SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for SoyCow4408
Senate Democrats plan to force vote on net neutrality May 9th
Democrats in Congress have been against the FCC's repeal of net neutrality rules from the beginning. They've had the signatures in favor of restoring the rules since January, along with a companion House bill (with 80 co-sponsors). Senator Edward J. Markey also introduced a formal Congressional Review Act "resolution of disapproval" in February. Now, Markey tweeted that Democrats will force a floor vote restore the rules on May 9th.
Also at The Verge and Tom's Hardware.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Senate Democrats to Force Vote on Net Neutrality on May 9th
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 28 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
(1)
Are you sure the back door is locked?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04 2018, @02:07PM (8 children)
Do they have the votes? No? Then we all know what the outcome will be. Just another "wah waaaahh.... ebil rebublicans" crying.
It would be a lot more productive for them to actually try to affect change instead of posturing. Don't bring things to a vote just to show who voted for what so that you can use that in your re-election campaign(*). Bring things to a vote because it will make a difference.
(*) I'm all in favor of a lifetime, duration-based term limit: a maximum total of 15 years in congress, split over house and senate however you want, but when you hit that last day of your 15th year, you are OUT (I don't care if the season is over or not). If you can't affect the change in 15 years, you're not going to affect any more productive change change after that either...
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04 2018, @02:15PM (4 children)
If the Democrats controlled Congress, this wouldn't even get brought to a vote. They just want to play political theater like the Republicans did for eight years about the repealing the ACA.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04 2018, @02:21PM
<sarcasm>Well, I for one, am glad that our elected representatives truly represent us in all ways and understand what is truly important</sarcasm>
(Score: 4, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Friday May 04 2018, @06:04PM (1 child)
Yeah, the Dems who passed the Net Neutrality rules that were just repealed are totally opposed to those policies.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04 2018, @06:41PM
Yes, amazing, the Democrats supported concentrating control of the internet in the executive branch...when the Democrats controlled the executive branch. You honestly think they want to give Trump's FCC the keys to the castle? Do you?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by jmorris on Saturday May 05 2018, @04:47AM
Now I wouldn't go that far. This is just theater but the Democrats actually would restore the Net Neutrality / Net Censorship regime if they could. Unlike the crapweasel Republicans that blowed a lot of smoke up their supporter's butts for years and years of show votes but the second they actually had the House, Senate and a President who declared he would sign a full Obamacare repeal they suddenly stopped holding votes on it, soon they were conserving it, almost like they were the same sellouts they have been since forever.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by DannyB on Friday May 04 2018, @05:27PM
Disagree.
Always bring things to show who voted for what. None of this voting for things that screw the public at the benefit of rich corporations and then hiding the dasterdly deed from public scrutiny. This is PART of the problem.
Better yet, make all votes be quick electronic votes and publish who votes for what. If you're elected to represent the public, then the public is entitled to see everything you vote on, for, against, abstain, or otherwise.
OT... but let's also get rid of congresscritters voting in place of others without some clear authorization to do so. If the electronic voting was done by a card, then simply giving another critter your card to vote in your place for your convenience, would be okay. The other critter physically gave their card to be used for a vote.
If these people are too busy talking to fundraisers to vote, then that ought to be clear to the public also. No hiding it. Let's get it all out there in the bright light of day. In front of God and everybody. Shouldn't Republicans and Democrats alike be in favor of that?
For some odd reason all scientific instruments searching for intelligent life are pointed away from Earth.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday May 04 2018, @05:34PM
I would agree, but fifteen years is to long. I'm only willing to give them 8 years. If they haven't achieved whatever goals sent them to Washington within 8 years, then they are losers. Send them home, we don't need them. Fifteen years is a career, and we don't need any career politicians.
I'm going to buy my defensive radar from Temu, just like Venezuela!
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Friday May 04 2018, @06:06PM
Do they have the votes? No?
Correct, they need to convince one whole Republican to get on board. [thehill.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by idiot_king on Friday May 04 2018, @02:23PM
Thank "god" someone is standing up to the crazy traitors. Hopefully we can get back to business as usual if they keep pushing.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Snotnose on Friday May 04 2018, @02:39PM (7 children)
Congress has a habit of wrapping turds with a big bow and giving it a name like Children Have Inspiring Life Decisions (CHILD act), then saying anyone who votes against it is against children.
Unless we know what's in the "net neutrality" bill then this is nothing but a bunch of turds with a shiny ribbon.
It was a once in a lifetime experience. Which means I'll never do it again.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by cmdrklarg on Friday May 04 2018, @04:17PM
They do that because it works to buffalo the unwashed masses. Working as designed.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Thexalon on Friday May 04 2018, @06:01PM (2 children)
Under current law, Congress can nix any regulatory change by the executive branch by passing a "resolution of disapproval", which does not require the president's approval. So in the event that this passes, the rules would go back to what they were back in 2016.
My general take on this: The odds of this passing are extremely [opensecrets.org] ridiculously [opensecrets.org] slim [opensecrets.org]. Indeed, for the reasons I just linked to, I doubt the Democrats would have pushed for this vote unless they had made assurances behind-the-scenes that it wouldn't pass. But this way they can go back to their constituents and say "We tried, but we just didn't have the votes. If you just gave more money to the DCCC and DSCC, and voted unquestioningly for our party's chosen candidates, then we'd have net neutrality again."
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 4, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Friday May 04 2018, @06:12PM (1 child)
I doubt the Democrats would have pushed for this vote unless they had made assurances behind-the-scenes that it wouldn't pass.
Why would they want the rules that they implemented in 2016 to not be kept?
Remember: this bill is to prevent the repeal of the existing rules
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday May 04 2018, @09:49PM
I thought I was clear: Because they were paid off to allow the Republicans to remove them again. Obama could be for them because he wasn't running for anything again, but the senators and congressmen aren't in that same position.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 4, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Friday May 04 2018, @06:08PM (1 child)
Unless we know what's in the "net neutrality" bill then this is nothing but a bunch of turds with a shiny ribbon.
They want prevent the elimination of the Net Neutraility rules that are currently in place.
You can find out what those rules are right now if you want to.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04 2018, @08:09PM
You assumption is exactly the problem mentioned. Congress is notorious for misleading titles. For all you know, the bill might be SOPA under a new name.
(Score: 2) by crafoo on Saturday May 05 2018, @03:35AM
My favorite example of this is the "Patriot Act". I'd be hard-pressed to think of another bill that goes against the spirit of the United States of America as documented in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights. Probably the most unpatriotic law ever written.
(Score: 3, Informative) by stretch611 on Friday May 04 2018, @03:12PM (7 children)
Even on the off chance they had the votes to pass the bill, Trump would veto it. So it has no hope... but as mentioned earlier, it will be used as political fodder during the elections because low ball estimates roughly 86% of the population are against the changes the FCC is currently making to net neutrality.
Meanwhile the Republicans are doing the same exact thing on a statewide level in Iowa. Banning abortion so early that many women don't even know they are pregnant yet. (6 weeks) Even with the more conservative Supreme Court we have now, it is not likely to hold up. (Roe Vs Wade specifically allowed abortions until a fetus was viable to live on its own outside the womb; while medical science has lowered that number from 24 weeks in the 70s to 20-22 weeks now, that is nowhere near the 6 week limitation in the IOWA bill; and if they allow a complete reversal of existing Supreme Court precedents that will open the flood gates to have every precedent retried in perpetuity, including many that conservatives would never want to have questioned again.)
This is just another one of the many reasons why we need to get rid of the two party system.
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday May 04 2018, @04:51PM
> low ball estimates roughly 86% of the population are against the changes the FCC is currently making to net neutrality
13.999% are just uninformed, and the remainder works for, or has major holdings in, the big Telcos.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday May 04 2018, @05:44PM (5 children)
Is that a bad thing?
Now, remember, I am neither D, nor R. I despise both, remember? So - would it really be a bad thing to revisit long established precedents? Like, how about income tax? That was only put into place to pay for a war - the first time. Then again, to pay for a war. The final time, it had justifications, but we still have the IRS long after the justificaiton expired. (Note, I don't mind paying income tax, terribly - it only pisses me off that gubberment doesn't tax everyone equally.)
Interstate trade has been used many, MANY times to justify the feds interfering in individual state's jurisdictions. Some of those decisions need to be revisited. I could go on for awhile, with bogus precedents that were decided wrongly. I think we all recognize that the legal system works well for the rich, and poorly for the poor. So many precedents to address, and so little time. It would take at least half a century to even address them all, and much longer to actually correct most or all of the unjust precedents.
Want to discuss the infamous Drug Enforcement Agency? That is probably the single most fucked up agency the US has. They openly break the law, to entrap dumbasses. Even the FBI isn't so blatant with that kind of nonsense. Yet, the DEA wins case, after case. Just think of all the precedents that need to be overturned, for just that one agency.
I'm going to buy my defensive radar from Temu, just like Venezuela!
(Score: 2) by Bobs on Friday May 04 2018, @06:06PM (4 children)
If we are going to force every law to be revisited, I think it is better done by the legislature.
I would prefer something like:
Unless otherwise specified, every law expires in 10 years.
If you want a law to last for more than 10 years, you must get a 2/3 majority vote to pass it.
Something like that. It puts the onus on the legislature to review, revive and fix the laws, not the courts.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday May 04 2018, @06:13PM (1 child)
Not a bad idea. There are so many obsolete laws on the books. That quote of the day at the bottom of my Soylent page has reminded me that in some city, it is illegal to eat in a burning building. I'm not doing a search to find out, but it's believable.
I'm going to buy my defensive radar from Temu, just like Venezuela!
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04 2018, @09:47PM
Amazing!!! Another thing that Runaway believes without knowing anything! Truly astounding powers of faith the man has, with so much energy saving on the side of research and actual, factual, correct knowledge!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04 2018, @08:52PM
Personally, I think the 2/3s majority should be required for all laws that aren't available for review (in final form) for a period of 3 weeks prior to the vote.
That way, we don't get "we didn't have time to read the law" for anything remotely controversial. If you need some money to pay for preventing hurricane damage, then you should be able to get that 2/3s.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jmorris on Saturday May 05 2018, @05:09AM
This side discussion started on the subject of revisiting "laws" that were made by the courts and never voted on by a legislature or signed by an executive. Do think IA is pushing the calendar a bit, would be better to wait for Ginsberg and Kennedy to be replaced by Trump first.
I'd like to see the judicial overreach problem fixed by an Amendment on the order of:
"By a 3/5 vote of both the House and Senate and the signature of the President OR by bills passed out of 3/5 of the Legislatures of the States by the normal rules for passing a bill in each State, any ruling by the Supreme Court can be erased from having any binding precedence (thus avoiding double jeopardy and ex-post facto problems) and all Justices who were in the majority for the opinion so stricken shall carry a Black Mark on their record. Three such Black Marks will be considered evidence of bad behavior sufficient to remove said Justice from the court. A Justice so rebuked may not thereafter serve in any position of trust under the United States government but shall not be subject to any other punishment."
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04 2018, @08:20PM (1 child)
The whole "net neutrality" thing is a mess. The actual legal issue is that our law forces the FCC to classify the internet as being either:
a. something like a telegraph (people pay to send text messages to specific other people)
b. something like a stock ticker (wire runs from stock exchange to stock broker, causing a device to print on paper strips)
Well, there are other options, but those are even more absurd. We could classify it like a radio station.
All of this is broken!!! The internet is none of these things.
One way, we get "net neutrality" but also a framework for censorship. The other way, we don't get either. Both choices are crummy.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday May 04 2018, @11:24PM
a. something like a telegraph (people pay to send text messages to specific other people)
b. something like a stock ticker (wire runs from stock exchange to stock broker, causing a device to print on paper strips)
So (a) is two-way communication amongst a bunch endpoints. (a telecommunications service)
And (b) is one-way communication like a broadcast (an information service)
One of those sounds an awful lot more like the internet!
Guess which definition is going to be used in the future...