Democrats Are Just One Vote Shy of Restoring Net Neutrality (engadget.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Engadget: Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer now says Democrats in the Senate are a single vote away from restoring net neutrality. According to the senator from New York, they now have a total of 50 votes for a Senate resolution of disapproval that would restore the Open Internet Order of 2015 and deliver a stiff rebuke to Ajit Pai and other Republican members of the FCC. It would also prevent the agency from passing a similar measure in the future, all but guaranteeing Net Neutrality is permanently preserved. Right now the resolution has the support of all 49 Democrats in the Senate and one Republican, Susan Collins of Maine. But Schumer and the rest of the caucus will have to win over one more Republican vote to prevent Vice President Mike Pence from breaking tie and allowing the repeal to stand. Under the Congressional Review Act, the Senate has 60 days to challenge a decision by an independent agency like the FCC. Democrats have less than 30 days to convince a "moderate" like John McCain or Lindsey Graham to buck their party. Further reading: The Washington Post (paywalled)

Comments

What they really need

[Baron_Yam]

They don't need a moderate Republican. Given the current state of the involved politics, what they need is a pissed off Republican who isn't interested in continuing in public service and who will vote to hurt Trump... OK, and who is also somewhat moderate by the standards of Trumpism.

There are a couple of those, if I've been following things as well as I think I have.

Re:What they really need

[T.E.D.]

This is the stupidest thing I've ever read. You're suggesting people ought to vote on things not because of the merits of what they're voting on but out of vindictive spite. And you wonder why there is so much vitriol in politics. Your mindset is part of the problem.

...only surpassed by the naiveté of acting like the entire Republican caucus hasn't been doing exactly this already since 2008. If they're gonna be like this, perhaps they can use it for GOOD for once.

Re:What they really need

[PopeRatzo]

You're suggesting people ought to vote on things not because of the merits of what they're voting on but out of vindictive spite.

That's how Trump ended up president.

Re:What they really need

[Critical Facilities]

No. The problem is that there are no more Democrats left. They all turned into social democrats leaving those of us who aren't communists without a liberal party to vote for.

What an absurd statement. You're throwing the word "communist" around and expect to be taken seriously?

scare quotes

[Orgasmatron]

Calling John McCain and Lindsey Graham "moderate" is the best use of scare quotes I've seen in a long time.

Unintentional?

Re:scare quotes

[jedidiah]

> well show me and example of this so called great "small government" you crave.

Health insurance before Obamacare. My state handled it well on it's own. I could buy insurance on my own independent of my employer. The private option was actually better and cheaper than what any employer offered.

Now the private market has been destroyed. Prices tripled. The best class of plans is no longer available. If I were in the private market, a lot of doctors would be out of network for me. I would be locked out of the single best facility available to treat my condition.

After 10 years of having the same very good insurance company, I now have to switch policies annually at the whim of my employer. They do this in the middle of the year to screw me out of my deductible (companies get around the new ACA rules meant to stop this).

Every time I have to deal with the crap from a crappy insurance company I would never have chosen to use, I want to kick Obama in the balls and I get a renewed appreciation for federalism.

I don't mind that my city has a free hospital. I don't mind that we pay for it directly. That is far more sensible than sending our money to DC and then having our local hospital mired in federal nonsense.

You're trying to conflate more localized governance with Somalia. That's the kind of dishonest nonsense that poisons useful public policy debate.

We just don't want idiots that can't manage their own states spreading their incompetence around any further.

Misleading title

[rsilvergun]

The Republicans are stronger in the House making restoration unlikely there. Even then Trump will almost certainly veto it. If NN is going to come back the Dems have to take the House and Senate by a wide enough margin to overturn a veto.

Half Measures

[ElizabethGreene]

I disagree with this approach. If Congress wants Net Neutrality they should write it as a law, not just force the FCC to not repeal the existing rule which DOES NOT apply to wireless carriers.

Wireless carriers will be the big winners here. It gives them freedom their wired carriers don't have.

Re:The other side

[Anonymous Coward]

The right only sees Net Neutrality as "more government control of the internet" because they've been tricked by politicians like Ted Cruz calling net neutrality "Obamacare for the internet", which is completely disingenuous.

The fact is, NN boils down to just this: ISPs can't discriminate against (or be in favor of) data flowing through their pipes.