Senate Will Force Vote On Overturning Net Neutrality Repeal (theverge.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) has mustered the 30 votes necessary to force a vote on the FCC's decision to repeal net neutrality. Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) announced that she's signed onto Markey's request to overturn the new rules, under the Congressional Review Act -- which lets Congress nullify recently passed regulations with a simple majority. Markey announced his intention to file a resolution of disapproval in December, just after the FCC voted on new rules that killed net neutrality protections from 2015. These new rules were officially published last week, and with 30 sponsors, Markey can make the Senate vote on whether to consider overturning them. If this happens, it would lead to a debate and final vote. That's not remotely the end of the process: if it's approved, the resolution will go to the House, and if it passes there, the desk of Donald Trump, who seems unlikely to approve it.

Comments

Re:The point is to make the Republican party

[BlueStrat]

Correct, they stripped themselves of this power a few weeks ago by reclassifying internet service as Title I. That's the whole point here. They did have the legal authority, and they took it away from themselves to please their corporate overlords.

What this proves is that Democrats want the internet under that sweet, tight, Title-II regulatory control. They aren't really interested in NN as such, just in it's usefulness in placing the internet under tighter government control.

If they actually wanted NN they could have, and still could now, introduce NN legislation. They could probably even get Republican support if it were reasonable. But instead, they want the old Title-II control back and to kick some market-protection favors to their FAANG cronies/donors.

Strat

I'm not him, but...

[Okian Warrior]

I am for rational NN. And i am 100% Republican.

If your party votes no on NN, will you change your vote?

I'm not the person you're baiting, but here's my answer: I will not. [Change my vote]

I'm also 100% a Republican, but there are issues on which the party and I disagree.

That being said, I try to sort the differences by importance to the country, and find other issues are of much greater significance. I believe that immigration is a road to disaster for our country, and needs to be reined in.

National security is also high on my list, although of lesser importance than immigration.

I'm a nerd who wants NN, but I also see the larger picture.

Ask me again if DACA amnesty ever happens.

Re: The point is to make the Republican party

[BlueStrat]

This is Darth; can't be arsed to log in atmo. No, Title II does not put the Internet under tight regulatory control. That's laughable hard right-wing babble. What it does do is allow the federal government to prohibit service providers from certain behavior, most of which is anti-consumer, and detrimental to the openness of the Internet.

If all you wanted was NN to prevent the behaviors you describe why not just pass a law? Republicans are introducing NN legislation, where is the Democratic legislation? Why does regulations have to be enacted administratively (leaving them open to be changed or eliminated in the next administration) by the FCC under Title-II?

It's because the true goals have little to do with making sure service providers don't misbehave. That's just the cover story. The real story, as usual, is money, power, and control...and the Democrats want it all.

Strat