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.
Re:Dear Democrats (Score:5, Insightful)
The bill will likely not pass, but it will get the opponents on record as voting against it, which can be used against them in the November mid-terms. 80% of voters support NN [thehill.com], so this should be a winning issue for the Democrats in an election where many Republicans incumbents are already struggling.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you read the proposed bill? Then how on earth can you be for or against it?
Re: (Score:2)
If the bill requires more regulations and laws for small ISPs to compete, then it's no better than Obama's last move in 2015 that destroyed several of them. For the big guys, hiring lawyers is a small relative cost but for the small ISPs that can be a killer.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Have you read the proposed bill?
No. Why should I? It is not going to pass, so it doesn't matter what it says.
Then how on earth can you be for or against it?
I am not for or against it.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it rather shows Democrats are in a pinch -- what with the polls that even Millennials are dropping support -- if they are looking to scrape a few votes from an odd independent or even republican who care about NN posturing more than about everything else. My guess is this move will have a low ROI.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a cheap way to generate issues to use against Republican Senators. Since the I is low, the ROI is likely to be reasonably high.
Re: (Score:2)
You pay for the shelf space in the mind of the voters. If you put cruddy items in there the cost goes up. When you are calling people to attention, I isn't that low at all.
Let's revisit this in 6 months. My guess is there will be energy spent over this with virtually nothing to show for it. Energy that Democrats could spend better, if they could see how.
Re: (Score:2)
It's another available campaign tactic. It is likely to prove at least somewhat useful in a few races. It's cheap, and it's at least a slight wedge between Republican congresscritters and most of the US public.
Re: Dear Democrats (Score:2)
80% of voters support NN
I doubt even 20% of voters know what Net Neutrality is - they simply support it because they heard the trump administration was against it.
Re: Dear Democrats (Score:2)
First you ignored my assertion that most people have no idea what NN is, then you said something that is just asinine:
Trump's the only post-Civil War president to overtly and brazenly declare allegiance to the Confederacy after all.
How did he overtly and brazenly declare allegiance to a non-existent entity?
It's hard to take you seriously when you spout such nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, 80% support net neutrality, but is it an important enough issue for them to vote for a particular candidate on it?
I have a feeling the numbers are a lot softer on that question, which is why we never see it quoted, and there's still any form of debate whatsoever. The candidates know the answer to that one - very few of these asshats will likely lose their seat over NN alone, but it might be the icing on their goodbye cake if they are in a tight race.
Re: (Score:1)
Seems reality still hasn't sunk into the Conservative head space.
Re: (Score:2)
MOST people voted Democrat last election chump
Which is why the democrats continued to lose seats at every level of government. Boy oh boy, that's some brilliance.
Re: (Score:1)
Nice try.
oh, btw, Reagan AND Clinton had majorities.
Re:Dear Democrats (Score:4, Insightful)
These dishonest political tactics are exactly how you got Trump, by the way.
Dishonest political tactics like refusing to confirm the president's SCOTUS nominee? For the first time ever in the history of this country?
Remind me please, my memory is a little fuzzy. Which party pulled that dishonest political tactic?
Which party has been in control of the house and the senate for the last five years?
Maybe you want to try a little personal honesty? Who knows, you might like it. It actually feels good when you do.
Re: (Score:1)
You mean implementing the Biden Rule? It wasn't the first time in history. It just happened to Democrats this time, so they raised a stink about Republicans using their own tactics against them.
There is no such thing as the Biden Rule. Certainly Joe Biden suggested it way back in 1992, but it was never presented as a serious Senate Rule, nor was it ever ratified in anyway by the Senate and in fact there was no SCOTUS vacancy at the time.
The worst you can say is Biden was hypocritical when he spoke out about the Garland nomination, but lets be honest, back then no one took any notice of the statement, not me, not the media, not the Senate and not even the GOP at time.
The fact that you brought
Re: (Score:2)
every time someone says "Both parties do it!", it is usually because a Republican has done something crappy.
So, what you're saying is it's ok to do shady and dirty tricks until republicans do it.. Then it magically becomes bad and it no longer matters that your side did it first. Yep that sounds about right.
Re: (Score:1)
every time someone says "Both parties do it!", it is usually because a Republican has done something crappy.
So, what you're saying is it's ok to do shady and dirty tricks until republicans do it.. Then it magically becomes bad and it no longer matters that your side did it first. Yep that sounds about right.
Nope, you totally missed the point. What I said was, it is usually Republicans who are doing the crappy things.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not at all how you made that sound. You made it sound like it's always democrats doing crappy things, and everything is good until a republican does the same crappy thing then claims the other party did it when there's outrage.
Re: (Score:2)
A Democrat suggested doing a crappy thing. Democrats as a whole didn't go along. Then, Republicans decided to adopt that crappy thing.
(It isn't failure to endorse. The Senate has not confirmed all nominations. The issue is failure to even consider a nominee.)
Re:Dear Democrats (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, because conservatives NEVER passed symbolic legislation under Obama...
Remind me how many times Obamacare repeal was voted on by the house under Obama with no chance of being pushed through?
Re: Dear Democrats (Score:2)
Remind me how many times democrats mocked the republicans for symbolic votes...
Doing that which you used to mock doesn't inoculate you from being mocked when you do it!
Re: (Score:2)
It's not symbolic anyway (Score:2)
Re: Dear Democrats (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
AND the House Democrats got 8.8 million MORE votes, yet Republican Gerrymanders took that away as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Admit it. The original purpose behind the electoral college is no longer relevant in this century. If the electoral college never existed and was ONLY NOW proposed, let's say by Democrats, they would be *ridiculed* by Republicans to no end. It's so sad everything has become this divisive between two political labels.
Nope. If you were trying to get all the states to join into a constitutional agreement today, you'd still need something like the electoral college to get the small states to join in and agree to it just like then. Doubtful the Democrats would be proposing it because they do not currently benefit from it; it would be the Republicans.
Re: (Score:2)
Which original purpose? The appropriate Federalist paper explained in detail why the EC would never vote for Trump, so any such purpose is no longer relevant (and hasn't been for a couple of centuries). Another original purpose, less publicized at the time, was to give slave states more say in picking the President. That's irrelevant now. Any other original purpose is speculative at best.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
We have the 14th Amendment where ALL states agreed ALL citizens had equal rights, and therefore the EC is unconstitutional on its face.
Re: (Score:1)
One day, the SCOTUS will have to look this in the face, and the "feature" to promote slave states over the majority will be ended. [time.com]
Meanwhile it remains important to remind Americans that WE are smarter than the minority rule voters.
Re: (Score:2)
Your post is functionally equivalent to stating that you are Constitutionally illiterate regarding how US Federal elections work.
Hey! Look!
A new Clinton wave is coming this spring [axios.com]
It looks like Hillary 2020 could be coming! There's your chance for a "do over."
Re: (Score:1)
We know "how" elections work, and we know that the Constitution, Amendment 14 forbids elections that way.
Re: (Score:2)
With apologies to Inigo Montoya, . . you keep referring to that Amendment. I do not think it means what you think it means. Or is that inconceivable?
Re: (Score:2)
Dear troll,
So, who's paying you, Russia, or the telecoms? I mean, you're not stupid enough to bite your nose to spite your face (or your wallet) for free, are you?
Do you *really* doubt that the Republicans are a wholly-owned subsidiary of billionaires? Really? Prove they're not.
Where is the text of their bill? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
"We have to pass the bill before you can read it"
-- Nancy Pelosi, Democrat Representative
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: Where is the text of their bill? (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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..
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
" 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Since there is a word "restore" there (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't matter what I think - I just want to read the bill instead of just jumping on board the meme train to false narrative-ville.
You know, like how the "Affordable Care Act" turned out to be anything but affordable and the "Patriot Act" was about the most unpatriotic thing ever.
Partisan hacks gonna partisan hack I suppose.
Re: (Score:2)
It's just politics. They know they will lose since every vote these days is about doing what their party bosses tell them to do, not what they think is best fo the country. They want the vote because then they can point fingers at their opponents in the upcoming elections. I'm all for net neutrality, but it's going to eventually die from extreme swamp exposure.
Re: (Score:2)
The Affordable Care act provided health insurance that tens of millions of people could afford. My best guess is that it had to do with the state governments, so governments that worked with the ACA got reasonably good results while governments that didn't got bad results, just as they wanted. I'm not saying it's a good system, because it isn't, but it helped lots of people.
As far as the Net Neutrality bill goes, it's going nowhere and so it doesn't really matter what it says. The purpose is to get na
Re: (Score:2)
"Restore" means jack shit:
* Restore prohibition? (bad)
* Restore an antique? (good)
Likewise, WTF is "neutrality " ? It raises these questions:
* WHAT _isn't_ neutral?
* HOW did it end up not being neutral?
* WHY should it be?
A more descriptive title would go a LONG ways.
Re: Since there is a word "restore" there (Score:1)
Actually, unless you are very, very careful, if you 'restore' an antique you destroy it's value entirely. The original varnish on an antique chair is very important. There is a 'patina' that is a big part of what matters to people who care about antiques. Usually all you can do is apply furniture polish, and it had better be a type of the period of the antique.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, its not the best example.
Maybe restore a retro console to be working again, would have been a better example.
Re: (Score:2)
You only get long bill titles when it can be tweaked into a cute acronym, like "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001" or as we know it, the "USA PATRIOT Act".
Re: (Score:1)
Posted this earlier today:
"Wireless Internet Service Providers Association, which represents small fixed wireless companies that typically operate in rural America, surveyed its members and found that over 80% “incurred additional expense in complying with the Title II rules, had delayed or reduced network expansion, had delayed or reduced services and had allocated budget to comply with the rules.”
Also, the ISP we've used for over fifteen years almost went out of business after a new investor b
Re:Where is the text of their bill? (Score:5, Insightful)
I notice you didn't attribute that quote, so let me help you: that's from a statement given by FCC Chairman Ajit Pai during the FCC's vote to repeal Net Neutrality rules. I will bet that every single person reading this is aware that Ajit Pai is just a sleazy shill for telecoms, and seeks only to strengthen those monopolies. He's a piece of shit.
In case you don't know who I'm talking about, here's a photo of Ajit Pai:
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]:
Re: (Score:3)
I was curious why they would say that, since it should really help them. Here's what I found:
https://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/smaller-isps-ask-pai-dispel-cloud-title-ii-165261
Basically, as soon as someone said "FCC regulation" investors started to pull out. There was actually nothing specific in the regulation that was causing a problem. Investors were afraid that the FCC would apply price fixing, or use some vague clause to punish small ISPs. Now that was back in April 2017, and a few months later ISPs are suddenly switching their story, asking for the regulations to be put back in [theverge.com]
Re: (Score:2)
A big part of the problem is that the FCC should've never been involved with this in the first place. 3 out of 5 unelected bureaucrats being given the power to regulate the entire internet should scare the hell out of everyone, especially investors.
The legislature is where this has always belonged. Now we'll get to find out if they're serious or if this is just more failure theater designed to deceive people come November.
Re: (Score:2)
It sucks to lose your job due to new regulations, and I have twice before, but you must understand that it's for the greater good.
Dammit Let the market work. (Score:2)
Re:Dammit Let the market work. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean DSL, right? Nobody in any first-world country should still be on actual dial-up in 2018.
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Stop believing that government isn't worse and realize it is also the instrument of a lot of the corporate abuse you complain about
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's beyond naive, it's full-on delusional.
Title II != Net Neutrality (Score:1, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, more accurately the phone. The only reason the fairness doctrine existed was a limited number of content providers. That is not true of the phone or the Internet.
Your "text of the bill" stuff is nonsense. It's simply overturns the FCC decision.
You're right that the FCC would be bad if it did that. But there's no reason to think that's going to happen.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Title II regulated the phone company. Please base any analysis on, historical Title II in the US, phone or otherwise.
Pointless grandstanding (Score:3)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Never heard of/visited these sites (Score:2)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: Same scam, different day (Score:1)
You have a terrible reading comprehension problem.
Hell, I'm probably just responding to a crapflooder.