3 ms·

What gets me is this was a party line vote. So is it good the three voted for this or was it good the other two voted against? Whose on whose side here?

dragonwriter 13y ago
As has always been the case for quite some time, the 3 Democratic commissioners are in favor of adopting regulations enforcing net neutrality principles (though they often differ with each other and some members of the pro-neutrality community over details of the best way to do so within the constraints of existing law, which the FCC can't change), and the two Republican commissioners think that the FCC should not regulate at all to enforce those principles. There's more confusion because much of the media coverage is ignoring the fact that the FCC's old order was struck down by the courts as exceeding the FCC's authority, so that the current status quo is that there is no regulation in this area (except the transparency rule from the old order, which the court let stand), so even if the attempt to work within the court order makes the non-discrimination provision of a new order weaker than the old order, it's not a weakening of existing non-discrimination rules, because there are no existing non-discrimination or non-blocking rules. > Whose on whose side here? The pro-neutrality side on the FCC is the side that is proposing rules aimed at acheiving neutrality as far as possible under the court-imposed limits and seeking input from the public about how to make those rules most effective. The anti-neutrality side is the side that is opposed to the idea of any kind of rules on this issue.
LeafyGreenbriar 13y ago
Well, the Republicans voted against it because they believe that ANY regulation of broadband is unnecessary and beyond the FCC's power anyway. The Democrats believe that the federal government, acting through the FCC, should regulate broadband. Both sides seem to accept the idea of an "internet fast-lane," they just disagree about how to get there. None of them are on our side.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  >Both sides seem to accept the idea of an "internet fast-lane" I don't see how you get that from the actual facts here, where the FCC (on a 3-2 party-line vote) first adopted regulations with non-discrimination provisions that were struck down by the D.C. Circuit, and then put together (on the same 3-2 vote) a proposal designed to revive those same provisions to the extent consistent with the limits on the FCCs authority laid out in the decision striking the old order down, and specifically calling for public comment on how best to structure the rules within the limits imposed by the Court to prevent discrimination. Its clear that one side has no problem with the idea of a "fast lane", but I don't see where you get that for the other side.

dragonwriter 13y ago

As has always been the case for quite some time, the 3 Democratic commissioners are in favor of adopting regulations enforcing net neutrality principles (though they often differ with each other and some members of the pro-neutrality community over details of the best way to do so within the constraints of existing law, which the FCC can't change), and the two Republican commissioners think that the FCC should not regulate at all to enforce those principles. There's more confusion because much of the media coverage is ignoring the fact that the FCC's old order was struck down by the courts as exceeding the FCC's authority, so that the current status quo is that there is no regulation in this area (except the transparency rule from the old order, which the court let stand), so even if the attempt to work within the court order makes the non-discrimination provision of a new order weaker than the old order, it's not a weakening of existing non-discrimination rules, because there are no existing non-discrimination or non-blocking rules. > Whose on whose side here? The pro-neutrality side on the FCC is the side that is proposing rules aimed at acheiving neutrality as far as possible under the court-imposed limits and seeking input from the public about how to make those rules most effective. The anti-neutrality side is the side that is opposed to the idea of any kind of rules on this issue.

LeafyGreenbriar 13y ago

Well, the Republicans voted against it because they believe that ANY regulation of broadband is unnecessary and beyond the FCC's power anyway. The Democrats believe that the federal government, acting through the FCC, should regulate broadband. Both sides seem to accept the idea of an "internet fast-lane," they just disagree about how to get there. None of them are on our side.

dragonwriter 13y ago
>Both sides seem to accept the idea of an "internet fast-lane" I don't see how you get that from the actual facts here, where the FCC (on a 3-2 party-line vote) first adopted regulations with non-discrimination provisions that were struck down by the D.C. Circuit, and then put together (on the same 3-2 vote) a proposal designed to revive those same provisions to the extent consistent with the limits on the FCCs authority laid out in the decision striking the old order down, and specifically calling for public comment on how best to structure the rules within the limits imposed by the Court to prevent discrimination. Its clear that one side has no problem with the idea of a "fast lane", but I don't see where you get that for the other side.