3 ms·

While I strongly disagree with the outcome, let's be very precise on what was actually done. Today the Senate passed, with 50R in support, 46D and 2I opposing,

While I strongly disagree with the outcome, let's be very precise on what was actually done. Today the Senate passed, with 50R in support, 46D and 2I opposing, 2R (including Rand Paul, a listed co-sponsor) abstaining, a very brief resolution [1]. The wording of the resolution is reproduced below: JOINT RESOLUTION Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission relating to "Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services". Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission relating to "Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services" (81 Fed. Reg. 87274 (December 2, 2016)), and such rule shall have no force or effect." This undoes the 73-page publication [2] published on 2016-12-02 by the FCC, most of which took effect 2017-01-03, some parts later on 2017-03-02, both after the election and one of them after the inauguration. I sympathize with what's at stake, but the victorious party's Senate issues a one-line rebuke of a sweeping ruleset coming out of the very tail end of the other party's lame duck session. While I support the Democratic position on this issue, I can't help but feel that the timing was a deliberate provocation timed to make the Republicans look bad. As entirely expected [3], this FCC ruling was indeed rebuked by the Senate and it now goes to the House, but the current FCC chair would've probably discontinued it under his leadership anyway. [1] https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/sjres34/BILLS-115sjres34pcs.xml https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/sjres34/BILLS-115sjres34p... [2] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/02/2016-28006/protecting-the-privacy-of-customers-of-broadband-and-other-telecommunications-services https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/02/2016-28... [3] https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/115-2017/s94 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/115-2017/s94

wyldfire 10y ago
Thanks for the detail, I didn't know this was all lame duck activity. Not worth getting all hyped up for this.
yincrash 10y ago
Are you sure the new FCC chair would have been able to remove those rules without the support of the rest of the commission?
endoplasmic5 10y ago
This rebuke rests on the fallacy that because this was allowed before, it's acceptable -- which it simply is not. The status quo is terrible and that means that continuing with the status quo is terrible. The new rules were meant to belatedly restrain the ISPs. They have done invasive things and only a naif would think they'll stop now: see https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/five-creepy-things-your-isp-could-do-if-congress-repeals-fccs-privacy-protections https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/five-creepy-things-you... (in fact, they're reportedly developing technology to allow broader collection and packaging of data.) "the very tail end of the other party's lame duck session" -- not lame duck, this was in October, when Democrats were rather hopeful of electoral gains. "the current FCC chair would've probably discontinued it under his leadership anyway." And in that case that would have been the news. This isn't about the horse race and whose-team-is-winning! It's about whether this situation is right or wrong.

wyldfire 10y ago

Thanks for the detail, I didn't know this was all lame duck activity. Not worth getting all hyped up for this.

yincrash 10y ago

Are you sure the new FCC chair would have been able to remove those rules without the support of the rest of the commission?

endoplasmic5 10y ago

This rebuke rests on the fallacy that because this was allowed before, it's acceptable -- which it simply is not. The status quo is terrible and that means that continuing with the status quo is terrible. The new rules were meant to belatedly restrain the ISPs. They have done invasive things and only a naif would think they'll stop now: see https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/five-creepy-things-your-isp-could-do-if-congress-repeals-fccs-privacy-protections https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/five-creepy-things-you... (in fact, they're reportedly developing technology to allow broader collection and packaging of data.) "the very tail end of the other party's lame duck session" -- not lame duck, this was in October, when Democrats were rather hopeful of electoral gains. "the current FCC chair would've probably discontinued it under his leadership anyway." And in that case that would have been the news. This isn't about the horse race and whose-team-is-winning! It's about whether this situation is right or wrong.