Senate Approves Overturning FCC's Net Neutrality Repeal
The Senate approved a resolution Wednesday to nullify the Federal Communications Commission's net neutrality rollback, dealing a symbolic blow to the FCC's new rule that remains on track to take effect next month.
The final vote was 52-47. As expected, Sen. Susan Collins, R-Me., joined Democrats in voting to overturn the FCC's controversial decision. But two other Republicans — Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana and Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska — also voted in favor of the resolution of disapproval.
The outcome is unlikely to derail the FCC's repeal of Obama-era rules that restrict Internet service providers' ability to slow down or speed up users' access to specific websites and apps.
The legislative victory is fleeting because the House does not intend to take similar action, but Democrats are planning to carry the political fight over Internet access into the 2018 midterms.
DannyB: Hopefully we don't all get slower connections so that ISPs can use the bandwidth to create paid prioritization.
Also at The Hill and TechCrunch.
See also: Everything you need to know about Congress's net neutrality resolution
Related Stories
The Federal Communications Commission has scheduled an April 25 vote to restore net neutrality rules similar to the ones introduced during the Obama era and repealed under former President Trump.
"After the prior administration abdicated authority over broadband services, the FCC has been handcuffed from acting to fully secure broadband networks, protect consumer data, and ensure the Internet remains fast, open, and fair," FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel said today. "A return to the FCC's overwhelmingly popular and court-approved standard of net neutrality will allow the agency to serve once again as a strong consumer advocate of an open Internet."
[...]
In a filing with the FCC, Turner wrote that "ISPs have been incredibly bullish about the future of their businesses precisely because of the network investments they are making" and that the companies rarely, if ever, mention the impact of FCC regulation during calls with investors."We believe that the ISPs' own words to their shareholders, and to industry analysts through channels governed by the SEC, should be afforded significantly more weight than evidence-free tropes, vague threats, dubious aggregate capital expenditure tallies, or nonsensical math jargon foisted on the Commission this docket or elsewhere," Turner wrote.
(Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday May 16 2018, @09:51PM (22 children)
100% of Democrats, 49 in total, voted in favor of Net Neutrality.
94% of Republicans, 47 in total, voted to eliminate Net Neutrality.
Just a reminder that both parties are definitely not the same when it comes to this issue.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Wednesday May 16 2018, @09:59PM (3 children)
There was a line in "The West Wing" an eternity ago, where the temporary R-like president says something along the lines of "We are not going to go crazy just because we're currently in complete control, because that would give you ammo to crush us at the next elections". Kind of a don't-spook-the-center logic which has kept balance in the lawmakers for a couple centuries.
These days, Republicans seem to have completely discarded that. It's hard to blame them, when the other side is so incompetent at profiting from the consequences.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Kawumpa on Thursday May 17 2018, @07:06AM (2 children)
It's fascinating, isn't it? You can observe a similar thing playing out in the UK where the Labour party under a Corbyn "leadership" is failing miserably at wiping the floor with the most pathetic Tory government in history, during what is most certainly one of the most crucial political periods for the country since at least the Suez Crisis. With the government failing at every major political topic including Brexit, NHS, care, education and housing crisis, the Labour party as the largest opposition party can't gain substantially in the polls and couldn't in the recent council elections.
But what is the problem? Have politicians become this incompetent or have the people become even more apathetic than in the past? Or is it a perfect storm of a combination of both?
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 17 2018, @11:11AM (1 child)
Its the same party playing controlled opposition vs each other as they both keep raising taxes and inflating the money supply for personal benefit?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 17 2018, @07:34PM
how is that a troll, you dumb ass bastard?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday May 16 2018, @10:23PM (2 children)
The real problem is that you have only two parties.
I'm not sure what you could do about that, as the business interests who run the US like only having two, and shooting people to get change doesn't seem like a good plan.
(Score: 4, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday May 16 2018, @11:15PM (1 child)
The real problem is that you have only two parties.
There's some pretty compelling evidence that two dominant parties are inevitable given our system of voting. [wikipedia.org]
I support proposals change our voting system. But, until they happen you ignore math at your own peril.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday May 17 2018, @12:22AM
That's sort of true, Duverger's law being not exactly absolute and the UK being a nice counterexample. They have both first past the post single member electorates and multiple parties represented. Eight parties in their current parliament.
From what I know of UK politics, what they don't have is a lock on the whole structure by their two major parties.
Gerrymandering is an American invention and has served your two parties well.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by TheGratefulNet on Wednesday May 16 2018, @10:25PM (3 children)
republican congressmen only care about 2 things: voting with the party and getting rewarded by their 'donors'.
republican voters only care about 2 things: doing whatever their church leaders tell them; and whatever 'that black man did', they want it all undone
no, the two sides are NOTHING like each other and 'bsab' is pure bullshit.
I do have to hand it to the R's, they have totally convinced their sheep to vote entirely against ALL of their own best interests. amazing slight of hand; houdini would be able to learn from those fucked up R's.
of course, this is ruining our country. but the rich don't care; they don't need 'a country' - their sheer wealth gives them all the protection they need. and when the shit hits the fan, they fly off to their own island or fortress.
I put all the blame on the ignorant flyovers who love to 'stick it to the lefties'. of course, by doing that they are also sticking it to themselves, but are too dimwitted to even see that.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 16 2018, @10:42PM
+ Insightful
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 16 2018, @11:00PM (1 child)
You switch republican to democrat and R to D you have the exact same thing.
BOTH parties are full of shit. Do not think so? OK. Go pick a random D congress critter. You will find they all mostly vote party line. With a stray here and there. There are about 4-5 people deciding the votes in the senate and congress.
My senator and congressman voted party line about 100 times in a row. That is not a coincidence. That is lazy.
The only thing the parties agree on is to take the opposite stances on issues and pretend they give a fuck about us.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Thursday May 17 2018, @01:35AM
Ok, done.
Oh look, he voted in favor of Net Neutrality which is a position I support. I like that guy.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday May 16 2018, @11:04PM (5 children)
Yes, they are close enough to exactly the same when it comes to this issue. They are puppets of their party's leadership. If they were not the vote would not be so clearly split along party lines. I doubt that 49 Democratic Senators really care that much about freedom of the Internet and all 47 Republican Senators really want to vote in favor of it.
I wouldn't mind exploring why Kennedy and Collins dissented. Murkowski I can figure out.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 4, Touché) by digitalaudiorock on Wednesday May 16 2018, @11:26PM (2 children)
Holy crap. I have to assume you pulled a groin muscle spinning it like that...
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Thursday May 17 2018, @02:21PM (1 child)
Not really. It is reasonably easy to look at any item NOT in either party's platform, see a clearly partisan divide, and realize that for all practical purposes legislators are not the independent actors they ought to be but are instead tools of the party apparatus. As I said above, that's the controlling similarity that spans the issues.
And it wasn't quite this way before. [washingtonpost.com] I think the graphics are better in the WaPo article but here's a nice table from Brookings [brookings.edu] which paints nearly the same picture. (Fair disclosure, Brookings was also the data source in the WaPo article, so it's not independent confirmation).
The Democratic party leadership cares about this issue only as much as they think it will get them midterm votes and can castigate the Republicans as EEEEvil. But that's exactly what they're gaming here so you get a party-line lockstep vote. Now they'll have a weapon that, "we could have preserved your open Internet if only the Republicans didn't have control of Congress." That's all they're after. That's why even the Republicans realize this was symbolic and not a real power move [nytimes.com]. That's why minimal, if any, energy is going to be invested in this in the House. It is a symbol, not a true issue to be fought for.
But by all means, don't let me distract you from believing that the parties are materially different. They keep better control of you that way.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by digitalaudiorock on Saturday May 19 2018, @04:43PM
I don't even fundamentally disagree that many or even most most politicians on both sides vote vote the party line and all that. Even so, in a case where the official Republican position is flat our wrong, and the official Democratic position is right (keeping in mind that the original bad FCC decision was 3 Republicans against 2 Democrats) this rationale that it somehow "doesn't count" is some pretty serious spin if you ask me. Whatever.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 17 2018, @05:49AM (1 child)
But the only dissenting voices were Ron Wyden and Rand Paul.
Point being: Both parties mostly hold to either party or lobbyist lines, and the number of politicians who hold even a semblance of a steady stance on ANY issues is very low. At least as far as tech and privacy are concerned Ron Wyden is the only one who consistently seems to vote in the public's interest, no matter the issue or where the parties draw their lines.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 17 2018, @07:38PM
it was the "save the traffic'd children" bill.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday May 16 2018, @11:14PM (4 children)
The Washington Post chose this headline: Senate approves bipartisan resolution to restore FCC net neutrality rules [washingtonpost.com]*
*For some definitions of bipartisan
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday May 16 2018, @11:19PM (3 children)
* and for some definitions of "restore" since the rules a still in place until June
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday May 17 2018, @12:35AM (2 children)
* and therefore for some definition of "resolution", since they knew it was never going to solve anything.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 17 2018, @12:48AM (1 child)
* and no matter how it ends up there will be an extra "net neutrality fee" on our monthly bill.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday May 17 2018, @01:31AM
* which just goes straight into Pai's pocket.
The real fees are to go past the new 5G/mo cap if you don't subscribe to the $250/mo super-premium IPTV package.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Sulla on Wednesday May 16 2018, @10:03PM (5 children)
Kind of amazed that Murkowski would do that, when I emailed Congressman Don Young back in the day over this he informed me that GCI had financially assured him that I am wrong and should get a life. Sounds like someone was skimping on their bribes.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 16 2018, @10:37PM (3 children)
I have no idea what you are talking about. Care to explain further?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 16 2018, @10:57PM (2 children)
(Score: 4, Informative) by takyon on Wednesday May 16 2018, @11:25PM (1 child)
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/890168183079960576 [twitter.com]
FiveThirtyEight has apparently been tracking how every member of the House and Senate votes in comparison to the President Trump/White House position.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/lisa-murkowski/ [fivethirtyeight.com]
Murkowski votes with Trump 82.9% of the time. That's fourth from last [fivethirtyeight.com], with just Mike Lee (R-UT) at 81.7%, Susan M. Collins (R-ME) at 80.3%, and Rand Paul (R-KY) at 75%. Halfway between 100% and 50%, that must say something special about Rand. And you'll notice that Senator Collins also voted to approve the resolution. Anyway, all of those Senators have had a beef with Trump at one time or another. For example: [washingtonpost.com]
Recent NYT profile of Murkowski [nytimes.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 17 2018, @04:59AM
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Friday May 18 2018, @10:51AM
Well I was told by my congressman (Ron DeSantis) that the net neutrality rules are bad because there has been less innovation and building of infrastructure since the rules were passed in 2015 than there was from 1995 to 2015 before the rules were passed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 16 2018, @11:36PM (7 children)
So yay, great: they won't slow our internet. Except now youtube, google, facebook, and twitter have gotten into the censorship business plus congress passed laws making providers responsible for hosted content. Just a Pyrrhic victory. The worse stuff made it through without a peep.
(Score: 5, Informative) by takyon on Wednesday May 16 2018, @11:43PM (6 children)
More like nothing will happen since the House won't vote on this and the President would just veto it.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday May 17 2018, @01:44AM (4 children)
More like nothing will happen since the House won't vote on this and the President would just veto it.
In lawmaking-time the midterms are like tomorrow. Dems could advance this if they take the House.
Getting a veto-proof majority is probably a bit of a stretch but who knows... Or, maybe they could just hire a good fluffer.
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Thursday May 17 2018, @05:28AM (3 children)
So it's a carrot being dangled in front of voters by the Dems.
"Vote for us and we might** be able to stop the ISPs from turning your connection into the Preview Channel."
**no guarantees, but you can trust us! just look at our track record!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by takyon on Thursday May 17 2018, @06:57AM
But it's not just net neutrality. It's net neutrality and weed [soylentnews.org]! VOTE DEM
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 17 2018, @12:34PM
As has been said multiple times in similar threads, the Dems proposed the rules in the first place. Dumbass. Did you notice WHY they are voting to RESTORE the rules?
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Thursday May 17 2018, @06:10PM
Whereas the Republicans guarantee net neutrality will end.
Well, on that issue, it seems clear who to vote for.
I am sure someone will spin that ending net neutrality is a good thing because of this.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 5, Informative) by canopic jug on Thursday May 17 2018, @07:56AM
Gizmodo has a list of the names of every senator who voted against net neutrality -- and when they can be voted out [gizmodo.com]. The vote was only symbolic. However, it did get their positions on the record.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.