Is there any reason to believe that this will ever even make it out of committee and come up for a vote?<p>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.<p>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]...<p>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.<p>[1] Trump: ""Obama’s attack on the internet is another top down power grab. Net neutrality is the Fairness Doctrine. Will target conservative media." <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/532608358508167168" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/53260835850816716...</a>
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.<p>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...
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:<p><a href="https://transportation.house.gov/about/membership.htm" rel="nofollow">https://transportation.house.gov/about/membership.htm</a>
Bring it on. At least something is being attempted.<p>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.<p>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.
Great news! Could someone also introduce some legislation to neutralise FCC's requirement for WiFi router manufacturers to block custom firmwares plese?
What's the point of applauding legislative initiatives like this that are obviously doomed to failure?<p>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.
This is just stupid. Or maybe smart posturing at best.<p>This won't happen. But maybe it will look like it could've. Good move for Maloney. Meaningless for all of us.