Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality
theverge.com
Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality
1–10 of 242 posts
Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality
#2Can 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.
Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality
#3Time to call your Congressmen. I live in a purple district, and I'm going to make it clear to my Republican representative that:
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...
Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality
#4Can 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.
Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality
#5This 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.
[1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-joint-re...
Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality
#6Can 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.
> the House is not going to vote this way
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.
Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality
#7This 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…
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.
Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality
#8Time to call your Congressmen. I live in a purple district, and I'm going to make it clear to my Republican representative that: 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 a…
[deleted]
Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality
#9Time to call your Congressmen. I live in a purple district, and I'm going to make it clear to my Republican representative that: 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 a…
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!
Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality
#10Can 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.
It is not pointless. This is signalling ahead of the midterms which representatives are pro net netrality to voters. The people voting it down will do so on the record, and in theory that will help challengers make it an issue against incumbents that voted no.