Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2018/01/16/sopa-2-0.html
Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2018/01/16/sopa-2-0.html
There must be at least three vulnerable GOP Senators who can be pressed on this issue by their constituents. Just get people to ask them why they think their Internet service should be more like their cable TV service.
Wishful thinking. El agujero de mierda will kill their efforts. It’s good PR however.
Come on Americans, lets see tRump’s face publicly slapped one more time. I’m getting used to it, even if it’s a little uncomfortable for tRump.
I can see Trump signing this, claiming he has saved the Internet. I can see him vetoing it. I can see him claiming net neutrality was his idea. I can see him claiming that it is fake news. I can see him doing all of these in a 15 minute period.
Makes me wish legislation never had a name and was always just a number. Since, the name is so often misleading.
As in, the “Open Internet Preservation Act” doesn’t actually preserve an open internet and instead explicitly creates a non open internet.
Which creates a PR problem fro the new effort too. Sure, the Democrats can run commercials saying their opponents voted against the CRA measure to restore internet protections. In turn, those targeted will run ads saying the Democrat voted against the “Open Internet” too.
Now, both parties are saying the other one voted against internet protections.
The nuance that one is a lie will be lost in the 30 second sound bite.
Georgian here. My two senators, Isakson and the lovely David Perdue – who doesn’t know his holes from his houses – are hopeless.
Do any of my fellow Americans have a senator or two that might be moved by appeals to reason and statesmanship?
Yes, and that’s exactly why they all voted against repealing the Affordable Care Act. Also, selling your children to buy tax cuts for Paris Hilton.
So, what does the CRA actually do? Does it create a process for regulatory review? Or is it specific to net neutrality?
Because, Congress created the FCC and delegated rulemaking power to it. A Congress can’t tie it’s successors’ hands, so of course it has the authority to take that power back. Why do they wajn or need the CRA?
The Congressional Review Act is set up so Congress may reverse any regulations they want with votes in the House & Senate. The FCC repealed Net Neutrality with a regulation.
Right… I guess what I don’t get is why Congress can’t (or didn’t) just pass a law saying the equivalent “FCC Regulation XYZ is hereby repealed/nullified/whatever.” Why have the intermediate step of the CRA?
An FCC regulation (like the Net Neutrality order) is one promulgated by a Federal agency, all of which are directly accountable to the Executive branch rather than the Legislative. They have the power to put in place regulations and rules without having to get Congress to pass a bunch of new laws.
The CRA is supposed to be a Congressional check on the power of the President, although in practise it’s mainly been used by GOP Congresspeople since early 2017 to overturn regulations or rules promulgated by agencies under Obama.
The Net Neutrality order will also be fought through lawsuits via the Judicial branch. It’s basically a full-court press for anyone who wants to retain a free and open Internet against the Executive Branch and the agency it controls, a couple of dozen GOP Senators, a bunch of GOP Reps, and the telcos and cablecos and their lobbyists.
Federal agencies may report to the president, but they are created by and get their rule-making power from Congress.
Most likely it is just my non-lawyer dense-ness showing, but if Congress have the power to grant itself the authority to review regulations, why doesn’t it already have the authority to review regulations regardless? Is there a legal reason they can’t do so, but can grant themselves the power to do so?
True, but when it comes to actually using that rule-making power the agencies are given a lot of independence and are guided by the Executive’s policy goals (because the Executive appoints the various Secretaries and Directors and Commissioners). Agencies promulgate (and then enforce) a lot of rules and Congress would be bogged down having to pass laws for every single one. It’s a matter of convenience and efficiency.
Its does now, and has since the Clinton administration, but Congress didn’t explicitly have it before. Prior to the days of Gingrich and the “Contract with America”, disputes over agency regulations were worked out through negotiations or the courts and/or through laws promulgated by Congress that effectively nullified the rule. That process took time and effort and required having enough grown-ups on both sides of the aisle. In the 1990s the old-line GOP was replaced by a group that actively encouraged childish “I want it now-Now-NOW” behaviour (the link to their “free” market extremism not co-incidental), so the CRA emerged.
The CRA was thus an outcome of the increased political partisanship, divisiveness and obstructionism that’s become the norm since the 1990s. CRA was supposed to streamline the challenge process described above and was intended to stymie Clinton’s (and later Obama’s) progressive policies as expressed through agency regulations. Republicans can’t be thrilled that Dems have finally seen fit to use it and expose the GOP’s anti-consumer approach to something ordinary people use every day.
Whether or not there is “net neutrality”, where I live I doubt I will ever see more than 5 mbps speed in my lifetime, unless I go with a wireless or satellite plan that caps or throttles me at 30-40 gig per month.
You see, I live 1500 feet from the main road where the other cables run, and it may as well be 1500 miles.
So whether or not I have to pay extra for Netflix/Amazon/Hulu streaming is simply a non issue as far as I am concerned. Ain’t no streaming for our house.
I chose to live here, it was my decision and I am not bitching. But I have no skin in this game, as I expect 20-30 percent of the population does.
Or if two of the GOP can’t attend the vote? I know at least one has been spending a lot of time not in DC lately.
At least it’ll force Republican senators to screw their courage to the sticking place, so they can be hammered on it.
I’m assuming you have electricity run over that distance? Probably phone line too?
A little (or a lot) of sweat input and you could have it. A ditch witch, a bunch of hours, a company willing to sell you the cable and let you install it, or installing conduit that’s big enough. Anything to reduce the number of hours needed for a company hook up the wire at the street and your house. Possible, but not cheap.
My in-laws, I think about 600 feet from the street, did this. Cable company wanted something like $10 to $15k to run a wire from the street to the house. However, they were willing to sell them the cable and hook it up at the street and house for $3K. We had to install the wire in the ground, according to the correct code. Obviously, this had a cost too, but it was less than the cable company rate. Depending on your time value, this is certainly an option.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.