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.
The FCC was never authorized.
5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/