7 ms·
Maloney Introduces Legislation to Block FCC Rollback of Net Neutrality
- tzs 9y agoIs there any reason to believe that this will ever even make it out of committee and come up for a vote? He's a Democrat. Democrats are a minority in the House of Representatives (193 Democrats vs. 239 Republicans), and Republicans have been very united in opposition to net neutrality. Getting rid of the 2015 rule is even part of the party platform adopted at the 2016 convention. It seems very unlikely that enough Republicans can be convinced to go against their party position and flip on this. They would also draw the ire of President Trump, who is on the record as strongly opposing net neutrality. Not that he actually knows what net neutrality is [1]... At best, Republicans might let this go to a vote, and allow up to about 20 Republicans from moderate states where Democrats might use net neutrality to flip seats vote in favor of it to help keep those seats Republican. [1] Trump: ""Obama’s attack on the internet is another top down power grab. Net neutrality is the Fairness Doctrine. Will target conservative media." https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/532608358508167168 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/53260835850816716...
- tptacek 9y agoIt has no chance. I can at least applaud the fact that it puts the spotlight back on Congress, as opposed to the FCC. The FCC is a Republican regulatory agency. Like every regulatory agency, it's only minimally accountable to voters. The expectation that loud public outcry from Internet nerds would lead it to regulate like a Democratic agency is crazymaking.
- shmerl 9y ago> Republicans have been very united in opposition to net neutrality Does it indicate all of them are corrupt? Because only corrupt shills oppose it willingly.
- jopsen 9y agoEven if they are not all bought, it's unlikely that none of the Democrats have been bought. I'm not saying the two parties are even. Both are influenced by money, one probably significantly more than the other. But combined, it's probably more than 50%.
- tptacek 9y agoIt's self-evidently not the case that only "corrupt shills" oppose FCC-mandated net neutrality.
- shmerl 9y agoThe core of the opposition to it comes from monopolists who don't want their abusive monopolistic practices to be held in check. Who else, besides those who are paid off by said monopolists, would willingly side with them?
- dragonwriter 9y ago> Is there any reason to believe that this will ever even make it out of committee and come up for a vote? In the absence of activism, no; OTOH, there's an interaction between activism and a concrete legislative proposal to rally around; enough grassroots support in the districts of enough people who aren’t as strongly.committed to backing the anti-neutrality position as they are to their own re-election, and it could happen. Moreover, even if it fails, the more attention that is drawn to it the more it helps raise the potential of net neutrality legislation being an platform issue in the 2018 elections; policy fights are rarely once-and-done battles, they are long wars, and some battles are more about preparing ground for the next battle than winning the war outright.
- kevin_thibedeau 9y agoThis is being advanced to create more populist hay for Democratic challengers to use for 2018. It isn't intended to pass.
- qwerty456127 9y agoDoesn't he have a tech advisor of a sort who could possibly explain him the thing so he won't make comments this funny?
- drewmol 9y agoProbably, however he has continually demonstrated unwiliingness to allow others to censor, edjucate, or have much of any effect his comments. Cringeworthy as it may be, it's viewed a feature to a large minority.
- dragonwriter 9y agoThey are only funny (in a.negative way, at least) to the segment of the population who both has knowledge to know how badly inaccurate they are and who are not ideologically committed to the agenda the statements advance. Those people are not the audience they are designed to manipulate.
- curiousgal 9y agoI honestly don’t understand how people can mention this with a straight face. Party loyalty goes above the public’s interest? This is crazy.
- cvsh 9y agoWhat's the point of applauding legislative initiatives like this that are obviously doomed to failure? It's a waste of time that could be better spent elsewhere. The only point of this is to make Maloney more marketable in the next election.
- lurker456 9y agomakes it more clear who is responsible. it's not the bureaucrats.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- freeone3000 9y agoThat's a pretty big point.
- totalZero 9y agoEven if the legislation is doomed, the overall battle between policymakers is not over. The fight to save Net Neutrality will benefit from high-visibility attempts to bring the issue to light.
- RandomInteger4 9y agoIt's a signal. Signals are important even if futile. Without such signals, we can only make assumptions concerning where the minority party stands on whichever issue.
- curun1r 9y agoIt also forces Congresspeople to publicly take a stand and not just sit idly by and let Ajit Pai do the dirty work. Getting people on the record is important anytime something is being done at the behest of a limited number of corporations and contrary to the interests of their constituents.
- wmf 9y agoIt's less of a waste of time that encouraging people to call the FCC, which a lot of people are doing.
- mful 9y agoI’m unable to confirm, but based on Maloney’s committee memberships, this appears to be introduced in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Here is the membership list for those who would like to to lobby the appropriate representatives: https://transportation.house.gov/about/membership.htm https://transportation.house.gov/about/membership.htm
- TheCowboy 9y agoExtra note, it's not worth contacting members who do not represent your district. The interns are instructed to take any contacts from other districts and ship them to your own member's office. An exception could exist for people who live on a gerrymandered district border or who are in the same state as a member seeking a state-wide office. It's always better to call too.
- zb 9y agoApart from being doomed to failure, this seems like a stupid thing to legislate for. The one thing everybody in this debate should be able to agree upon is that Title II is not an especially good regulatory mechanism for enforcing net neutrality, just the only one that the FCC is legally entitled to use. If Congress wanted to do something useful they could legislate to allow (or require) the FCC to enforce net neutrality under a lighter-touch regulatory system like the pre-2015 Open Internet regime that failed to stand up in court. Of course if Congress does pass anything it all it's most likely to be a law to shield ISP from liability for not delivering the services their customers have paid for when they don't receive the kickbacks they want...
- mjevans 9y agoIf congress REALLY wanted to be useful, they could declare Internet access to be a first amendment right and providers of last mile access to be natural monopolies (to be regulated as such).
- tptacek 9y agoCongress can't "declare" something to be a First Amendment right. A thing is either guaranteed under 1A or it isn't; if it is, it's guaranteed regardless of the laws passed by Congress. That's a question for Article III tribunals.
- curun1r 9y agoLet's just start with a law that declares community-owned broadband infrastructure to be explicitly legal to spare communities the BS legal challenges that the telcos and cable providers always throw at them whenever they have the audacity to try that kind of thing. While they're at it, provide a fund to help municipalities plan and build out their networks. How do we make current broadband providers offer us modern internet services? Make them fear a world where they're competing with socialized last-mile infrastructure that doesn't need to make a profit.
- webbles 9y agoUh, yea I disagree. Title II is common carrier and is exactly what ISPs are. I dont give a shit about lighter touch regulations. They are a common carrier and need to be regulated as one. You fucking antiregulation corporate shills need to wake the fuck up.
- ianamartin 9y agoThis is just stupid. Or maybe smart posturing at best. This won't happen. But maybe it will look like it could've. Good move for Maloney. Meaningless for all of us.
- qwerty456127 9y agoGreat news! Could someone also introduce some legislation to neutralise FCC's requirement for WiFi router manufacturers to block custom firmwares plese?
- matttproud 9y agoBring it on. At least something is being attempted. The American body politic has been beyond repair for at least six years. The whole damned superstructure at the national level deserves to come tumbling down. Whether or not Maloney's proposal makes it anywhere is beside the point, and concerning itself with that is a pedantic waste of time in smugness. I applaud Maloney for doing this precisely because how abundantly clear it makes the dysfunction, regulatory capture, and public interest disconnect.