Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

House Votes To Overturn FCC On Net Neutrality

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the elephant-in-the-house dept.

Networking 388

suraj.sun writes with this quote from CNet: "House Republicans voted unanimously today to block controversial Net neutrality regulations from taking effect, a move that is likely to invite a confrontation with President Obama. By a vote of 241 to 178, the House of Representatives adopted a one-page resolution that says, simply, the regulations adopted by the Federal Communications Commission on December 21 'shall have no force or effect.' 'Congress did not authorize the FCC to regulate in this area,' Rep. Rob Woodall (R-Ga.), said during this morning's floor debate. 'We must reject any rules that it promulgates in this area... It is Congress' responsibility to delegate that authority.'"

cancel ×

388 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

No Force or Effect (5, Insightful)

Sonny Yatsen (603655) | more than 3 years ago | (#35725602)

It's a good thing, then, that a House Resolution, by itself, also has "no force or effect". It seems our current House of Representatives thinks that it is good to waste time and money passing House Resolutions defunding or outlawing everything that they don't like, all the while knowing that each resolution they pass has no chance to get past the Senate or the President. Why are they wasting time with this? Isn't there a governmental shutdown deadline this Friday? Shouldn't they be working on the budget instead of killing time with small-fry legislation that goes nowhere?

Re:No Force or Effect (2)

Presto Vivace (882157) | more than 3 years ago | (#35725632)

It may not have any force or effect; but it is still a very bad sign.

Re:No Force or Effect (3, Insightful)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 3 years ago | (#35725960)

Only if the Republican party gains more power in the next election. They currently hold a third of the cards, not the whole deck. I agree it's a bad sign but expected. The republican party has always looked out for business interests and this is no exception.

I'm just surprised that they got 10 Democrats to vote with them. That's just as troubling.

Also, wasn't the FCC key in getting the special treatment these broadband companies now enjoy?

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20004392-266.html?tag=mncol;txt [cnet.com]

Does the regulation allow shaping? (2)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | more than 3 years ago | (#35726094)

Does the regulation allow shaping for largely content-neutral reasons? I favor a little shaping to keep non-netflix flowing--Wikipedia and plain text should always work.

Re:No Force or Effect (0, Flamebait)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 3 years ago | (#35725688)

> It's a good thing, then, that a House Resolution, by itself, also has "no force or effect".

By itself no, but if the Senate signs on it is over for Network Neutrality by virtue of Congress having the power to nullify regulations. Because the Executive Branch can't make laws. And they already tried to get Congress to pass Network Neutrality and they shot it down. Then the FCC tried to do it anyway and the courts shot them down on the grounds they lacked authority without a law from Congress. So Omaba's thugs just ignored all that and did it yet again. So now Congress will yet again say NO. Eventually one side will have to back down but apparently barring Congress defunding the whole FCC they will eventually get their way.

Forget the pros and cons of network neutrality, everyone should be coming together to support the Rule of Law. If you want the laws changed bug your Congresscritter.

Re:No Force or Effect (2)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35725736)

...everyone should be coming together to support the Rule of Law.

That will require a complete purge of the entire system and starting over. I'm game for that. Otherwise we're in for a bureaucracy that would make India blush, and maybe envious.

Re:No Force or Effect (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35725776)

"Obama's thugs"

Yeah, you're not objective at all. Next time say that in the very beginning so we know to write you off as a partisan nitwit.

Re:No Force or Effect (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35725928)

"Obama's thugs"

Yeah, you're not objective at all. Next time say that in the very beginning so we know to write you off as a partisan nitwit.

"Bush's thugs," "Obama's thugs," whats the difference? They're all neo-cons and they have a stranglehold on the government. Apparently you're just as big of a "partisan nitwit" as the dude you just told-off.

Re:No Force or Effect (1, Insightful)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 3 years ago | (#35726214)

"Obama's thugs" took nothing away from the intellectual points he made.

While the statement was presented in a confrontational biased light, it still remains factual and correct. Please do not dismiss facts because you don't like who they hurt or how they were mentioned.

Re:No Force or Effect (1)

Danse (1026) | more than 3 years ago | (#35725800)

Forget the pros and cons of network neutrality, everyone should be coming together to support the Rule of Law. If you want the laws changed bug your Congresscritter.

I guess it's kind of sad that I read that last sentence as "If you want the laws changed buy your Congresscritter", and it actually made more sense that way.

I don't see this getting past the Senate, so it's probably not much of an issue right now. They do have a lot more important things to worry about. What really annoys me is that for all the Constitution-thumping that the Tea Partiers do, they don't seem to understand that the minority doesn't get to just come in and scream and yell about stuff and then make whatever laws they want.

Re:No Force or Effect (1, Flamebait)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#35725852)

The Tea Baggers only make up 20 members of the House, so this resolution was supported even by moderate Republicans too.

Re:No Force or Effect (1, Redundant)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 3 years ago | (#35725992)

The Tea Baggers only make up 20 members of the House, so this resolution was supported even by moderate Republicans too.

How many Moderates do you think are left in the Republican Party in the House or Senate? These flame-brain "conservative" radio commentators and bloggers, who are playing an influential role, are helping the Republican Party move further to the Right all the time. Fascism can't be far off - in some instances it has already reared its ugly head.

Re:No Force or Effect (2)

dch24 (904899) | more than 3 years ago | (#35726056)

Hate to break it to you, but the entire congress, all parties, are in on the power grab and race to the bottom.

I don't think Congress should have the power to play favorites with the internet at all. To paraphrase: the internet sees meddling as damage and routes around it.

Re:No Force or Effect (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#35726154)

The fact remains that the Tea Baggers only account for 17 members of the House, 20 was my mistake, with only 12-13 of them caucusing with the Tea Party and 10 members of the Senate. Thats 27 out of 535 members.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Tea_Party_politicians [wikipedia.org]

The House and Senate Republicans are not controlled by the Tea Party Movement.

Re:No Force or Effect (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35726088)

There are no more moderate republicans. The ones you could consider Moderate have been marginalized, thrown under the bus, or left the party in disgust.
Were you paying attention during the last election? Moderates found themselves with new, and aggressively funded ultra-conservative opponents thanks to the effective uncapping of campaign contribution limits.

The party has been purged. All that remains are yes men.

*Preemptive response - No, the Democrats don't do it too you fake grassroots shill.

Re:No Force or Effect (1)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 3 years ago | (#35726158)

I find it interesting that any mention of 'Republican' is immediately getting modded as troll or flamebait when the article itself points out the fact that this is driven by the Republican party. This only had 10 votes from the Democratic party. Just because you don't like the facts (and they are facts), doesn't make it trolling or flamebait.

Re:No Force or Effect (0)

HeckRuler (1369601) | more than 3 years ago | (#35725844)

but if the Senate signs on it is over for Network Neutrality

Hi,
Welcome to American politics, the two-party system dominates most everything that happens in congress. This has gotten worse as of late.
Currently the republicans control the house, they're the ones who voted for this.
Currently the democrats control the senate, they're not going to vote for this.

The republicans know it, the democrats know it, we know it. But I understand the importance of voting for things that you know won't pass.

Because the Executive Branch can't make laws

Man, wouldn't that have been great if Bush had known that? It's like the FISA laws wouldn't have been trampled.

The rule of law is a good thing. Unfortunately, it looks like the law is what those with enough clout say it is.

Re:No Force or Effect (2)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 3 years ago | (#35725954)

> Currently the democrats control the senate, they're not going to vote for this.

Don't bet on it. When Network Neutrality was attempted the legal way both houses of Congress were in Democratic hands. Didn't pass. And I don't think you can filibuster one of these bills which assert Congressional oversight on the rulemakings of the Executive branch agencies.

Re:No Force or Effect (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35725880)

By itself no, but if the Senate signs on it is over for Network Neutrality by virtue of Congress having the power to nullify regulations.

Kids, gather around. You see, there's this magic thing called the veto. When a President vetos a bill, Congress must again pass the bill with a 2/3 majority in both houses. Ignore the absurd notion that this bill will pass the Senate. The House of Representatives only passed this bill with a 57% majority, and that alone is far less than the 2/3 majority required to overcome a veto.

I hope you like walled gardens.. (5, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#35726074)

Because that is exactly what you have without net neutrality. look upon my present and see your future! i'm on Cox (perfect name since they're dicks) and the caps are 36Gb residential, 76Gb commercial and the commercial line is nearly $200 a month, any going over? That's $1.50 per Gb please. Oh and Vonage, Linux and Mac updates? They all count against your cap. The "offerings" by Cox and Windows? they DO NOT.

So I hope you like walled gardens ala the old AOHell, because at $1.50 a Gb it doesn't take too many $200+ bills to put your ass in your place. And before anyone uses the old "vote with your dollars!" meme I'd point out my choices are Cox, AT&T DSL that MAXES at 756Kbps and which they've said they have NO intention of ever upgrading, or a WISP whose security is so damned bad you can surf the shares of everyone on a node through network neighborhood (and the head tech is so dim I never could get him to understand why that's bad, he still swears its a "feature") and who has a worse TOS than HughesNet.

So all you Time Warner and Comcast users, better be filling your boots, your time is running out. Once Cox rolls this out nationwide and the others see they get away with it? that's your ass Mr User, you are well and truly fucked. While the rest of the world surfs the information superhighway we are gonna be on the short bus to walled garden shittown. But hell the corps won't be happy until the USA is a third world country, so why not just pull the plug? More profits in walled gardens anyway!

Re:I hope you like walled gardens.. (1)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 3 years ago | (#35726258)

And your point would be? The FCC won't stop the caps. The FCC isn't even talking about stopping the caps. Their stated goals are only to make it 'fair' so the Cable company can't kill Netflix in favor of their own video on demand offering or kill Vonage connectivity to push their ownVOIP product.

And they shouldn't stop the caps. People who use more of a resource should pay more than someone who uses less. What they should do is unleash market forces to destroy their monopoly creations but if you believe they would ever do that you are mad. In a free market there would be a downward push on per GB rates such that few people would care about the issue. Our problem is that for most Americans the choice is Government Monopoly Telco or Government Monopoly Cable Co with an occasional wildcard of Governement regulated out the wazoo Wireless carrier. And hint: wireless is never going to compete with wired.

Re:No Force or Effect (1)

Anthony Mouse (1927662) | more than 3 years ago | (#35726194)

Then the FCC tried to do it anyway and the courts shot them down on the grounds they lacked authority without a law from Congress. So Omaba's thugs just ignored all that and did it yet again.

I don't know if that's really accurate. I mean think about: Why does the FCC exist, if not to regulate telecommunications companies? Moreover, if the FCC isn't the right agency to regulate them then which is? Or should we just have telecommunications companies sprawling corrupt empires across the land with monopoly profits, like the robber barons of old?

The real problem is that the FCC is too deferential to the telcos. They're allowed to regulate them both as telecommunications providers and as information service providers, but they have a lot less authority over information service providers. Which is why Bush reclassified them as information service providers -- because they paid him good money to do it. But there is nothing stopping Obama from regulating them as telecommunications providers instead.

I kind of get the impression that the Democrats want to keep them as information service providers because it's a much broader category (it includes Microsoft, Facebook, etc. as well as the ISPs) and if they can get some history of being able to regulate "information service providers" then they can sink their hooks into those companies too. Which is totally stupid. They need to just reclassify the ISPs as telecommunications providers and get back to doing what they were created to do -- regulating AT&T.

Re:No Force or Effect (0)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 3 years ago | (#35725734)

Should have addressed this one in the post above.... oh well

> Shouldn't they be working on the budget instead of killing time with small-fry legislation that goes nowhere?

Why? The House has already passed HR1 to do what the Democrats couldn't, pass a budget. Since that went nowhere in the Senate they have passed an increasingly more serious series of CRs with cuts. The House is already moving on to the 2012 budget in a timely manner and will almost certainly pass one in plenty of time for the retards in the Senate to do nothing for months and months.

The House Republicans have already kept their campaign promise and repealed ObamaCare. It died in the Senate.

Re:No Force or Effect (3, Insightful)

Sonny Yatsen (603655) | more than 3 years ago | (#35725878)

The House Republicans kept none of their campaign promises, really. They promised to "repeal and replace" the Healthcare reform bill. The only thing they've managed to do is vote to defund portions of it, which isn't a repeal at all. A repeal requires the Senate and and the President to sign on board, which Congressional Republicans haven't managed to even come close to achieving. Secondly, they've failed to "replace" the Healthcare reform bill with their own reform bill, because there is no replacement bill proposed by the House thus far. Remember, the promise is to "repeal and replace", not "make an attempt at repeal and replace".

Oh, and their other major campaign promise of cutting $100 billion for fiscal year 2011? Yeah, that looks like it's going nowhere as well. Right now, the House Republicans are playing the "lower your expectations game" with their base right now.

Thirdly, laws must be made by the House and Senate - so that the House and Senate must work together and compromise in order to get a law passed. Just because the House passed a budget doesn't mean their role is over and it's completely up to the Senate. Both houses still need to negotiate on the total number of budget cuts to be done, which is what is being done right now, although all indicators point to stalemate.

Re:No Force or Effect (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35726242)

The House Republicans kept none of their campaign promises, really.

Yet. Unlike Barrack Hussein Obama and the rest of the Dems, they're at least ATTEMPTING to. (So, how goes closing Guantanamo? Or leaving Iraq and Afghanistan? Oh, looks like you guys started another war. One that, unlike the ones Bush started, is solely about oil without even a hint of fighting terrorism. Which would be hilarious, if you ignore the, you know, death and destruction, let alone the cost to the American people.)

Unfortunately, the Democrats have decided to obstruct the clear will of the people in this matter. If any of them really served the American people, they'd be helping get rid of the job-killing healthcare bill. Their constituents sent a clear message: get rid of it.

Sadly, they'd rather give kickbacks to their friends in the healthcare industry, and are refusing to do so.

It's sad, but expected, and I'm pretty sure the Republican base knows they'll have to wait until 2013 to actually get anything accomplished.

Re:No Force or Effect (1)

thaylin (555395) | more than 3 years ago | (#35725942)

You do realize in order to repeal a law they have to actually get it past both, and the president, or overrule the president.. Trying and getting kicked in the face does not constitute an actual repeal, it is nothing more then an attempt at a repeal.

Re:No Force or Effect (1)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | more than 3 years ago | (#35726034)

Isn't it great when you can act without thinking and blame someone else for the results..?

Don't need force or effect to state the law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35725742)

It's a good thing, then, that a House Resolution, by itself, also has "no force or effect".

It doesn't need to have any force or effect because it's simply stating a matter of law: that the FCC is not a lawmaking body.

It's quite useful, though, for companies that are questioning whether or not they have to abide by the FCC rulings.

Re:Don't need force or effect to state the law (0)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 3 years ago | (#35725828)

It's a good thing, then, that a House Resolution, by itself, also has "no force or effect".

It doesn't need to have any force or effect because it's simply stating a matter of law: that the FCC is not a lawmaking body.

It's quite useful, though, for companies that are questioning whether or not they have to abide by the FCC rulings.

So Congress has now taken over the role of Courts, too. My, my. What an ambitious lot. Next they'll start redistricting the Moon.

Re:Don't need force or effect to state the law (1, Troll)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 3 years ago | (#35726024)

> So Congress has now taken over the role of Courts, too.

No need, the courts already told the FCC they didn't have the authority to do this. Obama has gone rogue and intends to do this heedless of the cost. This is fast approaching Constitutional Crisis time.

Merger of Corporations and the State (5, Insightful)

catchblue22 (1004569) | more than 3 years ago | (#35725772)

When I watch the seemingly flagrant way that Republicans seem to turn away from the Public Good these days, for example in network neutrality, financial regulation, or global warming, I am reminded of this quote

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

Re:Merger of Corporations and the State (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35725888)

Dems are just as bad. Notice how the pro-IP people are controlling the President? They put him in power and are now calling in the favors. Neither side represents people, it's a fools' game to picks sides when bother are batting for the same result.

Re:Merger of Corporations and the State (2)

catchblue22 (1004569) | more than 3 years ago | (#35726032)

Dems are just as bad.

Which is why they brought in the original net neutrality rules in the first place?

Re:No Force or Effect (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35725798)

The R's have built a responsible budget. The D's shirked their responsibility and didn't pass a budget when they had the opportunity because they were afraid of political backlash. The fact always remains that the D's are like children and the R's are the responsible parenting group that has to prop them up and keep them from falling on their faces.

Re:No Force or Effect (1, Interesting)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35725932)

Right. That's why Clinton left office with a huge surplus, while G. W. Bush managed to leave office with the largest deficit in history only 8 years later. Way to go with that "responsible parenting" thing, Repubs! Invading another country for no rational reason is something every responsible parent does! Oh, and that TARP bailout -- still trying to blame that on the Democrats, are we?

Re:No Force or Effect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35725964)

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahah.

You sir are hillarious, now go troll huffpo

Re:No Force or Effect (2, Interesting)

fermion (181285) | more than 3 years ago | (#35726130)

The D's tried to build a responsible budget. A budget requires two things: Income and expenditure. From 1990-200 these two things were relatively balanced. Bush, Sr rejected the devastating parts of Reagan's tax cuts allowing Clinton and the republican congress to develop an economic plan that lead to a period of prosperity and growth. However, Bush/Cheney implemented even more devastating tax cuts with massive increase in the budget. NCLB cost untold additional billions in local taxes, and expanded the department education to the bloated level it is now, with a budget, at time, double what it was under Clinton. The unfunded war effort, which could have been paid for with increase gas taxes or reduction in other military spending, remains 100% deficit funded. Department of homeland security, which again expanded government, just like department of education, eats an additional 50 Billion a year, or half a trillion since it's inception as a jobs program for the otherwise unemployable. And let's talk about social programs. Medicare part D, which allows pharmcos to charge excessive prices for drugs because who cares when the government pays, costs 40 billion a year, or half a trillion over 10 years. As we say, a half trillion here, a half triliion there, and pretty soon we are talking about big money.

So what is the solution to the runaway budget and big government. A simpler tax system in which the rich pay a little more, the middle class pays a little less, and even the poor pay a little more. A country can't run when half of it's wealth is concentrated in a small minority of the people, especially when the minority refuses to capitalize. Microcredit is not efficient, we need real banks. Cut the size of government. Bring DOE back levels when it advised local education, not mandated what states were allowed to do, in clear violation of the constitution. Get rid of Homeland Security. The US is not a socialist country, and should not have socialist institutions. Cut military spending. If the military admits to wasting $178 billion, cut 300 billion. These things in itself will reduce the size of government and save at least $500 billion, 5X the amount that the coward tea party says they want. Cowards because they will cut Obama programs, not Bush programs.

As an additional measure, one that with small tax increases and a some other cuts can save us a trillion dollars a year in federal budget, cut the funding to states. Limit additional funding to 5% of revenue from the state. There is no reason why states like ID, MT, ND, SD and Alaska should be allowed to rob the federal purse while honest states like NY, TX, and CA suffer. If a state can't live within it's means, then let the local population solve that problem. It should not be up to the federal government to support incompetent local government.

Of course since this has nothing to do with responsible government, and everything to do with panicking white people realizing they are losing their gravy train, none of these things are going to happen. All we will hear about is how great Bonercare is going to be, and how awful affordable health care is, and at the end of the day we will have 30 billion cut from the budget not by any real change, but by accounting tricks.

Re:No Force or Effect (5, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#35725804)

It seems our current House of Representatives thinks that it is good to waste time and money passing House Resolutions defunding or outlawing everything that they don't like, all the while knowing that each resolution they pass has no chance to get past the Senate or the President.

Get this: it is now being reported that the most recent "compromise" offered by the House Republicans on the budget is if the Dems agree to an additional $13billion in budget cuts (above the $33 billion already agreed to which was their last demand) and if they agree to provision to the budget bill that will outlaw the use of federal funds for abortion even though it is already federal law that funds cannot be used for abortion, then they will go for that compromise.

It's a hostage situation where the ransom demands keep going up. And "abortion"? Really? I thought this was a "budgetary crisis". Why are they demanding this provision (which is already the law) unless the whole thing is just theater?

Next, they will demand that there be a special provision which makes it illegal to be President if you're black and all muslims required to eat pork chops.

I'm really glad the voters are getting a chance to see this play out. Yeah, most of them are oblivious, but between this "budget battle" and the terms of the new Ryan budget, we're getting a rare opportunity to see the GOP dropping pretense. A rare exposition of the stark difference.

Re:No Force or Effect (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#35725930)

Got damn. When I get all worked up I always forget to close my tags.

Re:No Force or Effect (2)

stinerman (812158) | more than 3 years ago | (#35726006)

Well...that's kind of what happens. The Hyde Amendment is put in just about every appropriations bill, but Republicans still demand each individual law have anti-abortion language in it.

I wouldn't be surprised if the next appropriations bill for highway funding has some anti-abortion language in it.

It's all a racket to get votes. If you really believe that life begins at conception (which is a rational view to have), then you have to believe that any abortion is murder and the abortion provider along with his staff and the mother should all be arrested for 1st degree murder and conspiracy to commit 1st degree murder. Abortions performed to save the mother's life should still go to court so that the mother can plead self defense. You can't just take the mother or doctor's word for it. They might be secret libruls who like to kill babies.

You won't get but 10% of the country to believe that, but that's what you have to believe to be consistent.

Re:No Force or Effect (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35726038)

Next, they will demand that there be a special provision which makes it illegal to be President if you're black and all muslims required to eat pork chops.

I think facetious and unwarranted accusations of racism ought to be condemned just as harshly as racism itself. Despicable.

Re:No Force or Effect (1, Insightful)

gewalker (57809) | more than 3 years ago | (#35725864)

So, it is magically OK for the FCC to issue regulations for which it has no congressional authority to act? I don't care whether net neutrality is in fact a good idea or not, I don't like unconstitutional power grabs by federal bureaucrats. I think the EPA deserves a rejection of their carbon rules on the same basis.

If congress wants to out-source the research needed to craft a useful and proper bill, they can do that and then take a stand (right on wrong) when they enact the corresponding law, but they should not escape the responsibility for actually making the decisions as to what will become law.

Re:No Force or Effect (3, Interesting)

thaylin (555395) | more than 3 years ago | (#35725998)

Wait so the FCCs job is not to regulate communications, and the EPAs job is not to protect the enviroment? Then what are they for?

Re:No Force or Effect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35725868)

To answer part of your question: "Why are they wasting time with this?"

The Republican party realizes that it has nothing close to a snowball's chance in hell of beating President Obama in 2012, and it's simply "playing to the base" of both horribly undereducated masses who don't know what "dat der newfangled computar thangy" is, and the financially elite who make money by anally raping the rest of us on data transfer fees. This is a purely POLITICAL move by the Republican party to make it appear that they're "tough on allowing the government to over-regulate" (which is something I agree with in a general context, but not in this case).

My personal look on this is that there's another, deeper problem here when it comes to Congress and politicians in general - they're total computer illiterates. I'm no fan of President Obama by any stretch of the imagination, but I'm totally awestruck that we FINALLY have a President in office who knows what a computer actually IS, and even more amazing, how to use one! However, the fact that this is such an "omfg" moment is what scares me - he's bucked a very disturbing trend of computer illiterate, technophobic geriatrics. Unfortunately those technophobic geriatrics are still the vast majority, and it seems to me (this is purely opinion and speculation, by the way) that the Republican part is slower to adopt or learn about these new technologies than some members of the Democratic party.

"Isn't there a governmental shutdown deadline this Friday? Shouldn't they be working on the budget instead of killing time with small-fry legislation that goes nowhere?"

Yes, there is indeed! They're using a tactic that basically consists of: be obstinate, then ignore the other guy until they finally capitulate to your wishes. To be fair, BOTH political parties do this all the time - it's nothing new. They've basically said, "tough shit Mr. President, I don't respect you and I don't like you because you're from the opposite political party [in some cases, regretfully, because he's black], so it's MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY, PAL. Do you REALLY want to be known as the President who SHUT DOWN the entire Federal Government? Now go away and don't come back to talk until you're ready to say, 'Yes, Mr. Speaker, you can have it your way, I unconditionally surrender.'"

This all makes for great political theater, but at the end of the day, we're all getting fucked in the ass and there isn't a goddamn thing we can do about it because we lack hundreds of millions of dollars for a massive TV ad campaign that will appeal to the hordes of uneducated masses too busy watching "American Idol". Such people make me sincerely fear for the future of humanity.

Full disclosure: I am an EX Republican, and I equally reject the Democratic party.

Re:No Force or Effect (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35725984)

They are pandering to their base of ill-informed extreme right wingnuts. It doesn't matter that they know it will never become law as long as they can tell the Koch brothers, "See, we did what you told us to!"

Re:No Force or Effect (1)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | more than 3 years ago | (#35725988)

The scary part isn't so much the irresponsibility of radicals in the house. I'm certain many are pandering for the Nov. 2012 elections. Either way they have the senate to moderate legislation. However, looking down the road a bit further it scares the hell out of me to consider the strong possibility that many of them will go on to become the next generation of senators.

Re:No Force or Effect (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35726068)

They submitted a budget today.

It's up to the president to adopt it. Let's see if he and his staff are actually the ones who should be labeled "the party of no"

Re:No Force or Effect (1)

proverbialcow (177020) | more than 3 years ago | (#35726086)

Why are they wasting time with this? Isn't there a governmental shutdown deadline this Friday? Shouldn't they be working on the budget instead of killing time with small-fry legislation that goes nowhere?

Because, along with a $6 trillion package of budget cuts, they're forcing the President and the Senate's hand to block them. Then, when they don't get exactly what they want, they can go back to their bat-shit-crazy core constituency and claim that the "liberal menace" is preventing any substantive change in the way the government operates.

Re:No Force or Effect (1)

BudAaron (1231468) | more than 3 years ago | (#35726108)

This drives me absolutely nuts! my email is budchief at gmail.com and I want someone to define the term "net neutrality" for me. It reminds me of Shawshank Redemption when the old con says "I have no idea what you mean by rehabilitated..." Just like rehabilitated I have NEVER had an adequate definition of net neutrality. It's just a made up word!

A quick summary of every past article on this: (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35725634)

'Net Neutrality' doesn't mean what we think it means, the proposed bill doesn't satisfy nerds or corporations, and each side is in the hands of the big businesses anyway.

As an addendum:
  - This isn't really an issue because there is no sign of tiered internet yet anyway
  - Oh wait, there is
  - But this bill wouldn't stop it even if it did pass
  - F*ck.

Re:A quick summary of every past article on this: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35726156)

Proposed bill? The house passed a resolution about an FCC regulation. There's no bill mentioned in the story at all.

how did net neutral equate to fairness doctrine (2)

xzvf (924443) | more than 3 years ago | (#35725646)

For some reason, conservatives are equating or selling net neutrality as equivalent to the fairness doctrine. What is the connection? or is it just a talking point and they are paying back their supporters?

Re:how did net neutral equate to fairness doctrine (1)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 3 years ago | (#35725666)

Why ask the question when you already know the answer?

The minute it got the point where it was up to our corporate whores in DC, the battle was lost.

Re:how did net neutral equate to fairness doctrine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35725766)

Actually this is a good thing..the stuff that was being pushed as net neutrality in the gov is so heavily laden with other crap that that sum benefit would be negative. Not that the guys voting on it have any clue one way or another.

Re:how did net neutral equate to fairness doctrine (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35725706)

If you don't bother to find out what it actually means, the term "net neutrality" sounds something like the fairness doctrine. The Republicican base is pretty much defined as those who don't bother to figure stuff out. The GOP knows this, and shamelessly exploits it at every opportunity.

Re:how did net neutral equate to fairness doctrine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35726250)

If you did a little research yourself, during a remission of your partisanship, you might find that what the FCC is calling 'net neutrality' is not what is talked about on slashdot. Indeed, many slashdotters support the FCC's actions just because of the sound of the words 'net neutrality', and nothing more.

Re:how did net neutral equate to fairness doctrine (-1, Troll)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 3 years ago | (#35725912)

> For some reason, conservatives are equating or selling net neutrality as equivalent to the fairness doctrine.

You wanted reasons....

1. Start with the people pushing for it. Socialists all and few netheads leading the push. Go look up the FCC head guy's past. Now ask why George Soros sock puppets like Media Matters are involved. MM is usually a one note song of denouncing Rush Limbaugh and Fox News with no past involvement in the Internet's governance. And Free Press is a veritable vipers nest of Marxists.

2. The blatant lawlessness of the FCC's push should be a major clue. It means this issue is IMPORTANT to the administration, important enough to risk a showdown with Congress, and a good number of the opponents are Democrats.

3. The statements of too many movers in the NN debate that regardless of what YOU might think the plan is, they see it as a key component in their plans to regulate political content on the Internet. When my sworn enemies say they aim to shut my team up I believe they intend to do exactly that and oppose their plans with 100% effort.

Re:how did net neutral equate to fairness doctrine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35726016)

Net Neutrality is the same as the fairness doctrine because people more liberal than you like it? There are plenty of netheads advocating for it -- [citation needed] on all of that nonsense. Even if there weren't, I don't see the fairness doctrine connection.

"lawlessness"? The FCC think congress gave them the power to regulate this. Republicans don't. Courts aren't sure. We'll see. Again, though, how does this relate to the fairness doctrine? It's purely an issue of whether the FCC can mandate NN, not whether it involves political speech.

"The statements of too many movers in the NN debate that regardless of what YOU might think the plan is, they see it as a key component in their plans to regulate political content on the Internet" [citation needed] [citation needed] [citation needed] [citation needed] [citation needed] -- holy crap, where are you getting this?

FCC = Federal *Communications* Commission, no? (1)

zooblethorpe (686757) | more than 3 years ago | (#35726144)

While I feel very strongly that content and distribution must be split up somehow with regard to major media control over internet access (hello, intrinsic structural conflict of interest), I cannot speak much to the current round of those pushing for net neutrality legislation, in part due to the copious amounts of obfuscation going on on all sides of the public policy issue, and in part due to the hidden and underhanded way in which legislation is drafted in this country (last-minute riders, for instance).

That said, the FCC *is* the Federal Communications Commission, so I'm a bit confused about how the internet would not fall under its purview just by definition. Bringing up the FCC's past decision to classify the ISP business as different from telecoms seems moot to me -- regardless of whether that decision was right or wrong at the time, the circumstances have clearly changed, and the internet is now a vital communications technology without which the US economy simply couldn't function (without massive and likely painful changes). Properly reclassifying the internet as a telecommunication technology and then just applying the laws already on the books would seem the key -- but for the problems of regulatory capture in the US government.

Ah, well.

Re:how did net neutral equate to fairness doctrine (1)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 3 years ago | (#35725978)

conservatives get big donations from Big Telecom and they also view it as a way to limit opposition by stifuling the internet. Funny that a lot of their own ability to effectively message to their nutjob supporters will be impacted if they are successful.

Re:how did net neutral equate to fairness doctrine (2)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 3 years ago | (#35726084)

because they were both advancing regulation into an area it wasn't previously and into an area where it was unneeded. Sort of the solution looking for a problem.

Re:how did net neutral equate to fairness doctrine (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 3 years ago | (#35726102)

For some reason, conservatives are equating or selling net neutrality as equivalent to the fairness doctrine.

Citation please. If you cannot provide one, then what does that make you?

Odd Paradox (1)

theswimmingbird (1746180) | more than 3 years ago | (#35725650)

Hmm. I don't seem to remember giving Congress or the President the authority to exert military force without declaring war. Funny how that works.

Re:Odd Paradox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35725710)

Under the War Powers Resolution, the President can engage military forces for up to 60 days. According to 50 US Code Chapter 33 Section 1543, the President has to submit a written report to Congress within 48 hours of introducing US forces into combat.

Section 1544 says that the President must terminate military action within 60 days unless Congress has 1) declared war or given authorization, 2) extended the 60 day period, or 3) cannot meet because of an attack on the US.

Re:Odd Paradox (1)

theswimmingbird (1746180) | more than 3 years ago | (#35725924)

I know. I took AP US History. It's been more than 60 days. 50 years is a lot longer than 40 days.

Re:Odd Paradox (1)

theswimmingbird (1746180) | more than 3 years ago | (#35725934)

lol, 60*

Re:Odd Paradox (1)

MoldySpore (1280634) | more than 3 years ago | (#35725718)

Actually, The War Powers Resolution of 1973 gives the president the authority to send troops for 60 days provided he notifies congress first. This all happens without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. So essentially the president can send troops anywhere for 60 days regardless of how anyone feels about it, as long as they are there for only 60 days and withdraw within 30 days after that.

Re:Odd Paradox (2)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#35725774)

So essentially the president can send troops anywhere for 60 days regardless of how anyone feels about it, as long as they are there for only 60 days and withdraw within 30 days after that.

Does this include Capitol Hill? If so, I don't think he'd have a problem getting the congressional support he needed after the 60 days expired...

Re:Odd Paradox (2)

lonelytrail (1741524) | more than 3 years ago | (#35725824)

I know more forces than the Marine Corps are acting in Libya right now, but I was a Marine and the President most certainly has the authority to exert military force without declaring war any time he wants to.
I also know wikipedia isn't an authoritative source, but here's the WP [wikimedia.org] discussion on the USMC on that topic.

Mission
The United States Marine Corps serves as an amphibious force-in-readiness. As outlined in 10 U.S.C. 5063 and as originally introduced under the National Security Act of 1947, it has three primary areas of responsibility:

  • The seizure or defense of advanced naval bases and other land operations to support naval campaigns;
  • The development of tactics, technique, and equipment used by amphibious landing forces; and
  • Such other duties as the President may direct.

This last clause, while seemingly redundant given the president's position as Commander-in-chief, is a codification of the expeditionary duties of the Marine Corps.

Re:Odd Paradox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35725946)

Not to "troll" you here man, but there is actually the capability to do that, in law, known as the "War Powers Resolution". It basically gives the President authority to deploy troops into any combat situation for a maximum length of 60 days, with a 30 day withdraw period (which means you can essentially conduct combat operations, to varying degrees, for about three months). He just has to notify Congress within 48 hours of issuing orders. More information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

Article is wrong (5, Informative)

Goobergunch (876745) | more than 3 years ago | (#35725658)

Today, the House voted to adopt the resolution (H. Res. 200 [loc.gov] ) that will allow it to consider the actual resolution to overturn the regulation tomorrow. Note the words "Providing for consideration" in the title of the actual vote [house.gov] .

Granted, the House is still likely going to vote for the measure, but saying it's already passed is inaccurate.

No Difference??? (1)

TheTyrannyOfForcedRe (1186313) | more than 3 years ago | (#35725698)

To all the people who go on and on about there being no difference between the Republicans and Democrats... SUCK ON THIS. (As if the Iraq War wasn't enough to point this put already.)

Re:No Difference??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35725740)

(As if the Iraq War wasn't enough to point this out already.)

Do you have political parties on your planet?

Re:No Difference??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35725796)

The difference exists, but is small enough to be negligible. Each party leaves the country worse off 4 years later.

Re:No Difference??? (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35725882)

Right, because no Democrats voted to authorize the war in Iraq! Oh, wait...

The only current difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is that the Republicans currently hold the record for the worst president ever. But that's not for lack of trying on the behalf of the Democrats!

Re:No Difference??? (1)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 3 years ago | (#35726110)

> the Republicans currently hold the record for the worst president ever..

On what alternate reality does ANY Republican get close to Jimmy Carter? Or was he before your time?

Re:No Difference??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35726168)

> the Republicans currently hold the record for the worst president ever..

On what alternate reality does ANY Republican get close to Jimmy Carter? Or was he before your time?

*cough* Obama.

slightly off-topic, but (5, Interesting)

Presto Vivace (882157) | more than 3 years ago | (#35725720)

this is a great video [youtube.com] on why usage based billing is a scam.

Re:slightly off-topic, but (1)

Ichijo (607641) | more than 3 years ago | (#35726118)

this is a great video on why usage based billing is a scam.

I can't watch the video right now, but is it a scam due to a problem with a certain implementation of usage based billing or is it due to some insurmountable flaw in the basic concept?

Unanimously? Really?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35725728)

They voted unanimously, with a vote of 241 to 178. Do I need my eyes checked? Am I reading this summary correctly?

Re:Unanimously? Really?! (1)

LocalH (28506) | more than 3 years ago | (#35725814)

"House Republicans voted unanimously today to block controversial Net neutrality regulations from taking effect, a move that is likely to invite a confrontation with President Obama.

By a vote of 241 to 178, the House of Representatives adopted a one-page resolution that says, simply, the regulations adopted by the Federal Communications Commission on December 21 'shall have no force or effect.'

In other words, that 241 includes all of the House Republicans - none of them voted against the resolution.

Re:Unanimously? Really?! (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35726028)

Yes, just like the Pope is directly chosen by God through a majority vote of the College of Cardinals. And sometimes it takes dozens of rounds of voting for God to make his infallible selection clear to the Cardinals.

With all due respect to the Congress (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35725746)

That group of sh*t-kickers don't understand tech issues, ESPECIALLY net neutrality. The FCC folks specialize in this field.

Re:With all due respect to the Congress (1)

Presto Vivace (882157) | more than 3 years ago | (#35725820)

What I have never understood is why the National Federation of Independent Business, the trade association that putatively represents small business, has not defended net neutrality. Without it costs will rise in a variety of ways, not just in terms of paying tolls so that customers can reach your site, but in increased costs for any ASP and SaaS software that you use in your business. Without net neutrality the cloud computing business model becomes far less economic. There are way too many complacent actors in all this.

Re:With all due respect to the Congress (0)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35726010)

Equating Republican House Members with shit-kickers is an affront to red necks and hillbillies everywhere! As the descendant of a long line of red necks who actually (gasp) voted for Obama, I demand that you apologize!

I don't understand. (2)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 3 years ago | (#35725806)

Isn't the regulation of an electronic communications medium the entire reason the FCC exists?

*Googles "Defund FCC"*

Oh. Right. Never mind.

Re:I don't understand. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35725892)

It is NOT the goverments job to regulate industry. FUCK THAT you idiotic statists. Go read Atlas Shrugged and then come back here and maybe you will start to understand why it is MORONICLY STUPID to regulate industry. If you value your job, or your own PROPERTY then you will support the republicans in this. If you are a socialist then keep on voting democrat and watch as your freedom is desstroyed. MORONS.

Re:I don't understand. (1)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 3 years ago | (#35725926)

it is not the telecoms internet to begin with. Big Telecoms were given huge subsidies to build parts of the infrastructure and now they want to pretend that it is their and they can screw all the businesses that use if for their limited benefit.

Re:I don't understand. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35726050)

So you wish to die, because of, and knowing that the government hasn't been able to regulate the food you eat, the water you drink, the air you breathe, and the contents of the clothes you wear?

You really don't think that people and corporations ARE that stupid? Because they ARE. Without any regulations it's every man for himself... What's the point in having a country in the first place?

Spectrum is the only scarce communication resource (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35726054)

Allocation and protection of an inherently scarce resource, the radio spectrum, is the reason the FCC exists. Everything else is arguably beyond the scope of federal regulation, except that the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) of the Constitution has over the years been invoked in many ways to nearly nullify the reserved powers language of the Tenth Amendment.

Anyone got an English translation? (1)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 3 years ago | (#35725826)

Is the internet Closed or Open as a result of this?

Follow the money (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35725842)

How much have Comcast and Verizon payed out in campaign contributions to House members? Can somebody put together an approximate figure on what it cost to have rulings like this blocked by the house? It'll come in handy when I want them to create laws to benefit me.

Not our net neutrality (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35725904)

The "net neutrality" the FCC is spewing is NOT the net neutrality that /.'ers think they're getting. They're calling something completely different "net neutrality" so that they can regulate free speech on the net.

'net to overturn house, rulers, eugenatics, murder (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35725970)

previously; indictments piling up, self-worship, ending other's lives, no longer fulfilling?

nothing neutral about the chosen ones holycost depopulation schemes?

now that the genuine native americans have expressed interest in our plight, we have choices again?

There fixed that for you (0)

gearloos (816828) | more than 3 years ago | (#35726036)

the regulations adopted by the Federal Communications Commission on December 21 'shall have no force or effect.' 'Congress did not authorize the FCC to stop lobby money coming into Congressional pockets in this area,' -- There, Fixed that for you. Everyone knows the world spins on the coin. Cash is king. Nuff Said.

I don't like this bill, nor the alternative...? (4, Insightful)

asylumx (881307) | more than 3 years ago | (#35726052)

I don't think this is the FCC's place, either. They already spend too much time & money deciding what can and can't go on our television and radio airwaves, for example. The FCC should be regulating communication so that providers aren't stepping all over each other's signals and that's pretty much it. Maybe I misunderstand the original intent of the FCC so please correct me if I'm wrong there.

On the other hand, I also don't want Big ISP regulating my internet connection, deciding what I can get and when I can get it. I want an internet connection without artificial limitations. I already pay Comcast far too much for their less-than-consistent service (and the reason I don't switch is because where I am the competitors fastest speeds aren't even close to as good as Comcast's slowest) and I don't need them practically filtering my connection based on how much the company I'm trying to connect to has paid them. I'm already paying Comcast! That's enough!

So... I guess I don't really know where I should stand on this issue. Any advice?

revolt? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35726078)

'We must reject any rules that it promulgates in this area... It is Congress' responsibility to delegate that authority.'"

It is the citzen's responsibility to vote in people who actually represent what we want. It is Congress' responsibility to listen to and obey what their constituents want. If they are listening to big business and lobbyists, it is our responsibility to vote them out.

Money (1)

DaMattster (977781) | more than 3 years ago | (#35726216)

I hear the cha-ching sound of the lobbyists profitting on falsehoods.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>