Senate Democrats Plan To Force Vote On Net Neutrality (engadget.com)

Senator Edward J. Markey tweeted earlier today that Democrats will force a floor vote to restore net neutrality rules on May 9th. "[Democrats] had the signatures in favor of restoring the rules since January, along with a companion House bill (with 80 co-sponsors)," reports Engadget. "Senator Edward J. Markey also introduced a formal Congressional Review Act 'resolution of disapproval' in February." From the report: Of course, this last-ditch attempt to save net neutrality can only help congressional supporters of as they move into mid-term elections. "We're in the homestretch in the fight to save net neutrality," Senator Chuck Schumer said in a statement. "Soon, the American people will know which side their member of Congress is on: fighting for big corporations and ISPs or defending small business owners, entrepreneurs, middle-class families and every-day consumers." Still, even if the Senate passes the Democrat's proposal, notes Politico, it's unlikely it would get through the House or avoid a Trump veto. Also taking place on May 9, net neutrality activists and websites like Etsy, Tumblr, Postmates, Foursquare and Twilio will post "red alerts" to protest the FCC's effort to roll back net neutrality protections.

Comments

Where is the text of their bill?

[Train0987]

Just calling it "Net Neutrality" is meaningless. What is in the bill? If its true neutrality it will pass with a huge margin and Trump will sign it.

Re:Where is the text of their bill?

[bobbied]

Just calling it "Net Neutrality" is meaningless. What is in the bill? If its true neutrality it will pass with a huge margin and Trump will sign it.

But it's not really what the name seems to mean... Typical political ploys and silly partisan games... Call your bill or law something NOBODY can vote no on, regardless of if it actually accomplishes what the title says or not.... So you get stuff like "Aid for Starving Children" act that feeds nobody or "Don't throw Grandma off the cliff!" law that provides wheelchairs so you can roll her instead.

The Net Neutrality rules did little of what it's name implies, it just loaded up the internet with soon to be arcane rules and a pile of jobs at the FCC to enforce them.

Re:Where is the text of their bill?

[MobyDisk]

I was curious why they would say that, since it should really help them. Here's what I found:

https://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/smaller-isps-ask-pai-dispel-cloud-title-ii-165261

Basically, as soon as someone said "FCC regulation" investors started to pull out. There was actually nothing specific in the regulation that was causing a problem. Investors were afraid that the FCC would apply price fixing, or use some vague clause to punish small ISPs. Now that was back in April 2017, and a few months later ISPs are suddenly switching their story, asking for the regulations to be put back in place. Interestingly, they seem to be in favor of neutrality itself, saying:

WISPA agrees that ISPs should clearly disclose their terms of service, disclose their network management practices, and protect their customers’ private information; and our members do. All of this will continue under the FCC framework adopted today,

Re:Where is the text of their bill?

[MagicM]

The tweet shows that they're forcing a vote on S.J. RES. 52, and the text of that resolution is available online. It would simply nullify the FCC's "Restoring Internet Freedom" order and do nothing else.

Re:Where is the text of their bill?

[PopeRatzo]

Posted this earlier today:

"Wireless Internet Service Providers Association, which represents small fixed wireless companies that typically operate in rural America, surveyed its members and found that over 80% “incurred additional expense in complying with the Title II rules, had delayed or reduced network expansion, had delayed or reduced services and had allocated budget to comply with the rules.”

I notice you didn't attribute that quote, so let me help you: that's from a statement given by FCC Chairman Ajit Pai during the FCC's vote to repeal Net Neutrality rules. I will bet that every single person reading this is aware that Ajit Pai is just a sleazy shill for telecoms, and seeks only to strengthen those monopolies. He's a piece of shit.

In case you don't know who I'm talking about, here's a photo of Ajit Pai:

https://www.google.com/search?...:

Re:Dammit Let the market work.

[Rick Schumann]

No, it won't, none of that will work. Shit companies like Comcast and AT&T will just use a Starbucks-like strategy, saturate the market, offer loss-leader deals people won't turn down, and raise lease rates on the physical lines they own that the smaller companies have to use to provide their service. They drive the small guys out of business, buy them out for pennies on the dollar, sell everything off for scrap, and dominate the market. Rinse repeat. Has been happening for years. Why do you think there's only a few major ISPs and whoever is left has to lease lines from Comcast or AT&T?

Re:Since there is a word "restore" there

[Train0987]

It doesn't matter what I think - I just want to read the bill instead of just jumping on board the meme train to false narrative-ville.

You know, like how the "Affordable Care Act" turned out to be anything but affordable and the "Patriot Act" was about the most unpatriotic thing ever.

Partisan hacks gonna partisan hack I suppose.

Re:Dear Democrats

[ShanghaiBill]

The bill will likely not pass, but it will get the opponents on record as voting against it, which can be used against them in the November mid-terms. 80% of voters support NN, so this should be a winning issue for the Democrats in an election where many Republicans incumbents are already struggling.

Pointless grandstanding

[SuperKendall]

I say that not because the vote going one way or the other is essentially meaningless, but even the posturing itself is meaningless.

No-one outside of a few tech nerds really care about Net Neutrality at all, not even as an abstract concept.

If anyone did care, Facebook would not even be a thing. But just as people do not really care about online privacy, they also do not actually care about Network Neutrality - and here's the funny thing (to me), they don't even care IF THEY UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE. Tech people keep thinking if they explain it right people will magically care. WRONG, they mostly understand just fine - but they still do not care. And that is what freaks out tech busybodies the most...

Re:Dear Democrats

[Anonymous Coward]

These dishonest political tactics are exactly how you got Trump, by the way.

Dishonest political tactics like refusing to confirm the president's SCOTUS nominee? For the first time ever in the history of this country?

Remind me please, my memory is a little fuzzy. Which party pulled that dishonest political tactic?

Which party has been in control of the house and the senate for the last five years?

Maybe you want to try a little personal honesty? Who knows, you might like it. It actually feels good when you do.

Re:Dear Democrats

[Dutchmaan]

Right, because conservatives NEVER passed symbolic legislation under Obama...

Remind me how many times Obamacare repeal was voted on by the house under Obama with no chance of being pushed through?

Re:Dear Democrats

[Ichijo]

Which small ISPs were destroyed by Net Neutrality? Were they smaller than 100,000 subscribers?

Re: Dear Democrats

[phantomfive]

The really funny thing is they couldn't get it repealed even after getting all of Congress and the presidency.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion