Senate Votes To Save Net Neutrality (gizmodo.com)

In a monumental decision that will resonate through election season, the U.S. Senate on Wednesday voted to reinstate the net neutrality protections the Federal Communications Commission decided to repeal late last year. From a report: For months, procedural red tape has delayed the full implementation of the FCC's decision to drop Title II protections that prevent internet service providers from blocking or throttling online content. Last week, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai confirmed that the repeal of the 2015 Open Internet Order would go into effect on June 11. But Democrats put forth a resolution to use its power under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to review new regulations by federal agencies through an expedited legislative process. All 49 Democrats in the Senate supported the effort to undo the FCC's vote. Republicans, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, John Kennedy of Louisiana and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska crossed party lines to support the measure. Further reading: ArsTechnica.

Comments

Not Save... Authorize...

[Tulsa_Time]

The FCC was never authorized.

Re:Not Save... Authorize...

[Tulsa_Time]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Let a few states pass laws that say they will not do business with ISPs that are not Neutral and problem solved...

10th Amendment - Underrated and under appreciated.

Re:Not Save... Authorize...

[pots]

The FCC very obviously falls under the interstate commerce clause. Are you seriously trying to claim that a simplistic reading of the constitution is enough to invalidate their authority? An argument that eighty years of extremely litigious broadcasters and telcos and ISPs have never been able to sell in a courtroom, with judges who actually know something about constitutional law?

Where does this constitution-thumping bullshit come from anyway? This stuff is complicated, and thoroughly examined. Is some laymen really going to come along and say, "Hey, I read the constitution once. Did you know that everything I don't like is illegal?"

Re:Gesture is great but toothless, at this point

[barc0001]

Yes, but all the House seats are up for re-election in November. It could very well be by January they no longer need any Republican support if the Dems take the House.

Everything that's wrong with U.S. politics

[nwaack]

This should not have been a vote across party lines! This vote, and others like it, just prove that congress-critters couldn't give a flying f#ck about the people they're mean to represent.

Re:Everything that's wrong with U.S. politics

[Actually, I do RTFA]

This vote, and others like it, just prove that congress-critters couldn't give a flying f#ck about the people they're mean to represent.

Actually, it proves that 52 of them do

Re:Everything that's wrong with U.S. politics

[psmoot]

Sure. That's why they should have tried to pass a bill under the previous President. Oh wait, that would have been DOA in Congress too.

This, and things like the Iran Nuke deal, underscore how shaky it is to bypass Congress and administer "with a pen and a phone". Anything done unilaterally by one administration can just as quickly be undone by the next, as we're now seeing. If a President wants to accomplish something lasting, he or she needs to get Congress to go along with it and pass some legislation. Otherwise, your legacy is built on a foundation of sand.

Yay Founding Fathers for making it harder to implement controversial policies without getting broad support. That's not sarcasm, this is why we have separate branches.

In this case, I'm happy with current outcome. The Net Neutrality regulations were a bad solution to a non-problem. I'm sure there are other cases where I'll be less glad policy is flip-flopping every four to eight years.

Re:Gesture is great but toothless, at this point

[GregMmm]

Not true. Everyone could vote for it in the House, and then it will go to the president...

Veto. Dead and done.

One the other hand, how about those same people in the Senate and the House stop wasting time with this stupid gesture and make a law. Eh that would take real work... Lets just play the politics game.

Re:Gesture is great but toothless, at this point

[JackieBrown]

Yes, but all the House seats are up for re-election in November. It could very well be by January they no longer need any Republican support if the Dems take the House.

They'd lose interest in this bill if they took over the house.

If the democrats were interested in this, they'd have passed this as a law when they controlled both the house and the Senate and the presidency.

Re:It won't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. Those mean old Republicans are spoiling everybody's fun. Taking away our Net Neutrality and beating up on those poor, defenseless Democrats. This meaningless gesture will show them! The Democrats won't take this kind of act laying down!

Oh wait. They will take it laying down, because that's the part they play in this little charade. They are The Party Not Currently In Power (tm) and so they must shake their fists at The Party Currently In Power (tm) and tell the Unwashed Masses (tm) (that's you and me, buddy) how bad the other side is and how they just can't do anything.

Meanwhile nothing gets down FOR the people, but a lot gets done TOO the people -- just like it always has. Just like it does with the Democrats are in power.

Face it: this is all just an act. There is no Democracy. There are the Rich and the rest of us and the Rich are using this sham government to strip every last penny they can from us.

Re:Gesture is great but toothless, at this point

[mysidia]

"Act of congress" or not, Acts under the Congressional review act have been made invalid by a presidential veto 12 times --- every time it was Obama.

There's no real provision in the constitution for an act of congress that can't be veto'd, aside from setting house rules, impeachment proceedings, or constitutional amendments.

Re:Not Anything Actually

[Austerity Empowers]

Symbolic bullshit.

Yes, but as a Texan I note Senator Ted Cruz voted on behalf of the mafia, so I will support Beto in November. Plus the very insincere form letter I received full of republican chicken speak helped me understand he doesn't even know what he's talking about. It would be nice to see a vote in the house to figure out which representatives also need to be replaced.

Of course, Cruz will probably win anyway because Texas. Yee haw.

Re:I'm angry

[Dragonslicer]

She is a republican woman. She wouldn't have a chance. The liberals would call her stupid, ugly, unqualified, and any other misogynistic name they could come up with.

Do you have any evidence to support this prediction, or is it just blind hatred?

Also, "stupid" and "unqualified" are not misogynistic terms. Carly Fiorina wasn't called unqualified because she's a woman, it was because she campaigned based on her experience as a corporate executive, when her only such experience was nearly destroying HP. Sarah Palin wasn't called stupid because she's a woman, it was because, well, she just isn't very smart; after all, she claimed diplomatic skill based on being able to see Russia from her home.

Fuck democrat party

[Anonymous Coward]

I am american and many people are talking about how this is step backwards. The corrupt Clinton party of big goverment strikes again. Now you can expect higher costed internet and way worse service.

I know it's not popular to say this

[rsilvergun]

but I don't think the Republican party is redeemable. The Democrats at least have the Bernie wing and Liz Warren. I can't name one person on the Republican side that seems to have American interests at heart unless you count some of the warhawks push for US Hegemony at all costs (John Bolton I'm looking at you). The Republicans have gone too far down the rabbit hole of accepting corporate cash.

I think the defining moment for me was when those Parkland shooting victims called Mark Rubio out on the NRA donations and he counted it by saying anyone should be able to "Buy Into" him; not realizing (caring?) that if I'm "buying in" to a politician then he's not really serving me...

Re:Not Anything Actually

[youngone]

It seems a shame that if you don't like the Republican on offer your only realistic option to replace him is a Democrat.
Some of us live in democracies. We might even have the option of 5 or 6 different parties.
Some of those parties may not even sell us out for corporate money.

It's nice.

Internet's National

[rsilvergun]

it's not even a stretch to put it under the commerce clause. How do you think Title II got created in the first place. Commerce Clause was created for _precisely_ these situtaions (e.g. having a level playing field among states for things that impact the business between states).

Also, if you'll allow me to go off the rails a bit and vent: I'm getting a tad tired of folks hoping NY and CA will pull their fat out of the fire everytime the red states do something boneheaded (and yes, killing NN happened by a Republican and the vote that kills it in the House in a week or two will be along party lines, so let's stop kidding ourselves about which party is killing NN). I swear, I wish we'd have just let the bloody South go.