3 ms·

Congress can gut FCC's power to decide these things though, that's what the Republicans want.

metaphorm 12y ago
1. its not clear that that's what a congressional majority wants. there is a faction of congress that is aligned with ISPs that wants that, but there is also a large faction of congress aligned differently. i don't think this issue breaks along strictly D vs. R party lines. 2. an act of congress that diminishes the authority of the FCC would have to be signed by Obama, which he will not do. there is no faction in congress now that has a veto proof majority. 3. there is immense popular support for net neutrality and any action taken by congress against it is likely to lead to immediate and intense political pressure on those members of congress. lets not forget this country is still a democracy (mostly). the congressional representatives act against public interest at their own peril.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > i don't think this issue breaks along strictly D vs. R party lines. There's a little bit of fuzzing on the boundaries, but this issue has been the focus of lots of legislative action since it first became a controversy, and its pretty consistently been a large majority of Republicans opposing FCC action for neutrality and neutrality generally. And, over the years, the partisan alignment has increasingly solidified.
  - slowmovintarget 12y ago
    The Republicans were right to oppose FCC action for "neutrality" when what it really meant (at the time) was the ability to monitor and censor conservative blogs. The recent moves have been lobbyist-inspired, though. Sad.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > The Republicans were right to oppose FCC action for "neutrality" when what it really meant (at the time) was the ability to monitor and censor conservative blogs. The Federal Communications Commission Open Internet -- the thing the FCC has done addressing what is known in public discourse as "net neutrality" -- principles haven't substantially changed, though details of the approach to advancing them have, and neither the principles nor the implementation approaches have ever included monitoring and censoring conservative blogs. And the GOP has been opposed to FCC regulating non-blocking and non-discrimination for all lawful content by broadband ISPs for years. You seem to be confusing what is itself a misrepresentation of the Federal Elections Commission -- a completely different agency -- discussions on rules for political ad disclosures in the wake of a 2005 Federal court ruling requiring them not to exempt all internet communication from the scope of "public communication" in their rules with the FCC's Open Internet rules. (Or perhaps confusing something that was an even bigger misrepresentation of Federal Trade Commission rules on online general advertising disclosures.)
- ejain 12y ago
  Congress is "pro-fundraising". Leaving this matter to the FCC, or issuing clear legislation for or against Net Neutrality isn't as conducive to future fundraising as muddled legislation is...
andrewfong 12y ago
The President can still veto though, and Obama's been pretty supportive of net neutrality recently. So we'll at least have net neutrality around for a little under two years. After that, the hope is that sheer inertia keeps things from reverting.

1. its not clear that that's what a congressional majority wants. there is a faction of congress that is aligned with ISPs that wants that, but there is also a large faction of congress aligned differently. i don't think this issue breaks along strictly D vs. R party lines. 2. an act of congress that diminishes the authority of the FCC would have to be signed by Obama, which he will not do. there is no faction in congress now that has a veto proof majority. 3. there is immense popular support for net neutrality and any action taken by congress against it is likely to lead to immediate and intense political pressure on those members of congress. lets not forget this country is still a democracy (mostly). the congressional representatives act against public interest at their own peril.

dragonwriter 12y ago
> i don't think this issue breaks along strictly D vs. R party lines. There's a little bit of fuzzing on the boundaries, but this issue has been the focus of lots of legislative action since it first became a controversy, and its pretty consistently been a large majority of Republicans opposing FCC action for neutrality and neutrality generally. And, over the years, the partisan alignment has increasingly solidified.
- slowmovintarget 12y ago
  The Republicans were right to oppose FCC action for "neutrality" when what it really meant (at the time) was the ability to monitor and censor conservative blogs. The recent moves have been lobbyist-inspired, though. Sad.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > The Republicans were right to oppose FCC action for "neutrality" when what it really meant (at the time) was the ability to monitor and censor conservative blogs. The Federal Communications Commission Open Internet -- the thing the FCC has done addressing what is known in public discourse as "net neutrality" -- principles haven't substantially changed, though details of the approach to advancing them have, and neither the principles nor the implementation approaches have ever included monitoring and censoring conservative blogs. And the GOP has been opposed to FCC regulating non-blocking and non-discrimination for all lawful content by broadband ISPs for years. You seem to be confusing what is itself a misrepresentation of the Federal Elections Commission -- a completely different agency -- discussions on rules for political ad disclosures in the wake of a 2005 Federal court ruling requiring them not to exempt all internet communication from the scope of "public communication" in their rules with the FCC's Open Internet rules. (Or perhaps confusing something that was an even bigger misrepresentation of Federal Trade Commission rules on online general advertising disclosures.)
ejain 12y ago
Congress is "pro-fundraising". Leaving this matter to the FCC, or issuing clear legislation for or against Net Neutrality isn't as conducive to future fundraising as muddled legislation is...

andrewfong 12y ago

The President can still veto though, and Obama's been pretty supportive of net neutrality recently. So we'll at least have net neutrality around for a little under two years. After that, the hope is that sheer inertia keeps things from reverting.