This seems like the way that this should be addressed. The case against Net Neutrality was made almost strictly as a case of regulatory overreach and overly burdensome regulations that inherited irrelevant restrictions and unenforceable provisions designed for specific telecom use cases that don't apply to ISPs.
The first issue is clearly addressed by a legislative approach -- it stops being regulatory overreach when the regulators are mandated to enforce. The second issue depends on how this bill is worded, but in theory it gives an opportunity to create more specialized regulations that directly address the issue at hand without bringing on board historical cruft that applies to a different problem domain.
EDIT: after actually reading the article and the actual resolution [1], I see that the second point is unaddressed; this just directly reverses the ruling. Even the first point is barely addressed because it doesn't expand the mandate; it just asserts that the mandate means something that it arguably does not mean.
I think the way you're looking at this is really important, and something that's being lost in the vehement support of NN.
Intellectual honesty demands that we admit that there really are problems with NN as it had been implemented. Trying to fit the technology of a massive packet-switched data network into very specific regulations designed for an ancient circuit-switched primarily voice network really was a kluge. The FCC while they were supporting it needed to take a lot of "poetic license" with the letter of the law just to get it to make sense at all.
While it's a a big burden being forced to start from scratch, it's also an opportunity to craft something that better matches the way our systems work today. Doing so removes the uncertainty and political caprice that comes from an unelected agency making the calls.
I feel like the root problem is lack of competition at the ISP level. If we had that, net neutrality regulation would likely not be necessary. Instead we're trying to fix a bad regulatory environment with even more regulations.
Things aren't addressed either. Because the House still needs to vote.
Bicameral Legislative process in the USA. Laws need to be passed twice before they have any effect, and Trump has the (nearly) final say in the form of a presidential veto.
Assuming the Democrats manage to vote as a bloc in the House, there still needs to be ~25 Republicans who switch sides on this issue. Net Neutrality is... for some reason... seen as a Democrat issue.
The better approach seems to be "trial and error," where different states pass their own regulations. This way in 5-10 years it would become clearer what works and what does not.
It's interesting the way that the Congressional Review Act operates, to require both houses and the president to sign off on overruling the decision of an executive agency.
In bicameral Westminster-style systems, delegated legislation (ie. executive regulations) can usually be vetoed by either chamber. This being under the principle that if the regulation in question had been enacted as regular legislation it would have required the approval of both chambers to pass.
It's a fiction either way. There's no way to decide whether the vetoed action was in or out of scope of the original delegated authority. Maybe one chamber just changed their mind.
I am on the one hand happy to hear about this, but I couldn't help but laugh at the way it was reported on NPR. They said Democrats see this as an issue that can bring voters to the polls. I immediately thought of how few people even know what the heck net neutrality is (about 1 in 4 [0]). Either NPR is making stuff up or the Democrats are seriously in need of some new advice.
[0]:https://americanactionnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02....
1 in 4? That is insanely high. I would be surprised in 1 in 10 can explain what NN is properly (not "evil ISPs are gonna to make us pay for pr0n!") and about 1 in a 100 to explain what actually happened in 2015 and what happened in 2018 and what is the state of current legislation around ISP-content provider relationships. These things are complex patchwork of years of legislation and require non-trivial knowledge to understand. I rate the chance of 1 in 4 of Americans having this knowledge as the chance 1 in 4 Americans can fluently speak ancient Sumerian.
Young people are less likely to vote but far, far more likely to know about Net Neutrality. I think it's a shrewd strategy: it will get more young people out, who tend to vote Democrat.
Again, this is meaningless. Currently the future of net neutrality is the decision of the courts, and if this miraculously passes the house and president, the future remains in the hands of the courts.
A new law is necessary to guarantee net neutrality. This has been known for over twelve years, both Clinton and Obama cosponsored a bill on it in 2006, but so far neither party has made any serious move towards passing a bill.
Considering where this has been politically, this isn't going to change anything. And really all "killing" NN does is move this back to the FTC, where it was for a decade+
Internet is a utility now though and only the FCC can make network / internet a utility / common carrier.
ISPs want it at the FTC for that reason, so it isn't seen as a utility, it is.
Internet is as required as radio, phone, tv, water, electricity etc, it makes more sense under Title II and 80%+ of people support that. [1]
> Americans embrace a Title II vision of internet service. A strong majority (88 percent, 48 percent strongly) agree that “when I buy internet service, I am paying to transmit information between my computer and the websites I visit, free from interference.” This finding demonstrates that the public views internet access as a Title II telecommunications service, similar to phone service. Americans recognize the vital role the internet plays, with 83 percent agreeing that the “internet is essential infrastructure, like roads and bridges.”
The root issue is entrenched (literally and figuratively) local monopolies. We want Net Neutrality because we can't switch providers when our ISPs behave badly.
I think if they go after that issue think manner they will get the votes. However, I see them going after the regulatory route, which unlikely to be pass.
They do all they can to pretend that there is "competition". It's the only way they can ignore the obvious, that opponents of Net Neutrality are simply proponents of monopolies.
I am not in favor of government enforcement of net neutrality under libertarian/free market grounds, however, that being said, I am really happy about this vote on a ideological/philosophical level because one of my problems with government regulation is that it is often unaccountable — it’s via executive/administrative or quasi-government entities that aren’t directly accountable to voters. The Congressional Review Act (proposed and passed as part of the Republican Contract with America) is an exceptionally important law because it allows the public, through their representatives, to essentially override bad regulation (bad, as determined by voters.)
So while the outcome of this particular vote isn’t one With which I agree, I wholeheartedly agree and endorse the vote itself. My big problem with government and regulation in general is that I feel that regulations lag or exceed the will of the public and there is little recourse when those rules are made by officials removed from the direct accountability from the voter.
I could be wrong on Net Neutrality, but if it passes or is defeated, at least the process of our actual representatives voting on such an important issue is happening. Such consequential decisions ought not be at the whims of bureaucrats. Bureaucracts should implement the law, they shouldn’t be making it.
A lot of people are dismissing this as political theatre, but it serves a useful function as recording the names of everyone against reinstating net neutrality publically, so that challengers can make it a campaign issue in November. No, it probably isn’t going to pass the house, and smart money is on Trump vetoing it even if that miracle came to pass. However, Democrats are testing the waters for a campaign pledge, and some Republicans might notice. We absolutely want this represented in the midterm campaigns.
I'm presuming purple (being red + blue) means a district that could either way?
Lucky you. Here we don't have elections that matter because thanks to redistricting and gerrymandering, the outcome (along party lines) is well established.
I also live in a purple district (in a very blue state), and while my Republican Congressman has made it clear he's against Net Neutrality, he voted against the repeal of the Internet privacy regulations, so he can't be counted out entirely.
However, I'm still not all too sure whether Net Neutrality is worth promising support to existing Republicans. There are so many other issues on the table this election cycle and they next Congress is likely to be as, or more, supportive on this.
There are a lot of issues on the front burner right now that would fall in that bracket and net neutrality isn't the most pressing one by a very long shot so why would you let your vote hinge on that one issue?
Would you genuinely choose your vote on this single issue, ignoring all others, whatever may they be? And if, like many of the voters, it is not true, would it be counter-productive to lie about it as Congressmen are probably been around the block a few times and can recognize the deception? Of course, if this is true, then I do not question it, but is it?
This won't get a House vote in a Republican controlled House. But the senate vote gives you an indication on where the Republican party stands. They're not going to change their minds.
This is, after all why they are doing it at all- you should 100% call your representative, not at all because the house will pass it or because Trump is going to sign this into law, but because you are validating that this should be part of the 2018 midterm election platforms to your representative. This is an issue that will get people out to the polls. Let’s prove it to them!
Why are you trying to push your beliefs on whole country? Why not work on changing net neutrality laws in your state. This way in long run we'd have experiment comparing results in states with net neutrality laws (including different flavors) and without them.
My Comcast bill, over the course of two consecutive months since the beginning of this year -- and since the apparent, "inevitable" coming end of net neutrality, increased about 25%.
My Congressmen are going to hear about this. About how, for the better part of 20 years, Ameritech/SBC/ATT refused to upgrade my neighborhood trunk line, that doesn't even support DSL. In a high-density suburban neighborhood in the home/headquarters state of the corporation.
About how Ameritech/SBC (now rebranded ATT) received the better part of three quarters of a billion dollars in tax breaks and other incentives from the State of Illinois, in return for a commitment to provide "universal" (minimum 95% coverage) broadband access throughout the State. Whereupon, they immediately turned around and lobbied the State legislature to let them out of their side of the agreement, that commitment, while keeping the tax breaks and incentives.
They're going to hear how, several years ago, I couldn't watch Netflix streaming without constant interruptions, particularly during prime viewing hours, because Comcast refused to peer with Netflix in their datacenters -- at Netflix's expense and providing of the necessary equipment and installation. That problem didn't resolve until the bad publicity and outcry was giving Comcast (and its ilk exercising similar manipulation) an enormous PR black eye.
This right at the time Comcast was attempting to launch and gain traction with one of their "competing" streaming video offers.
About paid advocacy promoting lies about support for their actions within non-profit centric communities, such as... was it the NAACP, or another organization, that was supporting Comcast quite apparently in return for contributions.
How Congressmen supporting these telcos' agenda are functioning as paid shills for these private companies. Not just lobbied. Outright bought, with no effort or success in actually understanding the issues involved.
And I don't vote for paid shills.
--
P.S. My State Democratic representative made the rounds, a couple of years ago after some heavy local storm damage. I took the opportunity to tell him about our local problem with ATT. (This was after the storm aftermath's crisis period was passed; he wasn't overloaded with it.)
He told me that actually, he had a meeting with ATT executives the following day and would bring it up. And that he'd get back to me on that.
I never heard a word. And when I followed up later with his staff, I still didn't hear anything.
I don't vote for him, any more. I faced that decision again, this past April. And no, still no vote for him.
P.S. I actually do, very occasionally, write my Congresscritters. I'm pretty careful doing so -- doing so well, I hope -- and I have some evidence of some of my correspondence having been read and paid attention to.
So when I say they will hear about this, I mean, they actually will. Though I'll write it in a fashion that is more appealing/compelling to them.
And regarding some of the history that may not seem to pertain directly to net neutrality? Look, these companies are saying a lot of things as part of their campaign to kill it. And the historical record demonstrates that, with respect to such statements, they are consistently full of shit -- in a self-serving way.
They are not to be believed. Neither the people shilling the talking points they've been handed by the companies and their lobbyists.
State reps seem much more willing to help out/listen to their constituents. Every time I've reached out with a state representative they have helped me out. One even drafted a bill and politely told the city to f* off
Can we not frontpage things that suggest happenings that aren't? As noted in the article itself, the House is not going to vote this way, and this is a largely pointless political drama thing. The headline is technically true, but has no meaningful effect whatsoever.
Ultimately it’s all pointless political drama. If it does get overturned, then “killing” net neutrality was just pointless political drama. It doesn’t mean it’s not worth paying attention to.
Unless you have a working crystal ball, that's a prediction, not a fact.
> and this is a largely pointless political drama thing
Not true. The repeal of net neutrality is extraordinarily unpopular (including among Republicans) and all of the House is up for re-election this year. The Republicans may lose their majority.
In my opinion, this has a better shot of getting through than most. That is, if you don't prematurely give up hope.
Whether this passes now or not is immaterial. Net neutrality is guaranteed to come back in the next administration, which will have as its primary agenda undoing all of Trump's damage. The question the big ISPs need to ask themselves is whether it makes any business sense to try to capitalize on this for a short time, knowing that they'll have to spend money to undo it all later.
It's a victory for Democrats today, but this'll die in the House. Still it will make for good campaign material for the Democrats in the coming midterms.
[+] [-] andrewla|7 years ago|reply
The first issue is clearly addressed by a legislative approach -- it stops being regulatory overreach when the regulators are mandated to enforce. The second issue depends on how this bill is worded, but in theory it gives an opportunity to create more specialized regulations that directly address the issue at hand without bringing on board historical cruft that applies to a different problem domain.
EDIT: after actually reading the article and the actual resolution [1], I see that the second point is unaddressed; this just directly reverses the ruling. Even the first point is barely addressed because it doesn't expand the mandate; it just asserts that the mandate means something that it arguably does not mean.
[1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-joint-re...
[+] [-] CWuestefeld|7 years ago|reply
Intellectual honesty demands that we admit that there really are problems with NN as it had been implemented. Trying to fit the technology of a massive packet-switched data network into very specific regulations designed for an ancient circuit-switched primarily voice network really was a kluge. The FCC while they were supporting it needed to take a lot of "poetic license" with the letter of the law just to get it to make sense at all.
While it's a a big burden being forced to start from scratch, it's also an opportunity to craft something that better matches the way our systems work today. Doing so removes the uncertainty and political caprice that comes from an unelected agency making the calls.
[+] [-] Consultant32452|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dragontamer|7 years ago|reply
Bicameral Legislative process in the USA. Laws need to be passed twice before they have any effect, and Trump has the (nearly) final say in the form of a presidential veto.
Assuming the Democrats manage to vote as a bloc in the House, there still needs to be ~25 Republicans who switch sides on this issue. Net Neutrality is... for some reason... seen as a Democrat issue.
[+] [-] agrenader|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] caf|7 years ago|reply
In bicameral Westminster-style systems, delegated legislation (ie. executive regulations) can usually be vetoed by either chamber. This being under the principle that if the regulation in question had been enacted as regular legislation it would have required the approval of both chambers to pass.
[+] [-] dannyw|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fjsolwmv|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alistproducer2|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smsm42|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] crowbahr|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] leot|7 years ago|reply
And the only thing that matters in elections in the US is turnout and undecideds (of whom there are very few).
[+] [-] favorited|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Andre_Wanglin|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] boomboomsubban|7 years ago|reply
A new law is necessary to guarantee net neutrality. This has been known for over twelve years, both Clinton and Obama cosponsored a bill on it in 2006, but so far neither party has made any serious move towards passing a bill.
[+] [-] virtzzz|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] letsgetphysITal|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bifrost|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] drawkbox|7 years ago|reply
ISPs want it at the FTC for that reason, so it isn't seen as a utility, it is.
Internet is as required as radio, phone, tv, water, electricity etc, it makes more sense under Title II and 80%+ of people support that. [1]
> Americans embrace a Title II vision of internet service. A strong majority (88 percent, 48 percent strongly) agree that “when I buy internet service, I am paying to transmit information between my computer and the websites I visit, free from interference.” This finding demonstrates that the public views internet access as a Title II telecommunications service, similar to phone service. Americans recognize the vital role the internet plays, with 83 percent agreeing that the “internet is essential infrastructure, like roads and bridges.”
[1] https://www.scribd.com/document/353285485/Freedman-Consultin...
[+] [-] exabrial|7 years ago|reply
I think if they go after that issue think manner they will get the votes. However, I see them going after the regulatory route, which unlikely to be pass.
[+] [-] shmerl|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ryanpcmcquen|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fjsolwmv|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] briandear|7 years ago|reply
So while the outcome of this particular vote isn’t one With which I agree, I wholeheartedly agree and endorse the vote itself. My big problem with government and regulation in general is that I feel that regulations lag or exceed the will of the public and there is little recourse when those rules are made by officials removed from the direct accountability from the voter.
I could be wrong on Net Neutrality, but if it passes or is defeated, at least the process of our actual representatives voting on such an important issue is happening. Such consequential decisions ought not be at the whims of bureaucrats. Bureaucracts should implement the law, they shouldn’t be making it.
[+] [-] mattnewton|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fjsolwmv|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Lionsion|7 years ago|reply
1) I'm going to vote in November,
2) I will vote for him if he votes to keep the pre-existing title II net neutrality regulations, and against them if he does not, and
3) Net neutrality is even supported by a majority of Republican voters [1], so if he votes against it's clear he's voting against his constituents.
[1] http://www.publicconsultation.org/united-states/overwhelming...
[+] [-] komali2|7 years ago|reply
When I lived in Texas, the responses I got from my representatives were comically evil. Straight up bond villain.
[+] [-] ComputerGuru|7 years ago|reply
Lucky you. Here we don't have elections that matter because thanks to redistricting and gerrymandering, the outcome (along party lines) is well established.
[+] [-] eToThePiIPower|7 years ago|reply
However, I'm still not all too sure whether Net Neutrality is worth promising support to existing Republicans. There are so many other issues on the table this election cycle and they next Congress is likely to be as, or more, supportive on this.
[+] [-] jacquesm|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smsm42|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] atomi|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mattnewton|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] agrenader|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] djur|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] psychometry|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] pasbesoin|7 years ago|reply
My Congressmen are going to hear about this. About how, for the better part of 20 years, Ameritech/SBC/ATT refused to upgrade my neighborhood trunk line, that doesn't even support DSL. In a high-density suburban neighborhood in the home/headquarters state of the corporation.
About how Ameritech/SBC (now rebranded ATT) received the better part of three quarters of a billion dollars in tax breaks and other incentives from the State of Illinois, in return for a commitment to provide "universal" (minimum 95% coverage) broadband access throughout the State. Whereupon, they immediately turned around and lobbied the State legislature to let them out of their side of the agreement, that commitment, while keeping the tax breaks and incentives.
They're going to hear how, several years ago, I couldn't watch Netflix streaming without constant interruptions, particularly during prime viewing hours, because Comcast refused to peer with Netflix in their datacenters -- at Netflix's expense and providing of the necessary equipment and installation. That problem didn't resolve until the bad publicity and outcry was giving Comcast (and its ilk exercising similar manipulation) an enormous PR black eye.
This right at the time Comcast was attempting to launch and gain traction with one of their "competing" streaming video offers.
About paid advocacy promoting lies about support for their actions within non-profit centric communities, such as... was it the NAACP, or another organization, that was supporting Comcast quite apparently in return for contributions.
How Congressmen supporting these telcos' agenda are functioning as paid shills for these private companies. Not just lobbied. Outright bought, with no effort or success in actually understanding the issues involved.
And I don't vote for paid shills.
--
P.S. My State Democratic representative made the rounds, a couple of years ago after some heavy local storm damage. I took the opportunity to tell him about our local problem with ATT. (This was after the storm aftermath's crisis period was passed; he wasn't overloaded with it.)
He told me that actually, he had a meeting with ATT executives the following day and would bring it up. And that he'd get back to me on that.
I never heard a word. And when I followed up later with his staff, I still didn't hear anything.
I don't vote for him, any more. I faced that decision again, this past April. And no, still no vote for him.
[+] [-] pasbesoin|7 years ago|reply
So when I say they will hear about this, I mean, they actually will. Though I'll write it in a fashion that is more appealing/compelling to them.
And regarding some of the history that may not seem to pertain directly to net neutrality? Look, these companies are saying a lot of things as part of their campaign to kill it. And the historical record demonstrates that, with respect to such statements, they are consistently full of shit -- in a self-serving way.
They are not to be believed. Neither the people shilling the talking points they've been handed by the companies and their lobbyists.
[+] [-] frockington|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dng88|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ocdtrekkie|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] freehunter|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Lionsion|7 years ago|reply
Unless you have a working crystal ball, that's a prediction, not a fact.
> and this is a largely pointless political drama thing
Not true. The repeal of net neutrality is extraordinarily unpopular (including among Republicans) and all of the House is up for re-election this year. The Republicans may lose their majority.
In my opinion, this has a better shot of getting through than most. That is, if you don't prematurely give up hope.
[+] [-] dreamcompiler|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] HillaryClinton|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dogruck|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mmanfrin|7 years ago|reply