
Maloney Introduces Legislation to Block FCC Rollback of Net Neutrality - Huhty
https://seanmaloney.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/maloney-introduces-legislation-to-save-the-open-internet-block-fcc
======
tzs
Is there any reason to believe that this will ever even make it out of
committee and come up for a vote?

He's a Democrat. Democrats are a minority in the House of Representatives (193
Democrats vs. 239 Republicans), and Republicans have been very united in
opposition to net neutrality. Getting rid of the 2015 rule is even part of the
party platform adopted at the 2016 convention. It seems very unlikely that
enough Republicans can be convinced to go against their party position and
flip on this.

They would also draw the ire of President Trump, who is on the record as
strongly opposing net neutrality. Not that he actually knows what net
neutrality is [1]...

At best, Republicans might let this go to a vote, and allow up to about 20
Republicans from moderate states where Democrats might use net neutrality to
flip seats vote in favor of it to help keep those seats Republican.

[1] Trump: ""Obama’s attack on the internet is another top down power grab.
Net neutrality is the Fairness Doctrine. Will target conservative media."
[https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/53260835850816716...](https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/532608358508167168)

~~~
shmerl
_> Republicans have been very united in opposition to net neutrality_

Does it indicate all of them are corrupt? Because only corrupt shills oppose
it willingly.

~~~
tptacek
It's self-evidently not the case that only "corrupt shills" oppose FCC-
mandated net neutrality.

~~~
shmerl
The core of the opposition to it comes from monopolists who don't want their
abusive monopolistic practices to be held in check. Who else, besides those
who are paid off by said monopolists, would willingly side with them?

~~~
untog
People who do not understand tech. It's quite easy to sell the repeal of net
neutrality as "pro competition" to someone who doesn't understand the issues.
Unfortunately this includes a lot of people.

~~~
tptacek
Robert Graham understands tech. I'm a software developer who ran an ISP with
default-free BGP peering. It's not just people who "don't understand the
tech'.

------
zb
Apart from being doomed to failure, this seems like a stupid thing to
legislate for. The one thing everybody in this debate should be able to agree
upon is that Title II is not an especially good regulatory mechanism for
enforcing net neutrality, just the only one that the FCC is legally entitled
to use. If Congress wanted to do something useful they could legislate to
allow (or require) the FCC to enforce net neutrality under a lighter-touch
regulatory system like the pre-2015 Open Internet regime that failed to stand
up in court.

Of course if Congress does pass anything it all it's most likely to be a law
to shield ISP from liability for not delivering the services their customers
have paid for when they don't receive the kickbacks they want...

~~~
mjevans
If congress REALLY wanted to be useful, they could declare Internet access to
be a first amendment right and providers of last mile access to be natural
monopolies (to be regulated as such).

~~~
tptacek
Congress can't "declare" something to be a First Amendment right. A thing is
either guaranteed under 1A or it isn't; if it is, it's guaranteed regardless
of the laws passed by Congress. That's a question for Article III tribunals.

------
mful
I’m unable to confirm, but based on Maloney’s committee memberships, this
appears to be introduced in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
Here is the membership list for those who would like to to lobby the
appropriate representatives:

[https://transportation.house.gov/about/membership.htm](https://transportation.house.gov/about/membership.htm)

~~~
TheCowboy
Extra note, it's not worth contacting members who do not represent your
district. The interns are instructed to take any contacts from other districts
and ship them to your own member's office.

An exception could exist for people who live on a gerrymandered district
border or who are in the same state as a member seeking a state-wide office.

It's always better to call too.

------
matttproud
Bring it on. At least something is being attempted.

The American body politic has been beyond repair for at least six years. The
whole damned superstructure at the national level deserves to come tumbling
down.

Whether or not Maloney's proposal makes it anywhere is beside the point, and
concerning itself with that is a pedantic waste of time in smugness. I applaud
Maloney for doing this precisely because how abundantly clear it makes the
dysfunction, regulatory capture, and public interest disconnect.

------
qwerty456127
Great news! Could someone also introduce some legislation to neutralise FCC's
requirement for WiFi router manufacturers to block custom firmwares plese?

------
cvsh
What's the point of applauding legislative initiatives like this that are
obviously doomed to failure?

It's a waste of time that could be better spent elsewhere. The only point of
this is to make Maloney more marketable in the next election.

~~~
RandomInteger4
It's a signal. Signals are important even if futile. Without such signals, we
can only make assumptions concerning where the minority party stands on
whichever issue.

~~~
curun1r
It also forces Congresspeople to publicly take a stand and not just sit idly
by and let Ajit Pai do the dirty work. Getting people on the record is
important anytime something is being done at the behest of a limited number of
corporations and contrary to the interests of their constituents.

------
ianamartin
This is just stupid. Or maybe smart posturing at best.

This won't happen. But maybe it will look like it could've. Good move for
Maloney. Meaningless for all of us.

