Senate votes to restore net neutrality

[midian182]

Back in December, the FCC confirmed internet users’ fears when it voted to repeal net neutrality rules, but yesterday saw the US Senate vote to overturn the decision. While this might sound like reason to celebrate, the bill still faces tougher challenges ahead.

Wednesday’s Senate vote on a resolution to reinstate net neutrality protections ended 52 in favor and 47 against. Democrats are using the Congressional Review Act to try and reverse the FCC’s repeal. The CRA allows Congress to reverse recent decisions made by government agencies.

All 49 Democrats voted in favor, as did three Republican Senators: Susan Collins, of Maine; John Kennedy, of Louisiana; and Lisa Murkowski, of Alaska.

BREAKING: We just won the vote in the Senate on #NetNeutrality. Thanks to everyone for pushing so hard. We have more work to do but this is an excellent beginning.

— Brian Schatz (@brianschatz) 16 May 2018

"This is a turning point in the movement," said Hawaii Senator Brian Schatz, according to CNET.

While the vote is a victory for the Democrats and will be welcomed by those calling for net neutrality to be reinstated, the chances of it actually happening remain very slim. The bill will now move to the House of Representatives, where House Democrats must collect signatures from a full majority of the House—instead of just 30—to use the CRA and bring the issue up for vote. It will then need the support of every Democrat and 22 Republicans. And even if that unlikely scenario comes to pass, it still needs to be signed off by President Trump.

One person who definitely hasn’t welcomed the Senate vote is FCC Chairman Ajit Pai. "The Internet was free and open before 2015, when the prior FCC buckled to political pressure from the White House and imposed utility-style regulation on the Internet," he said in a statement. "And it will continue to be free and open once the Restoring Internet Freedom Order takes effect on June 11."

Even if the resolution fails, many states, including California and New York, are doing all they can to fight back against the FCC's decision with their own net neutrality proposals.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/74673-senate-votes-restore-net-neutrality.html

 

[Uncle Al]

Bravo! Keep up the great work!!!

 

[ForgottenLegion]

Don't worry, Trump will shoot it down.

 

[wiyosaya]

When the 8 in 10 US citizens support NN, it is clear that Pai and those commissioners voting against it are not in tune with the public and could care less what the public says. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...triking/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b7c3fb97bda0

As I see it, his rules are a complete joke especially with the part that an ISP only has to post their policy to their web site. To me, this leaves little recourse to pursue grievances with the FTC since if it is posted on the ISP's web site, the all the FTC will do is say, "It's posted on their web site, so therefore, they can do what they are doing."

No ISP in their right mind will likely change anything until this gets through the courts - or to the public for a vote. But if Pai's version sticks, I am willing to bet that ISP's will find creative ways to charge for "premium services."

Also, Pai's comments ring hollow about ISPs not abusing their power in light of the publicity that Netflix had to negotiate a special contract with their ISP.

Don't worry, Trump will shoot it down.

You bet he will. He might talk like a commoner, however, he is not a commoner's president. Make America Garbage Again.

Cue all those unsupported, unsubstantiated, and unverified comments about Democrats wanting government to control what you get over the Internet. We all love alternative facts.

 

[Water Boy]

It's funny how people think that just because they call it "Net Neutrality" that it frees up the internet. Obama picked that name as hoax on the American people. Before net neutrality the internet was actually open and allowed innovation to be rewarded. Net neutrality allows the government to pass laws to regulate the internet and show favoritism to certain ISPs over others.

It should be obvious to anyone that it’s about more government control because the Democrats like it. They should have named it Net Regulation but they knew no one would want it if they named it properly.

Learn what it really is and don’t let the name fool you.

 

[Misagt]

It's funny how many fools are out there. If you did any research into this bill other then simply falling for a name like net neutrality. This is designed to hand over the internet to the government which just means it's in control of the massive corporate interests. If you really want a free internet don't rejoice at the idea of it being handing over just because it has a pleasing name to the bill. Would you cheer for a bill called "free health care" If it meant the bill gives your right to live or die to some government bureaucrat?

 

[jonny888]

It's funny how many fools are out there. If you did any research into this bill other then simply falling for a name like net neutrality. This is designed to hand over the internet to the government which just means it's in control of the massive corporate interests. If you really want a free internet don't rejoice at the idea of it being handing over just because it has a pleasing name to the bill. Would you cheer for a bill called "free health care" If it meant the bill gives your right to live or die to some government bureaucrat?

The NHS pretty much disproves any argument that government funded healthcare doesn't/can't work. And the internet has been running perfectly well and successfully without the rights of ISPs to nickel and dime you for every penny and cent they can.

 

[IAMTHESTIG]

I don't care for this net communism they are attempting... I vote with my wallet, thanks.

 

[wiyosaya]

It's funny how people think that just because they call it "Net Neutrality" that it frees up the internet. Obama picked that name as hoax on the American people. Before net neutrality the internet was actually open and allowed innovation to be rewarded. Net neutrality allows the government to pass laws to regulate the internet and show favoritism to certain ISPs over others.

It should be obvious to anyone that it’s about more government control because the Democrats like it. They should have named it Net Regulation but they knew no one would want it if they named it properly.

Learn what it really is and don’t let the name fool you.

It's funny how many fools are out there. If you did any research into this bill other then simply falling for a name like net neutrality. This is designed to hand over the internet to the government which just means it's in control of the massive corporate interests. If you really want a free internet don't rejoice at the idea of it being handing over just because it has a pleasing name to the bill. Would you cheer for a bill called "free health care" If it meant the bill gives your right to live or die to some government bureaucrat?

Death panels again, really?

Thanks for responding. I knew someone would come up the requisite - you advocate giving total control over the internet to the government alternative fact.

I suggest reading the article at the link I posted in my comment above. It is one of the most balanced articles that I have seen on the issue, and specifically states that those who say that NN gives control over the internet to the government have not fully educated themselves on the issue.

However, you are free to believe as you wish. Beliefs do not necessarily equate to facts, however.

And I challenge both of you to cite pertinent and verifiable references to anyone in government of either party, Obama included, saying that NN was intended to give control over the internet to government. We're waiting....

 

[wiyosaya]

I don't care for this net communism they are attempting... I vote with my wallet, thanks.

Well, you live in a privileged area, then, if you have more than one ISP to vote for with your wallet.

 

[psycros]

Both parties want control of the Internet, their just approaching it from different directions. The Republicans want to control it through their corporate interests while the Democrats want the government to be able to pick the winners. In other words, their doing exactly what they always do. Neither party is working in the best interests of the American taxpayer.

 

[wiyosaya]

Both parties want control of the Internet, their just approaching it from different directions. The Republicans want to control it through their corporate interests while the Democrats want the government to be able to pick the winners. In other words, their doing exactly what they always do. Neither party is working in the best interests of the American taxpayer.

Thanks for your reply, too. I knew I could count on you.

So why no links to substantiate your claims?

Like I mentioned to the other posters, I suggest reading the article at the link in my first comment to this article.

Here's a teaser for you: When educated about the issue, 80-percent of republicans support NN.

 

[OutlawCecil]

The "Restoring Internet Freedom Order" lol nobody's calling it that. If you want to go that direction, it would need to be accurately called the "Restoring Internet Freedom-to-screw Order". These laws were put in place BECAUSE companies started screwing over people.

 

[bohemond1099]

Don't worry, Trump will shoot it down.

Sure hope so, crony capitalism isn't going to make things better.

 

[bohemond1099]

It's funny how many fools are out there. If you did any research into this bill other then simply falling for a name like net neutrality. This is designed to hand over the internet to the government which just means it's in control of the massive corporate interests. If you really want a free internet don't rejoice at the idea of it being handing over just because it has a pleasing name to the bill. Would you cheer for a bill called "free health care" If it meant the bill gives your right to live or die to some government bureaucrat?

It also discourages free market competition and encourages crony capitalism. NN is a sham.

 

[Puiu]

It's funny how people think that just because they call it "Net Neutrality" that it frees up the internet. Obama picked that name as hoax on the American people. Before net neutrality the internet was actually open and allowed innovation to be rewarded. Net neutrality allows the government to pass laws to regulate the internet and show favoritism to certain ISPs over others.

It should be obvious to anyone that it’s about more government control because the Democrats like it. They should have named it Net Regulation but they knew no one would want it if they named it properly.

Learn what it really is and don’t let the name fool you.

It's funny how many fools are out there. If you did any research into this bill other then simply falling for a name like net neutrality. This is designed to hand over the internet to the government which just means it's in control of the massive corporate interests. If you really want a free internet don't rejoice at the idea of it being handing over just because it has a pleasing name to the bill. Would you cheer for a bill called "free health care" If it meant the bill gives your right to live or die to some government bureaucrat?

Death panels again, really?

Thanks for responding. I knew someone would come up the requisite - you advocate giving total control over the internet to the government alternative fact.

I suggest reading the article at the link I posted in my comment above. It is one of the most balanced articles that I have seen on the issue, and specifically states that those who say that NN gives control over the internet to the government have not fully educated themselves on the issue.

However, you are free to believe as you wish. Beliefs do not necessarily equate to facts, however.

And I challenge both of you to cite pertinent and verifiable references to anyone in government of either party, Obama included, saying that NN was intended to give control over the internet to government. We're waiting....

I don't remember NN giving the government total control. It just regulates what should be common sense, something which the major US ISPs seem to lack.

If you say otherwise then I would like you to write here the part that proves that it gives the government "total control". If the ISPs refuse to self-regulate then the government has to step in, otherwise you are just going to get screwed over and over again "legally".

If you can't make a distinction between "regulating" and "controlling" then you probably aren't qualified to talk about this topic.

 

[wiyosaya]

It's funny how people think that just because they call it "Net Neutrality" that it frees up the internet. Obama picked that name as hoax on the American people. Before net neutrality the internet was actually open and allowed innovation to be rewarded. Net neutrality allows the government to pass laws to regulate the internet and show favoritism to certain ISPs over others.

It should be obvious to anyone that it’s about more government control because the Democrats like it. They should have named it Net Regulation but they knew no one would want it if they named it properly.

Learn what it really is and don’t let the name fool you.

It's funny how many fools are out there. If you did any research into this bill other then simply falling for a name like net neutrality. This is designed to hand over the internet to the government which just means it's in control of the massive corporate interests. If you really want a free internet don't rejoice at the idea of it being handing over just because it has a pleasing name to the bill. Would you cheer for a bill called "free health care" If it meant the bill gives your right to live or die to some government bureaucrat?

Death panels again, really?

Thanks for responding. I knew someone would come up the requisite - you advocate giving total control over the internet to the government alternative fact.

I suggest reading the article at the link I posted in my comment above. It is one of the most balanced articles that I have seen on the issue, and specifically states that those who say that NN gives control over the internet to the government have not fully educated themselves on the issue.

However, you are free to believe as you wish. Beliefs do not necessarily equate to facts, however.

And I challenge both of you to cite pertinent and verifiable references to anyone in government of either party, Obama included, saying that NN was intended to give control over the internet to government. We're waiting....

I don't remember NN giving the government total control. It just regulates what should be common sense, something which the major US ISPs seem to lack.

If you say otherwise then I would like you to write here the part that proves that it gives the government "total control". If the ISPs refuse to self-regulate then the government has to step in, otherwise you are just going to get screwed over and over again "legally".

If you can't make a distinction between "regulating" and "controlling" then you probably aren't qualified to talk about this topic.

Exactly!

Any effort by the government to prevent any entity, I.e., person, corporation, whatever, from supplying legal traffic on the internet would be shot down in the courts as unconstitutional. Period!

Regulation is saying that ISPs cannot charge any entity a priority fee for special access to the internet which is what NN is. Charging any entity for prioritized access to the internet amounts to legalized extortion and is, in essence, what Pai and his corporate cronies are saying is legal under his ruling as long as the ISP posts on a page on their web site that they are doing so. And if they do post that they are doing so, then under Pai's ruling, there will be nothing the FCC or the FTC can do about it. Period!

Control would be if the government went to an ISP and said to them that we do not like this particular entity who's internet traffic is entirely legal and you, ISP, cannot carry that entity's traffic on your network. This would be shot down in the courts as unconstitutional. Period.

I know none of you anti-NN advocates will do so because you think that those not agreeing with you are FOS, but please read the link I posted in my first comment. It is bi-partisan in nature, and even states that when people in either party are educated with material provided by both sides of the argument that accurately describes each side's respective position, they overwhelmingly choose NN as the better option.

 

[Camikazi]

It's funny how many fools are out there. If you did any research into this bill other then simply falling for a name like net neutrality. This is designed to hand over the internet to the government which just means it's in control of the massive corporate interests. If you really want a free internet don't rejoice at the idea of it being handing over just because it has a pleasing name to the bill. Would you cheer for a bill called "free health care" If it meant the bill gives your right to live or die to some government bureaucrat?

The NHS pretty much disproves any argument that government funded healthcare doesn't/can't work. And the internet has been running perfectly well and successfully without the rights of ISPs to nickel and dime you for every penny and cent they can.

Really johnny? All I hear about NHS from locals is long wait times, procedures not being approved even when life saving, lacking in doctors, budget way overboard, over full hospitals with not enough staff. It's a good shot but perfect it is not, it has a LOT of problems and isn't the shining light of perfection you try to make it seem.

 

[Puiu]

It also discourages free market competition and encourages crony capitalism. NN is a sham.

There is no "free market competition" when the ISPs refuse to compete with eachother. Most people have access to only 1 high speed internet provider (or worse, no high speed internet provider).
Did you know that together with the NN they are also removing the rules that forces the ISPs to tell you the "hidden fees" when you sign a contract? Wow... free market baby! You sure like freedom a lot.

Where I live there a lot of problems, but internet is not one of them. You can't even get internet slower than 100Mbps in major cities. I think my grandma had faster internet than you 6-7 years ago at the countryside. In Romania you have real competition (with multiple ISPs offering 1Gbps internet for around 10-15$/month) AND the market is decently regulated.

I can't even believe people still think that the lies told by the US ISPs are true. I'm sorry for saying this but it's just stupid to believe them after all of they've done.

 

[jonny888]

Really johnny? All I hear about NHS from locals is long wait times, procedures not being approved even when life saving, lacking in doctors, budget way overboard, over full hospitals with not enough staff. It's a good shot but perfect it is not, it has a LOT of problems and isn't the shining light of perfection you try to make it seem.

It's hard to say. I am a 'local', and I've been fortunate enough to only require their services a few times. but in all those times I've been dealt with just fine. I've heard from friends who've been dealt with fine, and I've heard from friends who've expressed frustration at having to wait a long time to be seen (though not for anything life threatening). I've read stories about NHS budgets being too high, but then we're currently under a Government that would privatise everything it could given half the chance, so I'm not surprised that they would try to publish material designed to cause doubt about the service.

It definitely isn't perfect by any measure and I'm sure it could be improved upon. But given a choice between that and having to remortgage your house just to pay medical bills, I know which I prefer.

 

[JamesSWD]

When the 8 in 10 US citizens support NN, it is clear that Pai and those commissioners voting against it are not in tune with the public and could care less what the public says. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...triking/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b7c3fb97bda0

As I see it, his rules are a complete joke especially with the part that an ISP only has to post their policy to their web site. To me, this leaves little recourse to pursue grievances with the FTC since if it is posted on the ISP's web site, the all the FTC will do is say, "It's posted on their web site, so therefore, they can do what they are doing."

No ISP in their right mind will likely change anything until this gets through the courts - or to the public for a vote. But if Pai's version sticks, I am willing to bet that ISP's will find creative ways to charge for "premium services."

Also, Pai's comments ring hollow about ISPs not abusing their power in light of the publicity that Netflix had to negotiate a special contract with their ISP.

Don't worry, Trump will shoot it down.

You bet he will. He might talk like a commoner, however, he is not a commoner's president. Make America Garbage Again.

Cue all those unsupported, unsubstantiated, and unverified comments about Democrats wanting government to control what you get over the Internet. We all love alternative facts.

"When the 8 in 10 US citizens support NN..." - Oh, that's bull$.hit. Most people have no idea what NN is or what it does. But seeing that you also bashed Trump, it's no wonder you're slinging crap like that. It's what the left does best.

 

[wiyosaya]

"When the 8 in 10 US citizens support NN..." - Oh, that's bull$.hit. Most people have no idea what NN is or what it does. But seeing that you also bashed Trump, it's no wonder you're slinging crap like that. It's what the left does best.

Thanks for your reply, James. No surprises to me in your reply. If it is bull as you say, then where is your supporting evidence? Show me the proof. Post a link like I did. Otherwise, you have done nothing other than post yet another unsubstantiated opinion.

 

[wiyosaya]

There is no "free market competition" when the ISPs refuse to compete with eachother. Most people have access to only 1 high speed internet provider (or worse, no high speed internet provider).
Did you know that together with the NN they are also removing the rules that forces the ISPs to tell you the "hidden fees" when you sign a contract? Wow... free market baby! You sure like freedom a lot.

Where I live there a lot of problems, but internet is not one of them. You can't even get internet slower than 100Mbps in major cities. I think my grandma had faster internet than you 6-7 years ago at the countryside. In Romania you have real competition (with multiple ISPs offering 1Gbps internet for around 10-15$/month) AND the market is decently regulated.

I can't even believe people still think that the lies told by the US ISPs are true. I'm sorry for saying this but it's just stupid to believe them after all of they've done.

Your vision from the outside of the US is quite clear, IMO. In general, service by any ISP in the US is horrendous. Yet there are Americans that get it up the a$$ from those ISPs until it hurts, then ask for more. As I see it, your comments are spot-on.

 

[captaincranky]

...[ ]...I can't even believe people still think that the lies told by the US ISPs are true. I'm sorry for saying this but it's just stupid to believe them after all of they've done.

This is the Comcast Building in Philadelphia. It's currently the tallest building in the city. Embarrassingly, I don't know if this is the original building, since they're building another, complete with an underground concourse running a few blocks to the 30th Street Station.

Like our Washington Monument, it's obviously representative of a phallic symbol, and god knows how many people have paid for it through the seat of their pants.

Comcast , (allegedly), is the most hated company in the US. Yet people line up to give them their money, hand over fist. Sadly, too many Americans are fools, all too easily parted with their money.

This is what any society would have wrought upon it, when its citizens can't differentiate want from need, and resolutely refuse to do without.

The truly scary and most addictive feature of the "smart phone", is the fact that it actually reinforces a person's sense of worth and inflates their ego, just by virtue of owning one.