Democrats will use the Congressional Review Act to force a Senate vote on the restoration...

[Polycount]

The controversy surrounding the FCC's December 14 vote to end net neutrality may have dwindled over time, but the vote's detractors haven't given up their fight to restore the regulations.

For the unaware, net neutrality is a term that refers to a set of federal regulations implemented in 2015 that prevented internet service providers from throttling, blocking or otherwise prioritizing one type of internet traffic over another.

For example, under net neutrality's rules, Comcast wouldn't be allowed to block traffic to Netflix in order to promote their own hypothetical media streaming service.

At any rate, 33 Democrats have reportedly submitted a petition via the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to have the 2015 regulations restored.

According to The Verge, the petition gives the Democrats in question the power to force a Senate vote on the FCC's decision - which is precisely what they've done now. The vote is expected to take place next week.

If the vote passes in favor of net neutrality, the FCC's decision to eliminate the regulations could be rolled back.

As of writing, 50 senators have openly come out in support of the bill, including an Independent and a Republican. To obtain a majority, net neutrality's senate proponents must obtain one more vote.

If the vote passes in favor of net neutrality, the FCC's decision to eliminate the regulations could be rolled back.

It should be noted, however, that even if a CRA vote to roll back the FCC's decision passes, the resolution will still need to make its way through the House and receive an official signature from president Donald Trump.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/74546-democrats-use-congressional-review-act-force-senate-vote.html

 

[psycros]

The only reason the Dems want neutrality is so they can use it to suppress free speech they don't agree with. They've been in AT&T's pocket just as much as the other side..the Democrats just make sure they get a say in who gets put in the slow lane (or censored altogether).

 

[GeforcerFX]

The only reason the Dems want neutrality is so they can use it to suppress free speech they don't agree with. They've been in AT&T's pocket just as much as the other side..the Democrats just make sure they get a say in who gets put in the slow lane (or censored altogether).

I think they are doing it for for mid terms ,they know it will get shot down. If it makes it through the senate they can claim a victory and say they fought for NN, if it gets shot down it's cannon fodder for mid term elections( the GOP took away your internet fredoms raw raw). If it gets show down in the house (which it will) then more cannon fodder and I doubt Trump would sign it.

 

[eafshar]

The only reason the Dems want neutrality is so they can use it to suppress free speech they don't agree with. They've been in AT&T's pocket just as much as the other side..the Democrats just make sure they get a say in who gets put in the slow lane (or censored altogether).

How can anyone use NN to supress free speech? It goes against the fundementals of the idea. You must enlighten us. Please!

 

[ForgottenLegion]

The only reason the Dems want neutrality is so they can use it to suppress free speech they don't agree with. They've been in AT&T's pocket just as much as the other side..the Democrats just make sure they get a say in who gets put in the slow lane (or censored altogether).

How can anyone use NN to supress free speech? It goes against the fundementals of the idea. You must enlighten us. Please!

He's been drinking the coolaid at ajit pies house.

 

[eafshar]

The only reason the Dems want neutrality is so they can use it to suppress free speech they don't agree with. They've been in AT&T's pocket just as much as the other side..the Democrats just make sure they get a say in who gets put in the slow lane (or censored altogether).

How can anyone use NN to supress free speech? It goes against the fundementals of the idea. You must enlighten us. Please!

He's been drinking the coolaid at ajit pies house.

I can't tell if he is a KenM type troll or genuinly believes what he is saying...

 

[Evernessince]

The only reason the Dems want neutrality is so they can use it to suppress free speech they don't agree with. They've been in AT&T's pocket just as much as the other side..the Democrats just make sure they get a say in who gets put in the slow lane (or censored altogether).

Title 2 does not give the FCC the authority to regulate free speech. If you can point to a provision in the long standing title 2 regulation, which is used by our utilities, then by all means do.

I swear, one day it's Net Neutrality will stifle free speech and the next it doesn't do anything. People need to make up their mind or better yet actually read the NN document.

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1.pdf

Net Neutrality also requires ISPs to treat everyone's date equally and to abide by the first amendment, meaning that can't censor your freedom of speech. Without NN, freedom of speech does not apply to the private domain they are classified as and it's the situation you are in right now. Comcast can legally censor your speech right now. If Democrats wanted to, they could pay comcast some cash to slow down conservative websites and that would be 100% legal without NN.

Why Americans continue on with the completely incorrect assumption that their first Amendment rights apply to private businesses is beyond me. The constitution clearly states that only the government may not infringe upon your 1st amendment rights, that's it.

 

[treetops]

Getting rid of net neutrality only helps corps.... that is the only reason Republican politicians want to get rid of it.... None of you have any idea what net neutrality is. No you cannot pay to slow down anyone or damper anyone's website with net neutrality in place.... The complete opposite is true, without net neutrality you can pay money to get your site to the top of the search engine list. ISP can require you to pay money to keep your site running at normal speeds. ISP can charge you to use netflix and or impose fees on netflix because it uses so much data.

"Net neutrality is the principle that governments should mandate Internet service providers to treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or method of communication.[4] For instance, under these principles, internet service providers are unable to intentionally block, slow down or charge money for specific websites and online content."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

p.s. Only somewhat recently has net neutrality became a political topic. I am a independent voter, I see what is reported and then I research it. Way before this became political people who wanted to keep the internet corruption free regardless of political party have supported net neutrality.

 

[cliffordcooley]

There can not be net neutrality with regulation period. That is as bad as labeling a group Anonymous. Once they have been labeled they are no longer anonymous. Regulations kill Internet neutrality by definition.

 

[eafshar]

There can not be net neutrality with regulation period. That is as bad as labeling a group Anonymous. Once they have been labeled they are no longer anonymous. Regulations kill Internet neutrality by definition.

What kind of regulation do you speak of? Care to expand on your point? If tittle II classification is what you have in mind...I am finding it hard to see how it has that effect.

We all want something here. Open Internet that's not controlled by people in power positions. NN in the term of tittle 2 classification does not give that power to FCC/government. It only takes it away from corporations (ISPs). The entire campaign against NN has been about miss representing that fact.

 

[Bubbajim]

I can't tell if he is a KenM type troll or genuinly believes what he is saying...

Nah, Ken M is funny.

There can not be net neutrality with regulation period. That is as bad as labeling a group Anonymous. Once they have been labeled they are no longer anonymous. Regulations kill Internet neutrality by definition.

Yeah, who'd want their elected representatives to try and legislate for a level playing field when you have a Super Trustworthy™ cabal of ISPs sloshing lobbying money all over the place, doing such a great job already?

 

[captaincranky]

If it gets show down in the house (which it will) then more cannon fodder and I doubt Trump would sign it.

"Congress can override a veto by passing the act by a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate. (Usually an act is passed with a simple majority.) This check prevents the President from blocking an act when significant support for it exists".

https://www.archives.gov/files/legislative/resources/education/veto/background.pdf

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

There can not be net neutrality with regulation period. That is as bad as labeling a group Anonymous. Once they have been labeled they are no longer anonymous. Regulations kill Internet neutrality by definition.

Right... and the thing we're now calling Net Neutrality is the regulation that classifies the internet as a utility.

If you're in favor of the internet not being regulated then you agree with Ajit Pai.

 

[cliffordcooley]

NN in the term of tittle 2 classification does not give that power to FCC/government.

And you seriously can't see regulations in that? If you are going to regulate any part of the Internet, don't pass it off as neutrality.

 

[DelJo63]

Getting rid of net neutrality only helps corps.... that is the only reason Republican politicians want to get rid of it.... None of you have any idea what net neutrality is. ....

Finally an intelligent comment - - THANK YOU!

 

[GeforcerFX]

"Congress can override a veto by passing the act by a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate. (Usually an act is passed with a simple majority.) This check prevents the President from blocking an act when significant support for it exists".

https://www.archives.gov/files/legislative/resources/education/veto/background.pdf

I'm aware, I just don't see them mustering a 2/3 majority for the bill in both.

 

[Evernessince]

If it gets show down in the house (which it will) then more cannon fodder and I doubt Trump would sign it.

"Congress can override a veto by passing the act by a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate. (Usually an act is passed with a simple majority.) This check prevents the President from blocking an act when significant support for it exists".

https://www.archives.gov/files/legislative/resources/education/veto/background.pdf

The only problem is that what representatives support and what the people support have never been farther apart. Gerrymandering has allowed politicians to game the American voters. That in addition to the relaxation to campaign finance laws and the average America has a far tinnier voice than they have in the past.

 

[Evernessince]

NN in the term of tittle 2 classification does not give that power to FCC/government.

And you seriously can't see regulations in that? If you are going to regulate any part of the Internet, don't pass it off as neutrality.

I never said it wasn't a regulation. My post explicitly refers to freedom of speech. If you are worrying about the internet being regulated, it already is. The digital millennium copyright act is just the tip of the iceberg. If it wasn't for that piece of legislation, which the internet has flourished with for over a decade, companies would not have any way to control their IP. Clearly not all regulation is bad, in fact some regulation is required.

Nah, Ken M is funny.



Yeah, who'd want their elected representatives to try and legislate for a level playing field when you have a Super Trustworthy™ cabal of ISPs sloshing lobbying money all over the place, doing such a great job already?

I think people voicing descent are worried their freedoms are going to be taken away, even though they were under NN regulation for over a year and broadband investment actually increased, ISPs actually had transparent bills, and they stopped throttling. Now I can't even find my speed tier on my bill and they moved the fees around to confuse customers. That's what happens when transparency isn't required.

 

[captaincranky]

The only problem is that what representatives support and what the people support have never been farther apart. Gerrymandering has allowed politicians to game the American voters. That in addition to the relaxation to campaign finance laws and the average America has a far tinnier voice than they have in the past.

Well, sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I only posted the rules, to show what could be done, certainly not what I believe will happen.

As far as "gerrymandering" goes, you're a prime example of the people "gerrymandering" themselves.

This election is all about "gun control". So, all a politician has to do, is stand up and say, "I'm for gun control|. and no matter how incompetent, how big a liar, or how big a thief that person is, they've got your vote.l

I'm sure you can grasp both concepts as separate issues, but a great many can't. They mindlessly pay the internet and phone bills, and have no idea what "net neutrality even is, let alone be for or against it.

So, you'll probably get the "common sense gun laws" you're been whining for, but answer me this, what happens if that doesn't work? Should we send out the national guard, to kick in doors, and disarm the public by force?

And while I';m aware that's well off topic, I'm trying to make a point that the public in general, can't come to grips with a correlation where both variables and outcomes can be negative. That would require independent thought, and there's a sore dearth of that these days.

In other words, because Trump is a lousy president, that doesn't automatically correlate to making it a given that Hillary Clinton would have been a good one.

Ajit Pai's approach is a prime example of the typical central Asian business tactics, as is Satya Nadella's. I have to whisper that, because I don't want to be labeled a "racist", or worse yet, "politically incorrect". And yet, for me, in my advancing, years, suffering the actions and tactics of either of those turds is like, "deja vu all over again".

How about if I let Joan Jett, doing an AC/DC cover explain it to you?

 

[captaincranky]

I'm aware, I just don't see them mustering a 2/3 majority for the bill in both.

Well, there's internet "trolling", and then believe it or not, there's "internet chumming".

So my post you're quoting, was just really to make you follow the boat, and set the hook.

 

[captaincranky]

So, to get back to topic (), as long as I have sufficient bandwidth to stream pop classics like this priceless Bangles send up, I\ll be as happy as a clam.

 

[Evernessince]

There can not be net neutrality with regulation period. That is as bad as labeling a group Anonymous. Once they have been labeled they are no longer anonymous. Regulations kill Internet neutrality by definition.

Well the term "regulation" is pretty wide reaching. What we simply need is a referee who stands on the side lines and penalizes ISPs when they do something bad. That's more of a hands off and reactive system after they have already done something but I think it's something that would satisfy both sides of the argument. Without some of the NN rules though, current FTC regulation is not equip to tackle throttling, misleading pricing, ect. Makes sense though, given these are all issues that have popped up

Well, sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I only posted the rules, to show what could be done, certainly not what I believe will happen.

As far as "gerrymandering" goes, you're a prime example of the people "gerrymandering" themselves.

This election is all about "gun control". So, all a politician has to do, is stand up and say, "I'm for gun control|. and no matter how incompetent, how big a liar, or how big a thief that person is, they've got your vote.l

I'm sure you can grasp both concepts as separate issues, but a great many can't. They mindlessly pay the internet and phone bills, and have no idea what "net neutrality even is, let alone be for or against it.

So, you'll probably get the "common sense gun laws" you're been whining for, but answer me this, what happens if that doesn't work? Should we send out the national guard, to kick in doors, and disarm the public by force?

And while I';m aware that's well off topic, I'm trying to make a point that the public in general, can't come to grips with a correlation where both variables and outcomes can be negative. That would require independent thought, and there's a sore dearth of that these days.

In other words, because Trump is a lousy president, that doesn't automatically correlate to making it a given that Hillary Clinton would have been a good one.

Ajit Pai's approach is a prime example of the typical central Asian business tactics, as is Satya Nadella's. I have to whisper that, because I don't want to be labeled a "racist", or worse yet, "politically incorrect". And yet, for me, in my advancing, years, suffering the actions and tactics of either of those turds is like, "deja vu all over again".

How about if I let Joan Jett, doing an AC/DC cover explain it to you?

How did you jump from NN to Gun control? I think you need to take your own advice

"As far as "gerrymandering" goes, you're a prime example of the people "gerrymandering" themselves."

You are making a huge assumption in that everyone is a 1-issue voter.

 

[captaincranky]

How did you jump from NN to Gun control? I think you need to take your own advice

Very easily, I watch TV and the political ads are topically nothing except gun control., versus Trump and the NRA. Absolutely nothing comes up about "net neutrality". So yes, this is a one issue election primary. And that's how I made that jump.In fact, I'd be ever so happy to mail you all the crap political mail I receive to you, so that you could see for yourself.

You are making a huge assumption in that everyone is a 1-issue voter.

I made no such assumption. I said the "gun control is the "hot button issue", and a great many voters are one issue voters.

In fact, I even gave you credit for not being a one issue voter. Apparently you can't read.

Besides, how can you avoid this being a one issue election, when all the politicians are doing, is harping on one issue?

Do you think Ajit Pai's name ever comes up in political speeches? If so, you're delusional. Do you think these clowns out stumping are basing their campaigns on "net neutrality.". Just because you're thinking about it, doesn't make it an issue in the forefront

At any rate, if you vote Democratic, you'll automatically get net neutrality restored.

Here's Lindy Li a Democratic candidate for congress in Philadelphia. At about 1:34, under the tag "one core issue": you'll hear "gun control. And again Ajit Pai's name never comes up.

And as with every other rookie politician, she's going to take on "special interests". at least until she's elected and succumbs to them.

 

[Evernessince]

Very easily, I watch TV and the political ads are topically nothing except gun control., versus Trump and the NRA. Absolutely nothing comes up about "net neutrality". So yes, this is a one issue election primary. And that's how I made that jump.In fact, I'd be ever so happy to mail you all the crap political mail I receive to you, so that you could see for yourself.

I made no such assumption. I said the "gun control is the "hot button issue", and a great many voters are one issue voters.

In fact, I even gave you credit for not being a one issue voter. Apparently you can't read.

Besides, how can you avoid this being a one issue election, when all the politicians are doing, is harping on one issue?

Do you think Ajit Pai's name ever comes up in political speeches? If so, you're delusional. Do you think these clowns out stumping are basing their campaigns on "net neutrality.". Just because you're thinking about it, doesn't make it an issue in the forefront

At any rate, if you vote Democratic, you'll automatically get net neutrality restored.

I'd suggest avoiding TV and social media. The ads recently have been nothing but candidates attacking each other. The only thing that it's good at doing is splitting Americans apart from having actual discussion.

I'd much rather they spend that TV ad money and coordinate smaller debates with people from the campaign. That way people can actually connect. We could cover more topics if we stopped attacking each other for a moment.

 

[cliffordcooley]

What we simply need is a referee who stands on the side lines and penalizes ISPs when they do something bad.

Sure but you can't call it neutrality if you step in at all.