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.
I wish the U.S. had a healthy government.
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?
Dumping Net Neutrality was all on the Trump Administration, Republican congress-critters were thoroughly insulated. This vote puts them on record.
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.
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.
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.