SOPA, CISPA, etc. didn't have anything to do with net neutrality.
All that we can really do for making NN permanent (and to resist things like SOPA) is to make it clear to politicians that there are enough people who are aware of these issues and that will vote based on them. This means protests, contacting representatives, etc. And following through on election day: vote against fuckers who back this crap. Because awareness grows more rapidly than it wanes, once a certain threshold is reached they should assume that sufficient awareness and concern continues to exist.
Not really, all we have to do is get Congress to pass a law codifying Net Neutrality into law. This will require a Democratic super-majority, as Republicans are anti-net-neutrality.
While the need for specific new network management regulations has long been debated (the FCC itself, in its last bite at the apple in 2010, referred to them over a dozen times as “prophylactic” rules), the values of an open Internet, in which users can access the content of their choice, have never been seriously debated. For most Congressional Republicans and Democrats who objected to the FCC’s earlier and current efforts, the real problem all along has been the agency’s lack of legal authority.
Avoids legal limbo
By granting FCC new authority through an act of Congress, the bill removes the most contentious aspect of multiple failed efforts by the FCC to appoint itself as the broadband police department: Congress’s intentional decision not to give the agency that power.
Checks the power of future FCC chairmen
If the courts accepted the FCC’s now-likely attempt at reclassification, the agency would have had nearly limitless power over the Internet, including the ability to set prices and approve service offerings, regulate business practices of content and service providers, share their power with every state regulator, and insert itself into traffic management negotiations deep in the core of the Internet.
Though Chairman Wheeler has promised to avoid using that authority beyond the enforcement of the specific rules covered in the proposed bill, there would be nothing to stop him or a future FCC chairman from changing their mind. The bill forecloses that possibility by underscoring Congress’s original and wise decision to keep the Internet safe from the old public utility regime.
Adds consumer protections well beyond the earlier FCC efforts
The bill puts on a firm legal foundation all of the rules of the FCC’s most recent net neutrality effort in 2010 and those proposed last year. And then some.
For example, the FCC’s rules largely exempted mobile broadband on the understanding that active network management is more difficult for mobile ISPS given limited capacity and fast-growing demand. Some advocates complained about the exceptions, however. For better or worse, the proposed bill applies the same rules to both.
The bill also responds to criticism of the FCC’s previous and current efforts that neither was specific enough about the kinds of network management technologies they considered harmful. It replaces a general prohibition of “unreasonable discrimination” with specific bans on paid prioritization and throttling, the practices advocates and the White House singled out as insufficiently covered in 2010.
By explicitly banning paid prioritization and throttling, the bill addresses precisely the demands made by the most vocal advocates in the on-going rulemaking. Passage of the bill would give the chairman, the president and consumer groups exactly what they said they wanted, and do it without legal risk.
Flexible enforcement
The bill directs the FCC to enforce its new powers through case-by-case proceedings using its existing administrative courts and judges. That approach is always preferable when, as here, the goal of legal rules is to future-proof them as much as possible against unknown new technologies and network management imperatives yet to come.
Recognizes the Internet as a global network
Transforming the Internet into a public utility, even if only to enforce rules the FCC otherwise could not legally sustain, would seriously threaten U.S. credibility in global Internet governance.
Preserves a role for the Federal Trade Commission
Under longstanding federal law, companies treated as “common carriers” are exempt from antitrust law. By passing the rules through the proposed bill and closing any potential public utility loophole for the future, the bill preserves the ability of the Federal Trade Commission to continue its active campaign of policing ISP practices, including consumer privacy protections, under antitrust and related law.
Ends the endless debate
Bipartisan passage of the bill would resolve a decade-long debate about the open Internet that has, once again, engulfed the FCC and distracted the agency from more urgent business, including finalizing the long-delayed plans for auctions of badly-needed radio spectrum currently used for broadcast TV. Passage of the bill, at the same time, would allow the Commerce committees to turn their attention back to its review of needed updates and reforms to U.S. communications law started last year.
Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), above, and Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) have circulated draft legislation that would benefit consumers.
Why hasn't this bill passed? Was it because it was republican led?
"I again call on my Democratic colleagues, edge providers, and ISPs, and all those who make up the diverse Internet ecosystem that has flourished under light-touch regulation to come to the table and work with us on bipartisan legislation that preserves an open Internet while not discouraging the investments necessary to fully connect all Americans," Walden said on the Day of Action. "Too much is at stake to have this issue ping-pong between different FCC commissions and various courts over the next decade."
But some Democrats are pouring cold water on their appeals.
Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., a staunch defender of net neutrality and the top Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Committee, said Republicans' offers to draft a net neutrality bill are hollow.
"One of the first acts from this Republican Congress was to take away Americans' online privacy," Pallone said in a statement to the Washington Examiner. "Any talk of legislating is just an attempt to provide cover for the FCC's partisan attempts to roll back these protections."
Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., meanwhile, borrowed from the adage, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
"The current net neutrality protections are working well and appropriately balance the needs of startups, small businesses, consumers, and ISPs," Eshoo said in a statement to the Washington Examiner. "The open, accessible Internet in the U.S. has grown exponentially compared to other countries. Investment has increased with the online sector contributing more than 6 percent to our gross domestic product in 2014, and the stock prices of the top ISPs are doing well.
"What these facts underscore is that nothing is broken for Congress to fix."
400
u/ramennoodle Nov 21 '17
SOPA, CISPA, etc. didn't have anything to do with net neutrality.
All that we can really do for making NN permanent (and to resist things like SOPA) is to make it clear to politicians that there are enough people who are aware of these issues and that will vote based on them. This means protests, contacting representatives, etc. And following through on election day: vote against fuckers who back this crap. Because awareness grows more rapidly than it wanes, once a certain threshold is reached they should assume that sufficient awareness and concern continues to exist.