U.S. Democrats seek to restore net neutrality

[Lasher]

Source: PCWorld

A group of Democratic lawmakers have introduced a bill in both the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives to restore net neutrality rules at the U.S. Federal Communications Commission.

The two bills, introduced Monday, come about three weeks after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District Columbia Circuit struck down rules, passed by the FCC in late 2010, prohibiting broadband providers from selectively blocking or slowing Web traffic.

The new bill, called the Open Internet Preservation Act, would restore the FCC’s net neutrality, or open Internet, rules. The rules would remain in effect until the FCC takes new action on net neutrality, after the court left open the agency’s authority to pass new rules if it finds a new way to write them.

Among the nine Democratic cosponsors in the House are Representatives Henry Waxman, Anna Eshoo, Zoe Lofgren and Doris Matsui of California. Among the six Senate cosponsors are Senators Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Al Franken of Minnesota and Ron Wyden of Oregon.

Read more: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2093820/us-democratic-lawmakers-look-to-restore-net-neutrality.html

[blkmusclmachine]

1. Uh huh. Color me ... skeptical.

[KoKo]

2. Sad to say...as much as I want to get Excited Over This....

I find the track record poor. And...yes...I understand that the Repugs always win because they have the Votes...but, I'm tired of getting excited over legislation that might have passed when we OWNED THE HOUSE...when Nancy was Elected Speaker...and it all got wasted away....and so it's hard to not see this as Pump Up for the Big Defeat...with the Meme Fed to Us.."Just Work Harder to ELECT MORE AND BETTER DEMS!" AYYYYYYY....

The opportunities LOST...listening to these empty legislative initiatives and the broken Promises.

sorry..I wish them well. But, over 300,000 signatures were sent to the FCC in the Bush years when we had some Dems Still There on FCC...and we got NOTHING except a DELAY...before they went forward with the Bush dismantling.

[okaawhatever]

3. The first two years, you mean when Obama got 85% of his campaign promises completed? nt

[L0oniX]

5. LMFAO

[okaawhatever]

6. From Politics USA Interview with Paul Krugman:

Krugman’s point was an extremely strong one. Most presidents don’t get one major reform done in a term. Obama accomplished two major reforms in his first two years. Is is still a little known fact, but President Obama accomplished 85% of his stated agenda for his entire presidency during his first two years in office.

By the time Republicans took control of the House in 2011, it was already too late. President Obama had accomplished almost everything that he intended. This is why House Republicans have been obsessed with rolling back everything that this president has accomplished. They got to the game too late, and have been left with nothing to do but unsuccessfully try to play catch up and repeal.

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/02/02/paul-krugman-calls-barack-obama-consequential-president-reagan.html

The truth hurts.

[merrily]

15. One of his campaign promises was a strong public option, not simply

a bill written by a representative of the health care industry. Yeah, yeah, I know, Congress, he's not a king, yada yada.


Also, I was not aware that passing Obamacare and Dodd Frank equaled 85% of his campaign promises and, in 2008, I followed both his primary campaign and his general election campaign very closely.

[tblue]

40. "accomplished almost everything that HE intended."

I think maybe what he intended was not exactly what some of us had thought and hoped he'd do. Actually there's no maybe about that. So give him credit--he did what he intended.

[lordsummerisle]

4. Why is this a partisan issue?

I would think most everyone should want an open Internet, irrespective of politics. Don't Repubs view radical and porn websites (for example) and would not want that traffic slowed down??

[Angleae]

8. They hold corporate profit to be above everything else.

[merrily]

16. If you are implying that Republicans are the only ones in D.C. who do that, I disagree.

[Angleae]

17. True, there are Dems that do it too.

Far too many of them.

[merrily]

18. I agree.

It's one thing to boost Democrats and condemn Republicans. But, when we do that all the time, we help the Democratic Party, but hurt ourselves. Being in office is a public trust. Anyone who violates that trust needs to be held accountable, regardless of party.

OT, but i think the two party system stinks because it has the effect of making us vote for people who rip us off because they are less evil or less crazy than the only other realistic choice on the ballot. Our problems in America have devolved in systemic issues at this point.

I will apologize for the OT soap box rant (but I won't delete it because I feel too strongly about it)!

[tblue]

41. Yes there are some bad Dems

but on the subject of net neutrality, there's a partisan split, it appears. So kudos to the Dems who are bringing up this bill.

[jeff47]

53. The money isn't only on one side of this issue.

Microsoft, Apple, Google, Netflix, Sony, Amazon and a host of other large names also want net neutrality.

Yes, the ISPs could make tiered Internet happen, but I don't think they'd get through the backlash from the moneyed interests on the other side.

ISPs could try to strike a deal with those companies, but then there goes the money from tiered Internet - the big sites get the vast majority of Internet traffic.

[AndyTiedye]

9. The Internet is the Only Media that Conservatives Do Not Yet Control

They've got every Tee Vee station in the country, almost every radio station, newspaper and magazine.
If they can get all the liberal sites on the Internet blocked or slowed down like traffic in Fort Lee, then they've got it all.

[tofuandbeer]

13. +1

[merrily]

19. Could not agree more on the need to keep the internet neutral

It is the modern equivalent of nailing up a rant against the British during the Revolutionary War era, only much better because you get a much wider audience and the search engines allow people to search the world by topic (or at least by topic in a certain alphabet/language).

[Lasher]

24. For decades, service providers have yearned for defeat of net neutrality.

They're not satisfied with being the information superhighway. They also want to set up toll booths.

[AndyTiedye]

45. They Want To Make It Like Cable TV, Where THEY DECIDE What We Can See

They not only want to be the toll collectors, they want to be the gatekeepers, who get to decide what we can access and what we can't. They would reduce our Internet access to just their marketing partners.

[Mosaic]

43. The meme

That conservatives will eventually control everything is destructive. Please let's not think this way anymore!

[Springslips]

51. Thank you!

Left wing fatalism and defeatism is a troubling trend I see on here. Fact is that progressive have had many victories the last few years; we are in the edge of a powerful resurgence.

If I wanted to don a tinfoil hat and be a conspiracy nut, I would wonder if these so-called liberals with loser mentality are not real wingnuts in disguise-- spreading negativity to lower morale. Of course, I won't wear such a hat, but it makes you think.

[AndyTiedye]

57. Everything We have Gained is At Risk

Left wing fatalism and defeatism is a troubling trend I see on here.

I was pointing out what is at stake.

This is a huge setback, even if it was not unexpected. It is not insurmountable, but we need to start working on ways to route around this damage now, not after they pull the plug on us.

Fact is that progressive have had many victories the last few years;

All those gains are extremely fragile. We have to win a lot of elections this year and in 2016 to keep them. The ability to communicate is absolutely vital.

we are in the edge of a powerful resurgence.

I certainly hope so. We are on an edge, that much is clear. Which way it goes remains to be seen.

If I wanted to don a tinfoil hat and be a conspiracy nut, I would wonder if these so-called liberals with loser mentality are not real wingnuts in disguise-- spreading negativity to lower morale. Of course, I won't wear such a hat, but it makes you think.

Of course you wouldn't, because that would violate the rules here.

[AndyTiedye]

56. That is Certainly Their Plan

Not thinking about it won't stop them.

We need to come up with alternatives. Community Wi-Fi, ham radio gateways for more outlying areas, whatever it takes.

[erronis]

54. Yup - the repugs own many/most of the commercial outlets

Which is probably why fewer people are using the over-the-air (vs. tubular) comms.

Color me ironic if ClearChannel, Fox, Disney, (forgive me if I don't know all of them) put themselves out of business by serving only one right-winged dish.

For all the hoopla about letting markets take care of making sure there's competition, the mega-RW corporations are stifling competition and suffocating themselves at the same time.

However, if they can control the tubes including forums such as this, we'll need to evolve to another non-centralized network that isn't in the control of the ISPs (major corps) or outlets (major corps).

[AndyTiedye]

55. I Have my Ham Radio License, Do You?

http://www.arrl.org/ for more info.

[Kelvin Mace]

7. But they won't since they are just as bought and paid for

as the GOP.

They will talk about it a lot coming up to the election so as to con us into sending them money too.

[AndyTiedye]

10. If You Think the Democrats are as Bad as the Republicans What Are You Doing Here?

[merrily]

20. Democrats are not as bad, but, at this point, maybe that is because they know that

their voting base simply won't let them be just as bad. So, I think it's healthy for the base to call them out.

Also, IMO, allowing Democrats to vent publicly about Democrats some place other than the voting booth is very useful for the Democratic Party.

[Kelvin Mace]

27. I am a liberal

and there are a few that hang out here who understand that being a Democrat and being liberal are two different things.

[tblue]

42. Isn't that sad?

We've got nowhere to go, and the party knows that.

[Kelvin Mace]

46. *sigh*

It is, and so damned depressing.

[NYC_SKP]

11. Recommended. (nt)

[trublu992]

12. I hope this picks up steam they need to get Elizabeth Warren on board!

[merrily]

21. Actually, they need to get sixty one Senators on board or they won't get cloture.

The cloture rule leads to, or at least allows, a lot of kabuki. IMO, that's one of several reasons why neither Republicans and Democrats will repeal it when they have the chance.

[merrily]

14. Since the net neutrality case was decided on the basis of classification by the FCC,

can't the FCC fix this by re-classifying internet providers?

[Lasher]

23. Yes, the DC Circuit Court left room for the FCC to create more specific rules to preserve neutrality

But that's probably not going to happen because FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler (appointed by Obama on November 14th last year) has stated in the past that he is not opposed prioritization of traffic by service providers. Prior to working at the FCC, Wheeler worked as a venture capitalist and lobbyist for the cable and wireless industry.

[tblue]

44. "appointed by Obama"

The choices our POTUS makes.

[jsr]

22. Recommend

[frwrfpos]

25. important op

Needs exposure

[Lasher]

26. I'm doing my best.

I think people are busy arguing about Woody Allen today.

[Javaman]

28. using a hammer to kill an ant.

all that needs to be done is for the FCC to declare interent providers to be "common carriers".

this bill is smoke and mirrors that will amount to nothing and will give those Dems the "cred" of "we tried". this will die and the kabuki show continues.

[Lasher]

29. But the problem with that is, the new FCC Chairman is unlikely to support such a move.

He is unopposed to prioritization of traffic by service providers.

[Javaman]

30. I'm aware of that...

but this bill will go no where and those proposing it, know that full well.

it's just kabuki theater.

[Lasher]

31. That's a fair assessment.

And an accurate one, IMO.

[Ash_F]

33. Can he be sacked?

And if so, why not?

[Lasher]

34. He was just appointed in November last year by Obama.

Checkmate, game over. We lose.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014717803#post23

[Ash_F]

36. But he still CAN be sacked right? Democrats do have control over this issue

They just won't exercise it.

[Lasher]

37. I don't know about any way we could realistically expect that to occur.

He has already been confirmed by the Senate.

[Ash_F]

38. That's kind of my point

Dems can fix this. But it is not realistic to expect them to do the right thing here.

[TBF]

32. Good! K&R nt

[grahamhgreen]

35. Call & repost!!!

[Maedhros]

39. I would like to see the President come out strongly in favor of this bill.[n/t]

[RC]

48. And opposed his own appointee?

Not bloody likely.

[Maedhros]

49. There is a vast gulf between what I want Obama to do,

and what he actually does.

[RC]

50. You are not alone.

Not by any stretch of the imagination.

[geardaddy]

47. Franken has been fighting for Net Neutrality from the beginning.

[PFunk]

52. Actually I see this one succeeding for these reasons.

Most folks and most online realtors like net neutrality. Or at least the way the internet is now. And any attempt to change that will upset the 'balance' leading to angry factions on numerous sides against the internet providers. And a lot of those sides-which will probably include many online providers (like NetFlicks) will be petitioning their reps in DC. So I see this as DC trying to deal with this now before it becomes a major political issue later. But that's just me.

[Lasher]

58. I hope you are right.

I'd love to be wrong on this one. We'll see.