• GOP Senator introduces a bill that would ban U.S. states from making Net Neutrality laws
    20 replies, posted
[URL]https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2018/03/09/gop-senate-net-neutrality/[/URL] [QUOTE]It’s hard to tell if the original John F. Kennedy would have approved of this measure. But Louisiana Republican Senator John Kennedy has now introduced a bill designed to reinforce the FCC’s recent rollback of 2015 net neutrality laws. That includes a complete ‘preemption’ of state laws on net neutrality. The new bill, called the [I]Open Internet Preservation Act[/I], actually complements a [URL="https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2017/12/20/open-internet-preservation-net-neutrality/"]similarly-titled bill introduced in the House[/URL] (H.R. 4682). Both versions explicitly prevent any U.S. state from enacting a separate net neutrality law. A copy of Kennedy’s bill, S.2510, has not been released. But the following [URL="https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2510/text?q={"]brief summary[/URL] has been issued. [B]The summary notes that the bill acts to ‘preempt State law with respect to Internet openness obligations’[/B] The earlier House bill was introduced by Representative Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), who heralded the measure as a step forward for the internet. [B]“We have a bill, the Open Internet Preservation Act,” Blackburn declared in December. “We can do this now that [FCC] Chairman [Ajit] Pai has done his job of getting the net neutrality laws off the books.”[/B] [B]Confusingly, both the Senate and House bills prevent ISPs from blocking or throttling traffic. But it makes it perfectly to create paid fast lanes, which by default means that non-paying sites are slowed.[/B] That contradiction has caused many to deride the measures at ‘fake net neutrality bills,’ while accusing both Kennedy and Blackburn of pretending to clamp down on ISPs. Closer the reality, the pro-FCC measures seem to masquerade as ‘tough bills,’ but simply prevent extreme actions like outright site blocking while containing highly-contradictory language on throttling. “Some cable companies and content providers aren’t going to be happy with this bill because it prohibits them from blocking and throttling web content,” [URL="https://www.kennedy.senate.gov/public/press-releases?ID=E1352949-BF5D-4CCA-8707-BC2B098D27B1"]Kennedy claimed[/URL]. “This bill strikes a compromise that benefits the consumer.” Tellingly, Senator Kennedy declined to participate in an effort [URL="http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2018/02/28/net-neutrality-democrats-resolution/"]to trigger the Congressional Review Act[/URL] on the FCC’s repeal. Kennedy’s participation would override a current tie, and offer a serious challenge to the repeal. Kennedy said he considered joining that effort, but ultimately introduced the pro-FCC bill. [/QUOTE] Hope these fucks get stopped by the 10th Amendment and/or SCOTUS edit: alternate source [URL]https://www.cnet.com/news/gop-senator-proposes-bill-net-neutrality-fix/[/URL]
The irony would be if they argue that such legislation would be legal because of the precedent of the federal government regulating utilities. That would be such a kick in the nuts
states rights my ass
I so, [I]very[/I], [B][I]throughly[/I][/B], despise this fucking timeline.
[QUOTE=BlindSniper17;53194480]I so, [I]very[/I], [B][I]throughly[/I][/B], despise this fucking timeline.[/QUOTE] Hey if this goes through then when the next dem president put in their FCC chairman and they bring back NN then the gop states can't do shit about it except complain.
I can't possibly fathom why a senator representing Louisiana would be interested in preventing Washington state for instance from having it's own net neutrality laws. It's not even something like gun rights or drug legalization that could affect other states.
This is the Republican party working with the corporate oligarchs to practically squash the freedom of information on the internet and to try to control what you can or cannot see/read/watch. This is actively anti-american and these people need to be indicted for treason for actively working against the interests and well-being of the American people.
[QUOTE=joshuadim;53194512]This is the Republican party working with the corporate oligarchs to practically squash the freedom of information on the internet and to try to control what you can or cannot see/read/watch. This is actively anti-american and these people need to be indicted for treason for actively working against the interests and well-being of the American people.[/QUOTE] It's scummy as fuck, and definitely a betrayal of the people to corporate interests, but not remotely applicable to treason in a legal sense. About the only chance of any kind of criminal indictments for something like this would be is if election or finance laws were violated in the transference of money from lobbyists to candidates.
[QUOTE=BlindSniper17;53194480]I so, [I]very[/I], [B][I]throughly[/I][/B], despise this fucking timeline.[/QUOTE] Just burn it all down so we can restart from scratch. I’ll start stocking up on slings and millstones right now to get a head start. Then again, half of the world is actively trying to bring us back to the bronze age anyway, so maybe this joke will come to fruition sooner than later
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53194521]It's scummy as fuck, and definitely a betrayal of the people to corporate interests, but not remotely applicable to treason in a legal sense. About the only chance of any kind of criminal indictments for something like this would be is if election or finance laws were violated in the transference of money from lobbyists to candidates.[/QUOTE] Any politician that works to advance the interests of big money and corporations rather than the interests of their constituents are a traitor in my eyes. They betray the very foundation of what it means to be a [B]representative[/B] to the people.
Fucking called it. Not that there's much satisfaction to be had predicting idiotic political actions, though. [QUOTE=Sgt Doom;53183957]Chances are it'll get quashed by some future federal law that overrides it. Well, depending on how long the current lot stay in office.[/QUOTE] [editline]11th March 2018[/editline] It's sorta like predicting you're going to get irritable bowel syndrome, and then getting it.
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;53194594]It's sorta like predicting you're going to get irritable bowel syndrome, and then getting it.[/QUOTE] So true :(
[QUOTE=TheBorealis;53194483]Hey if this goes through then when the next dem president put in their FCC chairman and they bring back NN then the gop states can't do shit about it except complain.[/QUOTE] I believe the bill that removes net neutrality has a clause in it that explicitly states that after net neutrality is removed, the government has zero say whatsoever about what ISP's can or cannot do. Effectively making them 100% unregulated.
[QUOTE=V12US;53194725]I believe the bill that removes net neutrality has a clause in it that explicitly states that after net neutrality is removed, the government has zero say whatsoever about what ISP's can or cannot do. Effectively making them 100% unregulated.[/QUOTE] Come on, it's impossible for the government to permanently prevent themselves from [del]doing something like that[/del] regulating something, right? :worried: (that's fucking abominable if true, whether it's possible or not) edit: better wording
Party of small government and state rights
[QUOTE=joshuadim;53194566]Any politician that works to advance the interests of big money and corporations rather than the interests of their constituents are a traitor in my eyes. They betray the very foundation of what it means to be a [B]representative[/B] to the people.[/QUOTE] But corporations ARE people, and money IS speech. And the more money you have, the louder your voice I wish the entire system would burn down so we could start from scratch without the bullshit
[quote] The summary notes that the bill acts to ‘preempt State law with respect to Internet openness obligations’[/quote] I smell lots and lots of lawsuits. States have a right to regulate commerce within their boarders, also they have other ways to enforce NN like preventing new utility expansion.
[QUOTE=J!NX;53194840]Party of small government and state rights[/QUOTE] Party of small government and state's rights to THIS BIG, CORPORATE DICK, more like.
State's rights party effectively attempting to ban states having rights.
[QUOTE=TheTalon;53194940]But corporations ARE people, and money IS speech. And the more money you have, the louder your voice I wish the entire system would burn down so we could start from scratch without the bullshit[/QUOTE] i dream of a world where politicians are working in the interest of the people instead of in the interest of their wallets.
[QUOTE=Pat.Lithium;53195347]i dream of a world where politicians are working in the interest of the people instead of in the interest of their wallets.[/QUOTE] Oh, but they [I]are[/I] working in the interest of the people! Just, y'know, the interest of [I]certain[/I] people. :unimpressed:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.