S.J. Res. 6, the "anti-net neutrality" bill was defeated in the Senate yesterday, in a purely partisan vote. Democrats and independents against; Republicans for. Who was right?

Democrats and Independents were right. The Internet was developed by public funding and is in the public commons. It is a vital resource to unite the world and for ideas to be debated and considered by all. ISPs and cellphone providers can individually deal with ways to charge heavy users of bandwidth. But they should not be allowed to throttle down or exclude all content save that which they personally profit from.

Once more, Republicans align with the corporate moguls that fund them, and against the 99%. Guess who are really the class warriors.

There was no valid reason to vote for it in the first place unless we are actually trying to make a nation where corporate profits matter more than the Constitution, freedom of speech, free market economies, or anything else. Anybody who voted for this bill in the first place was in direct violation of the Oath of Office that each Senator and Representative takes when sworn in, and should be impeached.

The Democrats were sticking up for all of the things that the Republicans are fighting against; freedom, fairness, and the First Amendment. I consider defending those things to be valid.

Look at it another way; we defended those things at the cost of many lives over the years. Why should we let the Republicans take away what so many of our soldiers/sailors/Marines have died for?

@jerv, when you said, “There was no valid reason to vote for it in the first place…”
Vote for what in the first place? I’m not clear on your argument.

I’ve never seen any information on why anyone would vote for this bill, only reasons against (which seemed reasonable to me). What reasons do the Republicans cite in favor of it? I’d have to see both sides of the info before making an informed decision.

@augustlan, I’ll ask you the same question that I asked @jerv. What bill are you referring to?

@bkcunningham The bill referred to in the question above: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.J.RES.6:

After reading the article linked by the OP, I still can’t understand why anyone voted in favor of it. I’m honestly wondering what the rationale was.

@augustlan
It is really simple.
This was the rationale

Those in favor of Net Neutrality, I’m very curious what specifically you favor in the FCC’s regulations?

@bkcunningham Did you read the article the OP linked? Everything mentioned there from the original FCC ruling, I’m in favor of.

That’s way I keep asking the reverse of your question: Those against Net Neutrality, I’m very curious what specifically you oppose in the FCC’s regulations?

One of the main problems I have, is I don’t think the FCC has the legal authority to issue the rules. They are not Congress and cannot make laws.

The Republisans were dead wrong on this one. It seems their mindset leads them to the conclusion that no one should be able to use anything without paying for the privilege.

I just can’t see any reason not to support the FCC on this. The D’s and I’s were right to support this and I’m not sure what the R’s were thinking in not though I do believe @ragingloli may have hit the nail on the head with regards to that.

In my opinion there are some weak points with regards to disclosure in 3.B and 3.C needs better definition (I suppose that’s being purposely left up to the courts) although they help in point 75. 3.D I’m not quite clear on because I haven’t read it carefully and I’m a bit concerned about their Network Congestion (91) resolution. Over all I think it’s a good starting framework – not overly burdensome and leaves room for improvement that will be necessary in a space as fast growing and mutable as this one.

In my limited read, it’s apparent aim is to ensure the greatest number of people the greatest access possible while promoting an environment of corporate innovation. It’s government creating legislation that essentially protects personal freedom, at least partially, while maintaining a suitable environment for business to expand – am I missing something? How is that a bad thing?

If the FCC doesn’t have the authority to implement and enforce this, congress needs to invest them with it.

There is a bad side to the net neutrality equation. Wireless providers use differing speeds to control traffic flow and manage all of their customers. The net neutrality bill is anathema to them.

@marinelife how so? Wireless providers shouldn’t have an issue with it, they’re at least partially exempt as it stands.

If you’re referring to what might happen if they’re required to meet the same standards and their use of fair queuing techniques – that’s a legitimate network management tool. If they still come under fire for restricting a specific type of traffic, such as streaming video, there’s a bucket full of QoS tool’s available and they can always claim insufficient infrastructure. Either way they can likely argue their case long enough to improve the issue before any penalties would be handed down.

@wonderingwhy Oh, good, I did not know that they had gotten that provision.

@bkcunningham Regarding the legality of the FCC regulating the Internet, the agency is a part of the Executive branch, whose job is to put the laws passed by the Congressional branch into action and to enforce them. The FCC is acting under broad provisions that Congress enacted to ensure the First Amendment provision to allow freedom of speech and press are upheld in all forms of communication technology. The Constitution does not say Congress shall make no law… “abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press that is profitable to large corporations”. It just says “abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press,” period. There is nothing in the Constitution defining speech as involving written communications on paper and speech on radio and TV as separate from that carried on the Internet.

But a court that determines that Corporations are persons and entitled to the rights of citizens is likely to put profit ahead of people (or at least the kind of people that aren’t large corporations funneling masses of money to the Republicans that packed the court with Con Men.

Verizon and others have already mounted legal challenges. The corporate greed boys are arguing that the FCC overstepped it’s authority. Since greed is good, anything that impedes satisfying it must be bad. Consumer and public advocates are suing on the opposite side of the issue, saying that the FCC didn’t go far enough. They argue that the FCC should apply the rules toi wireless carriers as well. So now the Judicial branch gets to play their appointed role in governance. Let the games begin.

Holy crap, I’m in full agreement with @CaptainHarley ! Sound the horns!

@bkcunningham Since you seem to be a stickler for the laws regardless of morality, I will try to rephrase it thusly;

Our forefathers enacted a system of checks and balances.
The Legislative branch has been trying to directly counter the Constitution on many occasions.
The Executive and Judicial branches have a duty to keep the Legislative branch in check, and to balance their power. Yes, the reverse is also true.

So tell me;
Are you in favor of effectively repealing the First Amendment over a question of jurisdiction?
Are you of the opinion that the Legislative branch is the only one authorized to make rules despite the system of checks and balances?
Do you care more about rules than their consequences for society?
Does procedure matter more than propriety? In other words, it is okay to do wrong things so long as you do them right while it is unacceptable to do the right thing the wrong way?

@cockswain

Quick! Change my answer! LOL!