Slashdot Mirror


Senate Democrats Force a Vote To Restore Net Neutrality (theverge.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) and 32 other Democrats have submitted a new discharge petition under the Congressional Review Act, setting the stage for a full congressional vote to restore net neutrality. Because of the unique CRA process, the petition has the power to force a Senate vote on the resolution, which leaders say is expected next week. The Congressional Review Act allows Congress to roll back regulations within 60 legislative days of introduction, a process that today's resolution would apply to the internet rules introduced by FCC chairman Ajit Pai in December. Pai's rules reversed the 2015 Open Internet Order, which had explicitly banned blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization by internet providers. To successfully undo the Pai order and restore the 2015 rules, today's resolution would need a bare majority in both the Senate and the House, as well as the president's signature.

19 of 144 comments (clear)

  1. This is how you win votes. by Blackburd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is how you win votes.

    1. Re:This is how you win votes. by wonkavader · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Trump was just found to be taking what might be illegal campaign contributions from AT&T through the fake consulting company which paid for Stormy Daniel's silence.

      He can be played such that he'll sign.

    2. Re:This is how you win votes. by un1nsp1red · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If that's how they think they can win votes, by holding useless votes, then power to them.

      Well, the house voted 50+ times (and failed) to repeal the ACA during the last administration. Now we've got Trump and the GOP owns both houses. Maybe it works?

    3. Re:This is how you win votes. by cahuenga · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Dumping Net Neutrality was all on the Trump Administration, Republican congress-critters were thoroughly insulated. This vote puts them on record.

    4. Re:This is how you win votes. by bobbied · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh Yea... It took you nearly a year and a half of nearly weekly claims of "We got him now!" to finally find this? And you think this won't end up like the last 50 things that where going to surely bring him down that didn't pan out? Cute..

      I'd like to point to point out a couple of facts that don't make sense if you are right.

      First, you are alleging a crime which *WOULD* be squarely in Muller's wheelhouse. So one would assume Muller would already know about this, yet, instead of charging Trump's lawyer himself, Muller passes this off to a local prosecutor? How's that? Muler just lets this guy skate but he's charging Russians who are not even in his jurisdiction? Not looking good for this narrative..

      Second, where they not initially claiming that Trump's lawyer's payment to Daniel's was a campaign donation, but Rudy pretty much scuttled that when it became apparent that Trump was paying his lawyer a lot of money (some $35K a month) to do such things for him and THAT'S where the $130K came from? Oh, darn that messed up that idea..

      Are you seeing the pattern yet?

      Keep living the dream, you might get him before January 20, 2025, but this latest story and Stormy Daniels isn't going to do it...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    5. Re:This is how you win votes. by wonkavader · · Score: 2

      Agreed. They're going to be worried about voting against this. This will help get people who don't normally vote come out. Not a big deal in a primary, but in a general election, that's very dangerous.

    6. Re: This is how you win votes. by MachineShedFred · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually it's incredibly different. A Net Neutrality continuance is something that is overwhelmingly approved by the public, across party lines. However, it's not an issue that actually gets anyone other than the most fervent advocates to actually support, or reject, a candidate.

      In contrast, ACA repeal votes were highly partisan and thus not as well supported throughout the electorate, but was an issue that people cared enough about to cause candidates to earn / lose votes.

      There's more than one dimension to most political issues, which is why pollsters not only ask if you support an issue, but also ask how likely a stance on that issue is to change your vote towards a candidate / party. Example: lots of people care about flag burning too, but a very small quantity of voters make a decision based on if a candidate supports / rejects a constitutional amendment against flag burning.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    7. Re:This is how you win votes. by MachineShedFred · · Score: 2

      What would be interesting is if a veto changes enough Congress-critters opinions to override. If there's one thing the House and Senate can agree on in a bi-partisan way, it's that they don't like when the will of the Congress is stymied by one obstinate guy a few blocks down Pennsylvania Ave.

      By the way, this would be his first veto - a veto on an issue that has greater than 80% support across party lines. That being said, it's not an issue that actually drives people to change votes the way others do, such as the Affordable Care Act, abortion, federal budget spending, etc.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    8. Re:This is how you win votes. by dcw3 · · Score: 3

      I'm generally a conservative. I didn't vote for Trump (mostly because he's an ass), but I support some of his actions. I also look at each issue and make up my own mind, and sometimes I find myself agreeing with the liberal position (SHOCKING). I'm not certain why NN should be considered a liberal position, but I support it, and see no logical reason why anyone shouldn't unless they're beholden to AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and others. Ajit can bite my ass...he should be tarred and feathered, and so should anyone who supports him.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  2. I love the United States. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I wish the U.S. had a healthy government.

    1. Re:I love the United States. by fafalone · · Score: 2

      We get the government we deserve. People keep falling for the same old trick, that either the (R) or (D) guy will actually change things for the better, but whether it's Hope And Change or MAGA, we get the same old shit and the people continue to get screwed. We've got one party dedicated to screwing everyone and everything to help the rich, but thanks to a couple social wedge issues and peoples baffling inability to recognize that they're being lied to about how the middle class will be helped and that trickle down doesn't actually work, they still get votes. Meanwhile, the other side seems to be running on a platform of demonizing white men while copying the worst attributes of the R's like mass surveillance and foreign warmongering. But thanks to their social wedge issues and peoples baffling inability even consider other options, they still get votes too.
      Neither side comprehensively stands for protecting our civil rights and acting the best interest of all society. And sadly, if even the Trump/Clinton race couldn't do anything to boost 3rd party votes, nothing will. We're going to be stuck with bad and worse for the foreseeable future. Maybe if the L's didn't have such a batshit right-wing economic policy they'd gain more traction.
      But hey at least both sides can agree that this fafalone guy should be downmodded for his heresy right!

    2. Re:I love the United States. by fafalone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We can't break out of the two party system, but the parties themselves can certainly change. After all, when did the Whig Party last win an election?
      And the Bill of Rights is already in serious jeopardy. The 2nd has been obliterated and the push to remove the last vestiges of it has plenty of support from judges.
      The 4th has been very thoroughly weakened thanks to drugs, terror, and CP. "A dog trained to please me said the search was ok" is actually accepted. We're electronically surveilled without limit.
      The 5th? 3 words: Civil Asset Forfeiture. Now the courts are also starting to undermine the right against self-incrimination by ruling that people can be held for decades if they can't remember something the court wants them to say.
      The 6A right to a speedy trial? LOL. And let's not even get started on how indigent defense funding denies effective assistance of counsel for the poor.
      8A says no excessive bail or fines... this is so thoroughly ignored it's not even funny, thanks to the wonderful assumption that if it's not excessive for the rich, it's not excessive for the poor either. Cruel and unusual punishment? Please. Destroying someones life with years in prison because they were using the wrong plant extract is the epitome of cruel.
      The 9th is being rapidly flipped on its head; lots of people think any right not in the BoR doesn't exist.
      The 10th might as well be void since there's no power the federal government doesn't have.

      What's worse, with the exception of the 2nd, support for trashing our rights is strongly bipartisan. The 1st isn't immune either, with the right going after free press and the left trying to get a hate-speech exemption (that will undoubtedly be used against them by the right, a fact it takes an incredible level of naivete to not see).

  3. Re:Look! the circuis is in town... by wonkavader · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No that's not quite right.

    if it fails, they can use it as an issue against the whole Trump party.

    If it succeeds, they can use that as a selling point for the Dems.

    But it it fails OR if it succeeds, in every race, they can use a vote against network neutrality against the candidate. And any Republican who votes FOR this will lose money from big donors in the form of AT&T and Comcast.

    Win, win, win.

    This is not a pointless vote. This is good chess while being helpful for the country at the same time.

  4. Re:Restore by DaMattster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    your federal paper insulated wireline monopoly ... How is going back to a NN protected monopoly going to move community broadband forward? Consider the federal rules that protected monopoly paper insulated wireline for years. That did not to result in competition, new network, faster networks. With federal NN rules the existing monopoly networks got protection. Time to start allowing some completion and new innovate services. Using new federal rules to protect networks using NN will not result in innovate new services. Open networking up to the free market and some real competition.

    That's just not true. The purpose behind Net Neutrality is not some sinister, monopolistic protection. It simply outlaws preferential treatment of data. All data must be treated with equal weight, priority, and bandwidth. The reason for the lack of competition is that ISPs have local monopolies or duopolies and they collude to keep things this way. Companies like Verizon, Charter, Comcast, etc. are given virtual monopolies at the city, township, or municipal levels. The monopoly can be easily subverted by pooling resources together and building out a community-based wireless network. There is nothing in the terms of service that explicitly states that a broadband connection cannot be shared. So your argument is founded on entirely what you've heard the anti-Net Neutrality politicians scream and yell. Sadly, you are supporting a group of individuals that seek to undermine your internet experience.

  5. Re:Restore by wonkavader · · Score: 2

    This is utter doublespeak. in areas of the US, the local Internet providers are either monopolies or duopolies.

    There's no one to open competition to without regulation forcing it open.
     

  6. Re:Restore by E-Rock · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Not a single word of that is true or could be supported by anything in this bill of the original NN regulation.

    It's easy to write accounts like yours off as a troll, but I think you're probably really and fucking crazy.

  7. To those that read the bill by will_die · · Score: 2

    So did they actually go and write a decent technical bill and address the issues or did they just copy the sloppy one that the FCC was smart in getting rid of?

    1. Re:To those that read the bill by penandpaper · · Score: 3, Informative

      Title 2 just means that it's a public communications line and that no special conditions can be created to block or hinder access and that all rates must be reasonable and across the board.

      No, Title 2 is a group of regulations for specific classifications and depending on the classification will decide which and how regulations are applied. Are Internet Service Providers a Information Service Provider or are they a Telecommunication Service Provider? Title 2 cannot regulate Information Service Providers because that is the way the law is written. Currently, ISPs are classified as Information Service Providers and thus are less regulated. The Obama-era FCC rules that were repealed effectively said "ISPs are Telecommunication Service Providers and we are going to pick and choose which regulation will apply regardless what the law says.". That is a horrible thing to do because not only does the FCC not have the authority to pick and choose which laws or regulations apply to which classification but it will be a matter of time before the exceptions will be applied because the law says so and as soon as the judiciary gets involved. Some of those exceptions are for example, decency rules. No more offensive content on the internet just like TV or Radio that do fall under Title 2. TV and Radio are Telecommunication Service Providers and if you classify the internet as such you will have a sanitized internet just like TV and Radio because that is the law. It would only be a matter of time and lawsuit.

  8. Re:Look! the circuis is in town... by pots · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What do you mean by "it's too transparent"? This move isn't trying to be subtle, there's nothing to see through here. The point is to force congressmen to be on the record about whether they are for or against network neutrality. That's it. The democrats who are pushing for this haven't claimed it's anything else, it doesn't look like it's anything else. That is clearly what it is.