Net Neutrality Repeal Will Get a Senate Vote In the Spring, Democrats Say (arstechnica.com)

Congressional Democrats today introduced legislation that would prevent the repeal of net neutrality rules, but they still need more support from Republicans in order to pass the measure. According to Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), they will force a vote on the Senate version of the resolution sometime this spring. Ars Technica reports: Democrats have been promising to introduce a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution ever since the Federal Communications Commission voted to repeal its net neutrality rules in December. But lawmakers had to wait for the FCC's repeal order to be published in the Federal Register, which only happened last week. The CRA resolution would nullify the FCC's repeal order, allowing net neutrality rules that were passed in 2015 to remain in place. The resolution has public support from 50 out of 100 senators (all Democrats, all Independents, and one Republican), putting it one vote shy of passage in the Senate.

"The grassroots movement to reinstate net neutrality is growing by the day, and we will get that one more vote needed to pass my CRA resolution," Markey said. "I urge my Republican colleagues to join the overwhelming majority of Americans who support a free and open Internet. The Internet is for all -- the students, teachers, innovators, hard-working families, small businesses, and activists, not just Verizon, Charter, AT&T, and Comcast and corporate interests."

Comments

Problem with executive fiat

[Karmashock]

... is that anything done through it can be undone through it.

I have a phone and a pen? Remember?

Well, that has limitations and the first of those is that the next guy that comes along with a phone and a pen can reverse it.

No substitute for going through the proper legislative process.

Here people will say "its slow"... its faster than the alternatives because the alternatives won't work. The way that takes a long time but works when compared against the way that is fast and fails... Do it the right way.

Get the votes and pass your law.

Re:Problem with executive fiat

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Congress brought this silliness on themselves by devolving much major de facto lawmaking power onto regulatory agencies, which constitutionally means the President as part of his power to "execute" the laws.

Golly! Some are upset by it!

Golly! "Regulatory agencies remove the politics from it is a feature, not a flaw!"
Until it isn't and you need outrage.

 

Evidence that parties matter

[JoshuaZ]

This should be more evidence that there are real and substantial differences between the Democratic and Republican parties. When people say that the two major parties are just the same, this sort of thing shows that isn't the case. There are real differences between the major political parties. This isn't the only example: on both having minimal amounts of gun control, and on climate change, there are real and substantial differences between the parties as they currently stand. And who one votes for and supports can make a real difference.

Re:Evidence that parties matter

[ClickOnThis]

True, this is evidence that parties matter. But it's also evidence that opposition parties matter.

Even though the effort by the Democrats to call a vote is Quixotic, it puts both parties on record as to where they stand.

Both parties do this, and generally it's a good thing -- unless it's overdone. For example, Republicans voted to repeal Obamacare over 60 times, knowing full well it would never happen. That was abusive of the process.

Net Neutrality and the neutral net

[JBMcB]

Cliffs notes version:

The FCC originally tried to regulate network neutrality by declaring high speed internet to be under the same regulatory regime as cable television. This didn't work out for a variety of reasons. So the FCC switched to classify high speed internet as a phone service. This suited large ISPs well, but small ISPs find it difficult to comply with the more arcane regulations that come with, and there are some other less visible side effects as well.

So there are actually have three camps:

1. Those who don't want the government to regulate high speed internet at all
2. Those who want the government to enforce network neutrality, but don't think that classifying it as a phone service is the right way to do it
3. Those who want to regulate network neutrality as a phone service.

I find it interesting, and somewhat telling, that the Democrats are passing a law to re-instate the Title II network neutrality regulation, instead of a crafting a bill that would allow the FCC to regulate *only* high speed internet as a distinct service from telephone.