[amccollum]

From your post:

It makes more sense for Congress to come up with a lasting solution that isn't subject to regulatory bounce-back, and this is what the bill being described in the article seems to do.

From the article:

But from what we know about Lee's bill so far, it appears the proposal wouldn't impose any type of net neutrality rules to replace the current ones.

Wherein lies the so-called "lasting solution"?

[declan]

Any lasting solution would be negotiated by Congress.

[amccollum]

If they were going to do that, why wouldn't they just put it in the same bill? It would be extremely naive to assume that they are going to do anything on top of repealing the current NN protections.

[anigbrowl]

When, and why not now?