26 Senators Support CRA Reversal of FCC Attack on Net Neutrality
While the best chance for saving net neutrality remains beating the FCC in court, an uphill effort to reverse the FCC's repeal via the Congressional Review Act (CRA) is gaining steam. As noted previously, the Congressional Review Act can be used to reverse any FCC proposal by a simple majority vote in Congress, provided it occurs within 60 days. It's how the GOP managed to kill broadband privacy protections earlier this year that would have forced ISPs to clearly state what data they're collecting and selling, while offering working opt out tools.
Since the idea was proposed earlier this week, 26 Senators have signed on in support of the effort
"We will fight the FCC’s decisions in the courts, and we will fight it in the halls of Congress," Senator Ed Markey said in a statement.
The effort remains a long shot because of the GOP's control over the House and Senate. The measure would also require Donald Trump to sign off on it, which isn't likely to happen.
Still, net neutrality supporters believe that forcing the GOP to put their name to an FCC effort that's extremely unpopular across all stripes of the political spectrum will likely prove helpful in the upcoming midterms. One recent survey suggested that 83% of Americans opposed the FCC's blatant handout to the telecom sector. Millennial voters in particular are extremely angry about the FCC's decision to kill the popular protections.
That said, the best chance to block the FCC rests with the courts. When the repeal hits the federal register in January, the FCC will be sued by multiple companies and consumer groups for not only ignoring the will of the public, but for ignoring comment fraud and identity theft that occurred during the open comment period. The lawsuits will also accuse the FCC of violating the Administrative Procedure Act by reversing popular policy without showing that dramatic market changes warranted the move.
Even if the FCC does win in court, the agency and its new industry BFFs need to find a way to make the reversal permanent, which is why you're starting to see them rush to pass new fake net neutrality laws that profess to "fix" the problem they created, but are simple loophole-ridden efforts to codify federal apathy on the subject into law.
A_Soporific on December 22nd, 2017 at 17:28 UTC »
Really, the rules governing the legal principles bound up in Net Neutrality should have been covered in legislation years/decades ago. It was a bad mistake to not codify the basic rules of the internet as laws rather than leaving them executive actions that could have been undone at any time.
I don't care what market you are in, it's better when the basic rules of the game can't be arbitrarily changed to benefit one participant or one group of participants at the expense of the rest.
Regulation isn't an unambiguous good, and it comes with a real cost. But, that said having a clear framework that can't be hand-waved away and replaced at a whim is kind of very important if anyone wants to do any sort of meaningful market research or investment. And sometimes regulation is a net benefit to society, even when it isn't it often does something that isn't strictly speaking efficient but is desirable for non-economic reasons.
drysword on December 22nd, 2017 at 17:07 UTC »
Why only 26? This should have every Democratic senator's support.
jonsayer on December 22nd, 2017 at 16:23 UTC »
Which 26? Neither this link nor the article it cites name them