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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Democrats Government United States

Senate Democrats Force a Vote To Restore Net Neutrality (theverge.com) 144

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.

Senate Democrats Force a Vote To Restore Net Neutrality

Comments Filter:
  • by Blackburd ( 5317629 ) on Wednesday May 09, 2018 @06:54PM (#56584498)
    This is how you win votes.
    • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

      by bobbied ( 2522392 )

      If that's how they think they can win votes, by holding useless votes, then power to them. Even if it passes, it won't be signed by Trump.

      I'm afraid though, if this is their wedge issue this go around, they got problems bigger than Trump.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by wonkavader ( 605434 )

        Trump was just found to be taking what might be illegal campaign contributions from AT&T through the fake consulting company which paid for Stormy Daniel's silence.

        He can be played such that he'll sign.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by bobbied ( 2522392 )

          Oh Yea... It took you nearly a year and a half of nearly weekly claims of "We got him now!" to finally find this? And you think this won't end up like the last 50 things that where going to surely bring him down that didn't pan out? Cute..

          I'd like to point to point out a couple of facts that don't make sense if you are right.

          First, you are alleging a crime which *WOULD* be squarely in Muller's wheelhouse. So one would assume Muller would already know about this, yet, instead of charging Trump's lawyer

          • So one would assume Muller would already know about this, yet, instead of charging Trump's lawyer himself, Muller passes this off to a local prosecutor?

            The president could pardon his lawyer for a federal charge. A local prosecutor can try the lawyer on state charges, and would require the state's governor to issue a pardon, as that's a power reserved to the states. This is not by accident.

            • by skids ( 119237 )

              Unfortunately the New York Cohen case is still a federal case, just in a different federal district. Perhaps that makes it easier for the state to file charges, I dunno.

          • by Anonymous Coward

            First, you are alleging a crime which *WOULD* be squarely in Muller's wheelhouse. So one would assume Muller would already know about this, yet, instead of charging Trump's lawyer himself, Muller passes this off to a local prosecutor? How's that? Muler just lets this guy skate but he's charging Russians who are not even in his jurisdiction? Not looking good for this narrative..

            First off: you make it sound like Mueller is 'going after' Trump. Given his reputation, IMHO he's simply following where the trail leads him, and he doesn't care whether it reaches Trump or not. Mueller is a registered Republican after all (and so it his boss, Rosenstein--who Trump incidentally appointed).

            Further, making it a federal case opens up the possibility of a commuting or presidential pardon. Mueller passed it off to the state level, where a presidential pardon has no sway. Mueller took it to Rosen

            • Mueller indicted three Russian companies with a charge "Conspiracy to Defraud the United States of America." But one of the companies, Concord Management, is calling out Meuller's bluff. Fact is, he has diddly squat in terms of evidence. As such, they entered a plea of not guilty. That's huge! It now forces Meuller to disclose any and all evidence brought against them, again, of which he as NONE!. Knowing this would expose this fraud for what it is, Meuller asked the court to postone the trial on a technica

      • If that's how they think they can win votes, by holding useless votes, then power to them. Even if it passes, it won't be signed by Trump.

        Good, then let Trump go on record as well for going against the senate, the house, and the people of the United States. Let's see how that works out.

        • by Lennie ( 16154 )

          From what we've seen so far, his supporters won't care.

          • by Boronx ( 228853 )

            True, but there will be a smidgen fewer.

          • by dcw3 ( 649211 ) on Thursday May 10, 2018 @12:10PM (#56588670) Journal

            I'm generally a conservative. I didn't vote for Trump (mostly because he's an ass), but I support some of his actions. I also look at each issue and make up my own mind, and sometimes I find myself agreeing with the liberal position (SHOCKING). I'm not certain why NN should be considered a liberal position, but I support it, and see no logical reason why anyone shouldn't unless they're beholden to AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and others. Ajit can bite my ass...he should be tarred and feathered, and so should anyone who supports him.

        • What would be interesting is if a veto changes enough Congress-critters opinions to override. If there's one thing the House and Senate can agree on in a bi-partisan way, it's that they don't like when the will of the Congress is stymied by one obstinate guy a few blocks down Pennsylvania Ave.

          By the way, this would be his first veto - a veto on an issue that has greater than 80% support across party lines. That being said, it's not an issue that actually drives people to change votes the way others do, su

          • by k6mfw ( 1182893 )

            If there's one thing the House and Senate can agree on in a bi-partisan way, it's that they don't like when the will of the Congress is stymied by one obstinate guy a few blocks down Pennsylvania Ave.

            I don't think there is much the House and Senate can do, both are weak after many years of increasing Executive power in addition to McConnell policy of saying no to everything by Obama. So not much experience and loss of knowledge working with the Executive branch. End result is power vacuum in both House and Senate that Trump can easily fulfill. i.e. void treaty with Iran and House and Senate have absolutely no say in that matter.

      • by un1nsp1red ( 2503532 ) on Wednesday May 09, 2018 @07:08PM (#56584582) Homepage

        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?

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by bobbied ( 2522392 )

          This bill won't pass the Senate, and if it does Trump won't sign. This is a wedge issue vote, for show. And I'm saying that as a wedge issue it's pretty ineffective.

          IF this is all they got, the midterms are going to be disappointing to them.

          • by Anonymous Coward

            And I'm saying that as a wedge issue it's pretty ineffective.

            Yes, you would say that, but you're a hardcore apologist for the right-wing, who was desperately making hay for Arpaio and Moore the past few months, and has made a post at least every day sucking up to your hero, Donald Trump.

            What's your opinion really worth? Could you stand to criticize Donald Trump if he were caught in bed with Vladimir Putin and your own mother?

            IF this is all they got, the midterms are going to be disappointing to them.

            Ah, somebody's pretending there's not fifteen hundred other things? That's almost three a day that the Great Bloviating Buffoon has provided.

      • by cahuenga ( 3493791 ) on Wednesday May 09, 2018 @07:18PM (#56584634)
        Dumping Net Neutrality was all on the Trump Administration, Republican congress-critters were thoroughly insulated. This vote puts them on record.
        • Agreed. They're going to be worried about voting against this. This will help get people who don't normally vote come out. Not a big deal in a primary, but in a general election, that's very dangerous.

          • Agreed. They're going to be worried about voting against this. This will help get people who don't normally vote come out. Not a big deal in a primary, but in a general election, that's very dangerous.

            I guess we will have to see won't we. IF we see a group of Republicans peal off and vote for this, then you are likely right, they are worried. If we don't, if they vote party line as I expect, then your hope to use this as a wedge issue is going to fall flat because Republicans obviously are not worried.

          • by Anonymous Coward
            You live in a bubble. The general public doesn't even know what the fake "net neutrality" even means let alone whether it is good or bad. The ignorance and closed mindedness of the people on these comment boards is amazing.
        • Dumping Net Neutrality was all on the Trump Administration, Republican congress-critters were thoroughly insulated. This vote puts them on record.

          And if it passes and Trump doesn't sign, it will clear them again... But it won't pass the Senate. There is zero need to knuckle under for this in the senate, democrats are in deep trouble in the Senate, facing a number of incumbent races in states where Trump's win was well past double digits and few possible pickups in places where things are close... Democrats have little hope of gaining seats in the Senate, and will likely drop a few.

        • by Ogive17 ( 691899 )
          I wrote my Republican critter about this issue.. his response was 100% political (even though my letter was focused on not trusting the monopolies to make changes to benefit the consumers). Freshman critter as well... I will vote against him every chance I get assuming the other candidate is at least somewhat competent.
          • I wrote my Republican critter about this issue.. his response was 100% political (even though my letter was focused on not trusting the monopolies to make changes to benefit the consumers). Freshman critter as well... I will vote against him every chance I get assuming the other candidate is at least somewhat competent.

            The other candidate? You assume you can only vote for one of two parties? I've written in candidates more than once, I think I will do it more often in the future - and don't listen to those big-eyed experts who tell you that "oh you're just wasting your vote on a long-shot candidate!" It's none of their business what you waste.

            • by Ogive17 ( 691899 )
              I vote 3rd party when I see fit. I will also leave something blank if I find none of the candidates are worth my vote. Our primaries were this past Tuesday, I only voted in about half of the races.
      • by cfalcon ( 779563 )

        > I'm afraid though, if this is their wedge issue this go around

        Net Neutrality and Federal Cannabis Decriminalization are pretty good "wedge" issues, if they want them, and if the Republicans don't just evaporate them by suddenly flipping. Net Neutrality seems like it would be really hard for the Republicans to flip on, so maybe that's the strat- I don't know.

        So far they have seemed to be running on "take all the guns", even having plenty of their people openly demanding the destruction of the second am

        • I don't fault the democrats for doing this, power to them... I'm just pointing out that if this is an important part of what they got, we are in for a unusual midterm election because the democrats are going to get creamed.

          This is WAY to soon. Way to unimportant and they will lose the vote. IF democrats see this as a plus, that means they see issues shoring up their base and motivating them to vote in the midterms because it's only their base that cares about NN at this point.

  • Your bill will go up anyway.

  • I wish the U.S. had a healthy government.
    • by Lennie ( 16154 )

      Are you in the US ? Maybe try ways to do something about it.

      I'm not, but maybe look into doing something about, here are some ideas (they might be stupid ideas, I don't know, I don't know US culture):

      Maybe:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

      Or:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

      • The US bipartisan system is fundamentally flawed, and there's nothing short of a complete breakdown and restructuring that is capable of "doing something" about it. There simply is no desire for a democracy among the ruling class in America, because a democracy would not benefit the rulers. More police, on the other hand...
    • We get the government we deserve. People keep falling for the same old trick, that either the (R) or (D) guy will actually change things for the better, but whether it's Hope And Change or MAGA, we get the same old shit and the people continue to get screwed. We've got one party dedicated to screwing everyone and everything to help the rich, but thanks to a couple social wedge issues and peoples baffling inability to recognize that they're being lied to about how the middle class will be helped and that tri
    • I wish the U.S. had a healthy government.

      Believe it or not, this is how it is supposed to work -- factions fighting and offsetting the designs of other factions...and men.

      Worry instead when there's smooth sailing, because either someone has too much power, or there's a war on.

  • are you going to watch the vote and throw out anybody who votes 'nay'? If not, this is a waste of time. Heck, is there even anybody on this forum who is gonna change their voting behavior in response to Net Neutrality? And if not, what are the odds there's anybody anywhere who will?
    • Sure, if someone in my district or state votes against net neutrality I'm going to vote against them. Of course I've already been voting against them for years anyway for every other reason, to no avail.

      The real question is whether this issue is significant enough to their base to compel them to change their votes. For the young? Maybe, they might call hypocrisy at seeing corporate america buy laws at the expense of the working man. The old probably don't care about the series of tubes.

  • by will_die ( 586523 ) on Wednesday May 09, 2018 @08:47PM (#56585060) Homepage
    So did they actually go and write a decent technical bill and address the issues or did they just copy the sloppy one that the FCC was smart in getting rid of?
    • the FCC didn't write a sloppy bill.. in fact they didn't write a bill at all. They just added ISP's to the already in effect tittle 2 communications rules. The very reason that the FCC was created to deal with. Title 2 just means that it's a public communications line and that no special conditions can be created to block or hinder access and that all rates must be reasonable and across the board. Everyone get's the same access to communications lines. They can charge as much as they want as long as they ch
      • by penandpaper ( 2463226 ) on Thursday May 10, 2018 @10:53AM (#56587970) Journal

        Title 2 just means that it's a public communications line and that no special conditions can be created to block or hinder access and that all rates must be reasonable and across the board.

        No, Title 2 is a group of regulations for specific classifications and depending on the classification will decide which and how regulations are applied. Are Internet Service Providers a Information Service Provider or are they a Telecommunication Service Provider? Title 2 cannot regulate Information Service Providers because that is the way the law is written. Currently, ISPs are classified as Information Service Providers and thus are less regulated. The Obama-era FCC rules that were repealed effectively said "ISPs are Telecommunication Service Providers and we are going to pick and choose which regulation will apply regardless what the law says.". That is a horrible thing to do because not only does the FCC not have the authority to pick and choose which laws or regulations apply to which classification but it will be a matter of time before the exceptions will be applied because the law says so and as soon as the judiciary gets involved. Some of those exceptions are for example, decency rules. No more offensive content on the internet just like TV or Radio that do fall under Title 2. TV and Radio are Telecommunication Service Providers and if you classify the internet as such you will have a sanitized internet just like TV and Radio because that is the law. It would only be a matter of time and lawsuit.

        • you will have a sanitized internet just like TV and Radio

          Nope. The reason TV and radio are sanitized is because they use public resources, specifically chunks of the EM spectrum. The spectrum is public property, and there are rules about what you can do with it. Cable isn't sanitized, because it doesn't use public property directly, and the First Amendment applies. The Net isn't sanitized, for the same reason.

  • Congress never voted on Net Neutrality. It was handed down as a regulatory fiat.
  • Democrats vote keep, Republicans vote repeal. Party lines. Every time.

    This is just a smart way for democrats to get votes on record to campaign against the republicans.

    • by Ksevio ( 865461 )
      Which is good - Net neutrality is extremely popular and not a partisan issue. The senators in the pockets of the telecoms should be on record being against it so people know to vote them out.
  • Thanks for at least somewhat caring; if anything, it shows the govt. officials that actually seem to care about the issue.
    Even if this ends up passing, I wonder if there is any technical solution to this? It'd be nice if there was a way to keep this kind of problem from being able to adversely affect users of the internet without having to rely on constantly making sure that our civil liberties are not being eroded; I guess that is political participation and democracy for you-and what the ACLU, EFF, and

Lend money to a bad debtor and he will hate you.

Working...