
Which Trump now wishes he'd supported and is using NAFTA to implement all the horrible bits of.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe to nerds and people who get all their "news" from HuffPo...
Maybe to millennials and kids who are well aware of these shenanigans through Buzzfeed and such. Guessing you don't keep in touch much?