Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Communications Democrats Republicans The Internet Politics

Senate Democrats Plan To Force Vote On Net Neutrality (engadget.com) 167

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Senate Democrats Plan To Force Vote On Net Neutrality

Comments Filter:
  • by Train0987 ( 1059246 ) on Monday April 30, 2018 @05:11PM (#56532707)

    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.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      "We have to pass the bill before you can read it"

          -- Nancy Pelosi, Democrat Representative

      • by sims 2 ( 994794 )

        Come on at least quote verbatim:
        "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."

        -- Nancy Pelosi, Democratic House Minority Leader

        • Um.. Yea, still got to say, Nancy was crazy back then too..

          Also recall that they HAD to pass this bill NOW or it would be nothing doing in the Senate. They where just about ready to certify the election of a Republican to the vacated Ted Kennedy seat and bust the Democrats nearly 2 year strangle hold on congress and let the Republicans actually have any kind of say.

      • Nancy Pelosi was speaker of the house, third in line to the President, when she burped out that little pearl of wisdom.

        Then, after we passed the bill, we found out what was in it and Democrats lost the House in the very next mid-term, and Nancy found herself the Minority Leader.

    • 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

      • I suspect the same. They'll call it "Net Neutrality" and then insert a dozen poison pills to guarantee that it can't pass.

        All so they can have a pathetic wedge issue to run on for November.

        • Well.. It's this and impeachment I guess that they can run on..

          They are going to get hacked to pieces on immigration reform, DACA and the Wall right before the election, remember that temporary funding bill? That comes due just before the election. Trump tipped his hand over the weekend, he's threatening to shutdown the government over the wall thing... Not sure if that's a good idea or not.. I guess we shall see..

          • Why would Trump shutting the government down reflect badly on the Democrats? The Republicans have both houses and the Presidency, and some Rs still have some faint sense of personal responsibility.

            • Trump clearly is saying he's not going to accept anything short of full funding for his wall and a fix for DACA. Short of that, he's not signing anything. So no new funding bills like the last one. By Trump's rhetoric, he's saying he'd rather do a shutdown, just before the election, than kick the can down the road again on these issues. How will this go? How will this play out?

              I guess we shall see... The last government shutdown didn't go well for the Democrats who caved in less than 24 hours. I think

      • It's called the RIGHTEOUS. act at the moment, and senators are struggling to come up with the exact words that the acronym stands for.

    • by MagicM ( 85041 )

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

      • " It would simply nullify the FCC's "Restoring Internet Freedom" order and do nothing else."

        Thank you. So it does jack squat about Net Neutrality then. Funny, that.

    • by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      Restoring the paper insulated wireline monopoly act did not sound as trendy.
  • The problem with all this is the government. More government isn't going to fix it. Only distort it more. Open the polls, remove anit-competition laws many cities and states have. This will allow more companies into the market and the problem will be fixed in the long term. The way it is now, only a select few are capable of entering the market and maintains the status quo. More GOOD will come from opening up the infrastructure, the giant companies have lawyers and will simply find work around to what they
    • by Rick Schumann ( 4662797 ) on Monday April 30, 2018 @05:19PM (#56532781) Journal
      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?
      • by zippo01 ( 688802 )
        Look at companies with large capital that have tried to enter the market. IE google, cities, private co-ops. If the infrastructure was open, you don't think Google, Amazon, etc wouldn't start getting into the market? Oh wait, they can't, because of government. I would rather the market force competition, then try and regulate and be ok with the monopoly.
        • Monopolies are never good for anyone except The Rich, who own the companies with monopolies. Everyone else gets ass-raped.
          • by Mashiki ( 184564 )

            Both Bell and Rogers here in Canada discovered that even when you have a monopoly the mouse biting your ankle can still hit an artery.

    • remove anit-competition laws many cities and states have

      The free market lobbied for those laws. You really can't trust these companies. If they don't use the rule of law, they'll just use the next link down the chain. Internet service is a natural monopoly like electric and water and the barrier to entry is natural due to the infrastructure required.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Dammit Let the market work

      The 'market' doesn't work.

      The 'market' is a bunch of greedy assholes trying to game the system for their own interests.

      The 'market' will lie, cheat, and steal every chance it gets.

      Stop believing the 'market' is capable of achieving optimal outcomes and fixing problems. The only thing the 'market' solves for is corporate greed.

      It's a fucking bed time story, stop acting like it's anything other than what it is. It's not magical, and doesn't achieve good outcomes for anybody but tho

      • Stop believing that government isn't worse and realize it is also the instrument of a lot of the corporate abuse you complain about

    • by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      If the federal laws protecting monopoly telcos get replaced by the free market?
      Think of the competition in what was once consumers kept on paper isolated wireline networks.
      With federal rules lifted communities around the US have a chance to build their own new innovative networks finally free of federal rules.
    • More GOOD will come from opening up the infrastructure,

      So your fix for "too much government" is to confiscate the infrastructure (maybe only the last mile of infrastructure) from Comcast, AT&T, etc and lease it to their competitors.

      • Yes do you not think they deserve that? It's their fault were contemplating that. But the anti-capitalists say that's a bad idea.. Something smells fishy.

        • I think the government should either highly regulate ISPs or run them, like other utilities - at the very least on the last mile. But I'm not saying it's a bad idea. I'm saying your position sounds very much like regulation/government control. Which is ironic.

          I think most people you think are "saying it's a bad idea... something smells fishy" are actually calling out your hypocrisy. Also, I'll note, "anti-capitalist" is a weird phrase. It's likely to be wrong (pro-regulation != anti-capitalism) and com

          • I'm normally for free market, what we have now is not that. Granting a company a monopoly and then wondering why they're abusive to customers.. I'm for either killing the government granted monopolys or having the last mile operated by the local government allowing leasing those same lines to any company that is willing to pay for it. People are claiming the free market isn't working because Comcast is the only cable/internet provider they have, yet the free market hasn't had a chance to work for the Intern

    • The last mile is a natural monopoly, whether or not there's actual laws preventing other companies from putting up poles and wires. There's just no way there's ever going to be a free market on that. The only way you'd get good ISP competition is if the last mile was a public utility where any company could run service over the wires. And I say public utility, because even if we forced the current owners to open their lines, they'd find a way to keep competition down financially and degraded service if they
  • It is so sad watching ppl freak out over revoking of Title II status. Title II is the absolute WRONG way to address net neutrality. It simply doesn't need it. It can be done entirely without it. Title II is nothing more than a power grab by the government, those that don't see this are either on board with this, or intentionally ignorant. It wasn't needed for most of the existence of the internet. It isn't needed now. Probably never will be needed.

    • Yeah, it would be really scary if Ma Bell were to be regulated under the laws that used to regulate Ma Bell.
      • I agree it would make more sense to regulate your internet connection as a utility. That seems to be the best neutral way forward.

        Want to see all the major ISP's screaming for "Net Neutrality" freak the F out? Suggest regulating them as a utility.

        Why is that?

        • by Mashiki ( 184564 )

          A step in the right direction for the US would require the owner of the "last mile" to lease it to 3rd parties. That's what happens up here in Canada. Unless the incumbent can show that their investment needs time to recover the costs of said investment, then they must allow other companies to lease them. In general that works out between 30-41% of the cost of a normal connection to a home. Even at that, TPIA's up here make money hand over fist and undercut the incumbents by 20% while offering superior

    • Title II is the absolute WRONG way to address net neutrality.

      Why is it wrong? What ill effects would we see from Title II designation? People want ISPs to work like a utility, so why shouldn't ISPs be regulated like a utility?

      Title II is nothing more than a power grab by the government, those that don't see this are either on board with this, or intentionally ignorant.

      How is it a power grab? I see it as making ISPs neutral by removing their ability to interfere with the internet connection that I've paid to have.

  • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Monday April 30, 2018 @05:49PM (#56532995)

    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...

    • 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.

      a) Hahaha!
      b) If it really was meaningless then ISPs wouldn't be fighting it tooth and nail.
      c) People care, some just don't know that they care about things until they are gone.
      d) Ha HA HA!

      • If it really was meaningless then ISPs wouldn't be fighting it tooth and nail.

        What does this proposed vote actually do? Nothing the the ISP's were fighting over.

        People care, some just don't know that they care about things until they are gone.

        May I refer you to your own points *a* and *d* here. And re-reference my point about tech nerds thinking if they just explained it right people would care... nope.

        You can't comprehend what to them would really be gone, vs. better in their eyes (all example of suppos

        • What does this proposed vote actually do?

          It will expose who represents the voter interests and who represents business interests.

          And re-reference my point about tech nerds thinking if they just explained it right people would care... nope.

          Actually, NN already has the support of 80% of the people, so there's nothing that needs to be explained to them.

    • But just as people do not really care about online privacy, they also do not actually care about Network Neutrality

      I don't care much about online privacy (at least, not in the way you do), but I care a lot about net neutrality.

  • 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.

    Those "red alerts" will really make a difference!

    • by Mashiki ( 184564 )

      It's virtue signalling, what do you expect? I mean even during the heavy hockey season here in Canada, 5k people showed up to protest at parliament hill when the CRTC was going to let Bell charge a lease $80/mo for GAS(last mile), before 3rd parties could offer dsl. They were selling 5/1 dsl for $49/mo at the same time, so a 3rd party would at a minimum would have had to charge $120+/mo to make up the cost at the same level of service.

Suburbia is where the developer bulldozes out the trees, then names the streets after them. -- Bill Vaughn

Working...