Talk:Miguel Santiago

[Untitled]
This sentence misleads readers and leaves out important context and should be changed.

"Santiago's amendments removed all provisions of the bill's net neutrality rules that exceeded those previously established by Barack Obama in 2015"

This should be "Santiago's amendments removed all provisions of the bill's net neutrality protections that were in the text of the 2015 Open Internet Order, leaving only those that were in the two-pages of rules."

Santiago's amendments removed all provisions of the bill that were in the 277-page body of the 2015 Net Neutrality Order, which contained important, legally binding protections. The point of SB 822 was to restore all the protections, including those in the text of the order that explains the rules.

Cite: https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2018/06/failing-real-test-sb-822-no-longer-restores-all-lost-net-neutrality-protections

Talking only about the rules is misleading. The Order is just as legally binding and when ISPs sued against the 2015 protections, they sued the Order, not the rules https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/3F95E49183E6F8AF85257FD200505A3A/$file/15-1063-1619173.pdf

The original sentence is misleading as it doesn't tell readers that Santiago stripped out protections that the Obama administration had included. SB 822 as amended is *not* the same as the 2015 Internet Order and is significantly weaker.

https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2018/06/failing-real-test-sb-822-no-longer-restores-all-lost-net-neutrality-protections SMSLWren (talk) 20:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC) SMSLWren

I agree and have made the change. Ahjotina (talk) 00:29, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Ahjotina for making the change.

There is one other inaccurracy in the article:

"The vote was approved 8-2[6] by the Communications and Conveyance committee, which Santiago chairs, on June 21, 2018, at 10 pm, before Wiener could argue against them."

This mangles the timeline and votes, and even gets the date wrong.

1) The committee amendments were published on June 19 at ~10 p.m. 2) The vote to approve the amendments happened at the start of the hearing on June 20, which started at 9:30 a.m. The vote on adopting the amendments was 8-0. This happened before the testimony. You can see this in the video: Start at 35:00, and the vote tally of 8-0 simply on the amendments comes at 37:22. 3) After the vote and his testimony, Wiener attempted to withdraw his bill, but was not allowed to. The committee then voted to approve the amended bill with an 8-2 vote.

The below is accurate: "The amendments, published less than 12 hours before the hearing, were approved 8-0[6] by the Communications and Conveyance committee, which Santiago chairs, on June 20, 2018. That vote occurred before Wiener could argue against them and before any testimony. After the testimony, the amended bill was approved 8-2."

SMSLWren (talk) 01:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)SMLSWren

Thanks. I've amended that sentence. I added your sources to the citation, but I'm in a hurry so perhaps they can be consolidated. Ahjotina (talk) 02:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

This article needs to be updated to show that Santiago ended up co-sponsoring legislation to protect net neutrality. Ahjotina (talk) 19:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)