47 ms·

Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

754 points by kposehn 8y ago

ocdtrekkie 8y ago
Can we not frontpage things that suggest happenings that aren't? As noted in the article itself, the House is not going to vote this way, and this is a largely pointless political drama thing. The headline is technically true, but has no meaningful effect whatsoever.
- freehunter 8y ago
  Ultimately it’s all pointless political drama. If it does get overturned, then “killing” net neutrality was just pointless political drama. It doesn’t mean it’s not worth paying attention to.
  - mattnewton 8y ago
    It is not pointless. This is signalling ahead of the midterms which representatives are pro net netrality to voters. The people voting it down will do so on the record, and in theory that will help challengers make it an issue against incumbents that voted no.
- Lionsion 8y ago
  > the House is not going to vote this way Unless you have a working crystal ball, that's a prediction, not a fact. > and this is a largely pointless political drama thing Not true. The repeal of net neutrality is extraordinarily unpopular (including among Republicans) and all of the House is up for re-election this year. The Republicans may lose their majority. In my opinion, this has a better shot of getting through than most. That is, if you don't prematurely give up hope.
  - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
    It's a "prediction" on the scale of how many months in advance I said Bernie Sanders was not going to be the next President of the United States. It's within the laws of physics for me to be wrong, but not a practical real world scenario here nonetheless. Only 35 Senators are up for reelection this year, I assume you meant the House, not "all of Congress". (Note that all of the House is up for reelection every election term, and it doesn't change very quickly anyways.) Most sane people will not hinge their vote on Internet politics. Things like healthcare, their views on whether or not killing babies is okay, if it's totally cool to be racist in 2018 or not, etc. will tend to take precedence. As those things should, because those things affect people's lives, not Google and Netflix's bandwidth bills.
    - Lionsion 8y ago
      > but not a practical real world scenario here nonetheless. That is the kind of thinking that entrenches the status quo. Close political fights are worth fighting because there's nothing to be gained by preemptively surrendering. > Only 35 Senators are up for reelection this year, I assume you meant the House, not "all of Congress". (Note that all of the House is up for reelection every election term, and it doesn't change very quickly anyways.) Yes, I meant the House. Noted and corrected. The Senate already passed the needed bill, so we're past that hurdle. The Republican caucus is vulnerable next election, many of the gerrymanders probably won't hold and they know it. > Most sane people will not hinge their vote on Internet politics. Single issue voters make policy.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > Single issue voters make policy. Most often, and most significantly, unintentionally, on all the issues they aren't considering when voting. Because, actually, the policy makers they elect make policy, and and that's true whether or not the one election a single issue voter tips is enough to shift the national balance on the issue of concern. Or whether the candidate elected on your one issue even bothers voting the way you expect on it, rather than abandoning it. Single issue voters often don't stick with it long enough for policy makers to worry about betraying them after an election where they issue moves a small but (for reasons particular to the context of that election) decisive segment of the electorate, or if they are sticky then representatives have a strong incentive to keep them onboard with an image that victory is just over the horizon, to hold on to their vote without resolving their issue so as to enable all the other policies the representative is concerned about.
  - Horseshoe 8y ago
    It's possible that GOP reps may let it slide just so it can't be used as a campaign issue by Dems for the midterms and later.
  - supertrope 8y ago
    The Republican Party is not only against regulations in general but they have explicitly come out against Net Neutrality rules. They (House Republicans) even made it part of their demands before the 2013 federal government shutdown: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/revealed-house-gops-debt-ceiling-plan-jonathan-strong/ https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/revealed-house-gops-de...
    - chx 8y ago
      Many opinions shift in five years.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > They (House Republicans) even made it part of their demands before the 2013 federal government shutdown Not the same people that are there now, and not the same political circumstances. It is unlikely but not impossible this will pass the House.
Lionsion 8y ago
Time to call your Congressmen. I live in a purple district, and I'm going to make it clear to my Republican representative that: 1) I'm going to vote in November, 2) I will vote for him if he votes to keep the pre-existing title II net neutrality regulations, and against them if he does not, and 3) Net neutrality is even supported by a majority of Republican voters [1], so if he votes against it's clear he's voting against his constituents. [1] http://www.publicconsultation.org/united-states/overwhelming-bipartisan-majority-opposes-repealing-net-neutrality/ http://www.publicconsultation.org/united-states/overwhelming...
- mattnewton 8y ago
  This is, after all why they are doing it at all- you should 100% call your representative, not at all because the house will pass it or because Trump is going to sign this into law, but because you are validating that this should be part of the 2018 midterm election platforms to your representative. This is an issue that will get people out to the polls. Let’s prove it to them!
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- psychometry 8y ago
  So you're a single-issue voter, basically? How do you feel about all of the other things the GOP has been doing to this country?
  - hypothete 8y ago
    Just because the parent claims to be a single-issue voter on the phone doesn't mean that that's true.
  - hueving 8y ago
    Single issue voter or multiple issue voter, holding someone responsible for the actions of an entire political party is shockingly stupid.
andrewla 8y ago
This seems like the way that this should be addressed. The case against Net Neutrality was made almost strictly as a case of regulatory overreach and overly burdensome regulations that inherited irrelevant restrictions and unenforceable provisions designed for specific telecom use cases that don't apply to ISPs. The first issue is clearly addressed by a legislative approach -- it stops being regulatory overreach when the regulators are mandated to enforce. The second issue depends on how this bill is worded, but in theory it gives an opportunity to create more specialized regulations that directly address the issue at hand without bringing on board historical cruft that applies to a different problem domain. EDIT: after actually reading the article and the actual resolution [1], I see that the second point is unaddressed; this just directly reverses the ruling. Even the first point is barely addressed because it doesn't expand the mandate; it just asserts that the mandate means something that it arguably does not mean. [1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/52/text/is?format=txt https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-joint-re...
- dragontamer 8y ago
  Things aren't addressed either. Because the House still needs to vote. Bicameral Legislative process in the USA. Laws need to be passed twice before they have any effect, and Trump has the (nearly) final say in the form of a presidential veto. Assuming the Democrats manage to vote as a bloc in the House, there still needs to be ~25 Republicans who switch sides on this issue. Net Neutrality is... for some reason... seen as a Democrat issue.
  - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
    Net neutrality is a "Democrat issue" because the companies who benefit from net neutrality primarily fund Democrats. The companies who benefit from it being repealed primarily fund Republicans.
    - supertrope 8y ago
      As always, follow the money.
mattnewton 8y ago
A lot of people are dismissing this as political theatre, but it serves a useful function as recording the names of everyone against reinstating net neutrality publically, so that challengers can make it a campaign issue in November. No, it probably isn’t going to pass the house, and smart money is on Trump vetoing it even if that miracle came to pass. However, Democrats are testing the waters for a campaign pledge, and some Republicans might notice. We absolutely want this represented in the midterm campaigns.
- fjsolwmv 8y ago
  It's essentially a party line vote, so no recording is needed.
  - mattnewton 8y ago
    The record is important, because unlike party / representative positions, it won’t change in the midterms.
dogruck 8y ago
This is political noise, so some representatives can say “I voted for Net Neutrality.”
- mmanfrin 8y ago
  Senators, you mean, and from the party not in power so that voters know their stance and the stance of the in-power party.
ryanpcmcquen 8y ago
I am surprised this even passed the Senate. It is almost as if Senators want to get re-elected.
- fjsolwmv 8y ago
  The Senate has 51 Republicans but 3 of them are rather independent/centrist and sometimes vote with Democrats.
  - ryanpcmcquen 8y ago
    A lot of Republicans support Net Neutrality, including the stalwart conservative Scalia. The main reason so many current Republicans oppose it, is the association with Obama, and the piles of money Telecom is floating their way.
boomboomsubban 8y ago
Again, this is meaningless. Currently the future of net neutrality is the decision of the courts, and if this miraculously passes the house and president, the future remains in the hands of the courts. A new law is necessary to guarantee net neutrality. This has been known for over twelve years, both Clinton and Obama cosponsored a bill on it in 2006, but so far neither party has made any serious move towards passing a bill.
bifrost 8y ago
Considering where this has been politically, this isn't going to change anything. And really all "killing" NN does is move this back to the FTC, where it was for a decade+
- drawkbox 8y ago
  Internet is a utility now though and only the FCC can make network / internet a utility / common carrier. ISPs want it at the FTC for that reason, so it isn't seen as a utility, it is. Internet is as required as radio, phone, tv, water, electricity etc, it makes more sense under Title II and 80%+ of people support that. [1] > Americans embrace a Title II vision of internet service. A strong majority (88 percent, 48 percent strongly) agree that “when I buy internet service, I am paying to transmit information between my computer and the websites I visit, free from interference.” This finding demonstrates that the public views internet access as a Title II telecommunications service, similar to phone service. Americans recognize the vital role the internet plays, with 83 percent agreeing that the “internet is essential infrastructure, like roads and bridges.” [1] https://www.scribd.com/document/353285485/Freedman-Consulting-Net-Neutrality-Poll https://www.scribd.com/document/353285485/Freedman-Consultin...
  - 0xfeba 8y ago
    Hasn't and doesn't dial-up still fall under Title II?
  - moduspol 8y ago
    This kind of polling really bothers me. > when I buy internet service, I am paying to transmit information between my computer and the websites I visit, free from interference. Of course they'll agree with that. Now ask them if they think their VoIP landline phone calls should be required to be treated with equal priority to their neighbor's cat videos or bittorrent traffic. Ask them if their provider should be able to regulate disruptive / chatty protocols used by a tiny minority to improve the quality of the service for everyone else. Ask them if it bothers them to have their Netflix traffic be zero-rated as a bundled-in perk from their ISP. You'll then find the number much lower than 80% in "support." It's difficult to imagine a more leading question.
pasbesoin 8y ago
My Comcast bill, over the course of two consecutive months since the beginning of this year -- and since the apparent, "inevitable" coming end of net neutrality, increased about 25%. My Congressmen are going to hear about this. About how, for the better part of 20 years, Ameritech/SBC/ATT refused to upgrade my neighborhood trunk line, that doesn't even support DSL. In a high-density suburban neighborhood in the home/headquarters state of the corporation. About how Ameritech/SBC (now rebranded ATT) received the better part of three quarters of a billion dollars in tax breaks and other incentives from the State of Illinois, in return for a commitment to provide "universal" (minimum 95% coverage) broadband access throughout the State. Whereupon, they immediately turned around and lobbied the State legislature to let them out of their side of the agreement, that commitment, while keeping the tax breaks and incentives. They're going to hear how, several years ago, I couldn't watch Netflix streaming without constant interruptions, particularly during prime viewing hours, because Comcast refused to peer with Netflix in their datacenters -- at Netflix's expense and providing of the necessary equipment and installation. That problem didn't resolve until the bad publicity and outcry was giving Comcast (and its ilk exercising similar manipulation) an enormous PR black eye. This right at the time Comcast was attempting to launch and gain traction with one of their "competing" streaming video offers. About paid advocacy promoting lies about support for their actions within non-profit centric communities, such as... was it the NAACP, or another organization, that was supporting Comcast quite apparently in return for contributions. How Congressmen supporting these telcos' agenda are functioning as paid shills for these private companies. Not just lobbied. Outright bought, with no effort or success in actually understanding the issues involved. And I don't vote for paid shills. -- P.S. My State Democratic representative made the rounds, a couple of years ago after some heavy local storm damage. I took the opportunity to tell him about our local problem with ATT. (This was after the storm aftermath's crisis period was passed; he wasn't overloaded with it.) He told me that actually, he had a meeting with ATT executives the following day and would bring it up. And that he'd get back to me on that. I never heard a word. And when I followed up later with his staff, I still didn't hear anything. I don't vote for him, any more. I faced that decision again, this past April. And no, still no vote for him.
- pasbesoin 8y ago
  P.S. I actually do, very occasionally, write my Congresscritters. I'm pretty careful doing so -- doing so well, I hope -- and I have some evidence of some of my correspondence having been read and paid attention to. So when I say they will hear about this, I mean, they actually will. Though I'll write it in a fashion that is more appealing/compelling to them. And regarding some of the history that may not seem to pertain directly to net neutrality? Look, these companies are saying a lot of things as part of their campaign to kill it. And the historical record demonstrates that, with respect to such statements, they are consistently full of shit -- in a self-serving way. They are not to be believed. Neither the people shilling the talking points they've been handed by the companies and their lobbyists.
HillaryClinton 8y ago
It's a victory for Democrats today, but this'll die in the House. Still it will make for good campaign material for the Democrats in the coming midterms.
dng88 8y ago
Single issue vote Seems resolve why many Christians vote for trump. Communist pig strategy of give you a pig like NN and a war then desk with it ... you are grateful to them. Public goods are hard to solve issues. Club, coupon, regulation, ... With actors know how to play the game like communist pigs and select and invent issues per district via big data ... We have a powerful chi-na with no respect of humanity and a sick America with trump and gaming politicians ... Who has said that is end of history and we are all liberal democratic ...
dreamcompiler 8y ago
Whether this passes now or not is immaterial. Net neutrality is guaranteed to come back in the next administration, which will have as its primary agenda undoing all of Trump's damage. The question the big ISPs need to ask themselves is whether it makes any business sense to try to capitalize on this for a short time, knowing that they'll have to spend money to undo it all later.
alistproducer2 8y ago
I am on the one hand happy to hear about this, but I couldn't help but laugh at the way it was reported on NPR. They said Democrats see this as an issue that can bring voters to the polls. I immediately thought of how few people even know what the heck net neutrality is (about 1 in 4 [0]). Either NPR is making stuff up or the Democrats are seriously in need of some new advice. [0]:https://americanactionnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02.. https://americanactionnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02....
- leot 8y ago
  Base enthusiasm matters a lot, since it drives turnout. And the only thing that matters in elections in the US is turnout and undecideds (of whom there are very few).
- crowbahr 8y ago
  Young people are less likely to vote but far, far more likely to know about Net Neutrality. I think it's a shrewd strategy: it will get more young people out, who tend to vote Democrat.
  - moduspol 8y ago
    I think actual concern is vastly overstated. The number of people truly willing to vote over net neutrality despite virtually none of the post-apocalyptic claims made last time around coming true has got to be borderline non-existent. If someone's ISP starts blocking / heavily throttling Netflix or YouTube for them, I could see it becoming a voting issue. But otherwise? Meh.
- favorited 8y ago
  Do you know how it breaks down by age group? It could help drive younger voter turnout at the midterms, which is traditionally impossible.
- smsm42 8y ago
  1 in 4? That is insanely high. I would be surprised in 1 in 10 can explain what NN is properly (not "evil ISPs are gonna to make us pay for pr0n!") and about 1 in a 100 to explain what actually happened in 2015 and what happened in 2018 and what is the state of current legislation around ISP-content provider relationships. These things are complex patchwork of years of legislation and require non-trivial knowledge to understand. I rate the chance of 1 in 4 of Americans having this knowledge as the chance 1 in 4 Americans can fluently speak ancient Sumerian.
caf 8y ago
It's interesting the way that the Congressional Review Act operates, to require both houses and the president to sign off on overruling the decision of an executive agency. In bicameral Westminster-style systems, delegated legislation (ie. executive regulations) can usually be vetoed by either chamber. This being under the principle that if the regulation in question had been enacted as regular legislation it would have required the approval of both chambers to pass.
- dannyw 8y ago
  In this case, the action is repeal of net neutrality regulation. To establish net neutrality through legislation would require both house and senate.
- fjsolwmv 8y ago
  It's a fiction either way. There's no way to decide whether the vetoed action was in or out of scope of the original delegated authority. Maybe one chamber just changed their mind.
  - caf 8y ago
    Well, no - the idea is that the delegated authority is simply "you may make regulations without prior approval of the legislature for the sake of expediency, but it is subject to veto so you can't use it as an end-run around the legislature".
virtzzz 8y ago
My rep has already sent me a firm, automated "fuck you" but I've sent him an email anyway.
- letsgetphysITal 8y ago
  Your email went into the junk folder. Send a letter and phone call.
Andre_Wanglin 8y ago
Isn't this how things are supposed to be done anyway? I imagine I will have to keep waiting for Congress to re-assert their authority over making war.
exabrial 8y ago
The root issue is entrenched (literally and figuratively) local monopolies. We want Net Neutrality because we can't switch providers when our ISPs behave badly. I think if they go after that issue think manner they will get the votes. However, I see them going after the regulatory route, which unlikely to be pass.
- shmerl 8y ago
  They do all they can to pretend that there is "competition". It's the only way they can ignore the obvious, that opponents of Net Neutrality are simply proponents of monopolies.
briandear 8y ago
I am not in favor of government enforcement of net neutrality under libertarian/free market grounds, however, that being said, I am really happy about this vote on a ideological/philosophical level because one of my problems with government regulation is that it is often unaccountable — it’s via executive/administrative or quasi-government entities that aren’t directly accountable to voters. The Congressional Review Act (proposed and passed as part of the Republican Contract with America) is an exceptionally important law because it allows the public, through their representatives, to essentially override bad regulation (bad, as determined by voters.) So while the outcome of this particular vote isn’t one With which I agree, I wholeheartedly agree and endorse the vote itself. My big problem with government and regulation in general is that I feel that regulations lag or exceed the will of the public and there is little recourse when those rules are made by officials removed from the direct accountability from the voter. I could be wrong on Net Neutrality, but if it passes or is defeated, at least the process of our actual representatives voting on such an important issue is happening. Such consequential decisions ought not be at the whims of bureaucrats. Bureaucracts should implement the law, they shouldn’t be making it.

754 points by kposehn 8y ago

Can we not frontpage things that suggest happenings that aren't? As noted in the article itself, the House is not going to vote this way, and this is a largely pointless political drama thing. The headline is technically true, but has no meaningful effect whatsoever.

freehunter 8y ago
Ultimately it’s all pointless political drama. If it does get overturned, then “killing” net neutrality was just pointless political drama. It doesn’t mean it’s not worth paying attention to.
- mattnewton 8y ago
  It is not pointless. This is signalling ahead of the midterms which representatives are pro net netrality to voters. The people voting it down will do so on the record, and in theory that will help challengers make it an issue against incumbents that voted no.
Lionsion 8y ago
> the House is not going to vote this way Unless you have a working crystal ball, that's a prediction, not a fact. > and this is a largely pointless political drama thing Not true. The repeal of net neutrality is extraordinarily unpopular (including among Republicans) and all of the House is up for re-election this year. The Republicans may lose their majority. In my opinion, this has a better shot of getting through than most. That is, if you don't prematurely give up hope.
- ocdtrekkie 8y ago
  It's a "prediction" on the scale of how many months in advance I said Bernie Sanders was not going to be the next President of the United States. It's within the laws of physics for me to be wrong, but not a practical real world scenario here nonetheless. Only 35 Senators are up for reelection this year, I assume you meant the House, not "all of Congress". (Note that all of the House is up for reelection every election term, and it doesn't change very quickly anyways.) Most sane people will not hinge their vote on Internet politics. Things like healthcare, their views on whether or not killing babies is okay, if it's totally cool to be racist in 2018 or not, etc. will tend to take precedence. As those things should, because those things affect people's lives, not Google and Netflix's bandwidth bills.
  - Lionsion 8y ago
    > but not a practical real world scenario here nonetheless. That is the kind of thinking that entrenches the status quo. Close political fights are worth fighting because there's nothing to be gained by preemptively surrendering. > Only 35 Senators are up for reelection this year, I assume you meant the House, not "all of Congress". (Note that all of the House is up for reelection every election term, and it doesn't change very quickly anyways.) Yes, I meant the House. Noted and corrected. The Senate already passed the needed bill, so we're past that hurdle. The Republican caucus is vulnerable next election, many of the gerrymanders probably won't hold and they know it. > Most sane people will not hinge their vote on Internet politics. Single issue voters make policy.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > Single issue voters make policy. Most often, and most significantly, unintentionally, on all the issues they aren't considering when voting. Because, actually, the policy makers they elect make policy, and and that's true whether or not the one election a single issue voter tips is enough to shift the national balance on the issue of concern. Or whether the candidate elected on your one issue even bothers voting the way you expect on it, rather than abandoning it. Single issue voters often don't stick with it long enough for policy makers to worry about betraying them after an election where they issue moves a small but (for reasons particular to the context of that election) decisive segment of the electorate, or if they are sticky then representatives have a strong incentive to keep them onboard with an image that victory is just over the horizon, to hold on to their vote without resolving their issue so as to enable all the other policies the representative is concerned about.
- Horseshoe 8y ago
  It's possible that GOP reps may let it slide just so it can't be used as a campaign issue by Dems for the midterms and later.
- supertrope 8y ago
  The Republican Party is not only against regulations in general but they have explicitly come out against Net Neutrality rules. They (House Republicans) even made it part of their demands before the 2013 federal government shutdown: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/revealed-house-gops-debt-ceiling-plan-jonathan-strong/ https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/revealed-house-gops-de...
  - chx 8y ago
    Many opinions shift in five years.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > They (House Republicans) even made it part of their demands before the 2013 federal government shutdown Not the same people that are there now, and not the same political circumstances. It is unlikely but not impossible this will pass the House.

Lionsion 8y ago

Time to call your Congressmen. I live in a purple district, and I'm going to make it clear to my Republican representative that: 1) I'm going to vote in November, 2) I will vote for him if he votes to keep the pre-existing title II net neutrality regulations, and against them if he does not, and 3) Net neutrality is even supported by a majority of Republican voters [1], so if he votes against it's clear he's voting against his constituents. [1] http://www.publicconsultation.org/united-states/overwhelming-bipartisan-majority-opposes-repealing-net-neutrality/ http://www.publicconsultation.org/united-states/overwhelming...

mattnewton 8y ago
This is, after all why they are doing it at all- you should 100% call your representative, not at all because the house will pass it or because Trump is going to sign this into law, but because you are validating that this should be part of the 2018 midterm election platforms to your representative. This is an issue that will get people out to the polls. Let’s prove it to them!
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
psychometry 8y ago
So you're a single-issue voter, basically? How do you feel about all of the other things the GOP has been doing to this country?
- hypothete 8y ago
  Just because the parent claims to be a single-issue voter on the phone doesn't mean that that's true.
- hueving 8y ago
  Single issue voter or multiple issue voter, holding someone responsible for the actions of an entire political party is shockingly stupid.

andrewla 8y ago

This seems like the way that this should be addressed. The case against Net Neutrality was made almost strictly as a case of regulatory overreach and overly burdensome regulations that inherited irrelevant restrictions and unenforceable provisions designed for specific telecom use cases that don't apply to ISPs. The first issue is clearly addressed by a legislative approach -- it stops being regulatory overreach when the regulators are mandated to enforce. The second issue depends on how this bill is worded, but in theory it gives an opportunity to create more specialized regulations that directly address the issue at hand without bringing on board historical cruft that applies to a different problem domain. EDIT: after actually reading the article and the actual resolution [1], I see that the second point is unaddressed; this just directly reverses the ruling. Even the first point is barely addressed because it doesn't expand the mandate; it just asserts that the mandate means something that it arguably does not mean. [1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/52/text/is?format=txt https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-joint-re...

dragontamer 8y ago
Things aren't addressed either. Because the House still needs to vote. Bicameral Legislative process in the USA. Laws need to be passed twice before they have any effect, and Trump has the (nearly) final say in the form of a presidential veto. Assuming the Democrats manage to vote as a bloc in the House, there still needs to be ~25 Republicans who switch sides on this issue. Net Neutrality is... for some reason... seen as a Democrat issue.
- ocdtrekkie 8y ago
  Net neutrality is a "Democrat issue" because the companies who benefit from net neutrality primarily fund Democrats. The companies who benefit from it being repealed primarily fund Republicans.
  - supertrope 8y ago
    As always, follow the money.

mattnewton 8y ago

A lot of people are dismissing this as political theatre, but it serves a useful function as recording the names of everyone against reinstating net neutrality publically, so that challengers can make it a campaign issue in November. No, it probably isn’t going to pass the house, and smart money is on Trump vetoing it even if that miracle came to pass. However, Democrats are testing the waters for a campaign pledge, and some Republicans might notice. We absolutely want this represented in the midterm campaigns.

fjsolwmv 8y ago
It's essentially a party line vote, so no recording is needed.
- mattnewton 8y ago
  The record is important, because unlike party / representative positions, it won’t change in the midterms.

dogruck 8y ago

This is political noise, so some representatives can say “I voted for Net Neutrality.”

mmanfrin 8y ago
Senators, you mean, and from the party not in power so that voters know their stance and the stance of the in-power party.

ryanpcmcquen 8y ago

I am surprised this even passed the Senate. It is almost as if Senators want to get re-elected.

fjsolwmv 8y ago
The Senate has 51 Republicans but 3 of them are rather independent/centrist and sometimes vote with Democrats.
- ryanpcmcquen 8y ago
  A lot of Republicans support Net Neutrality, including the stalwart conservative Scalia. The main reason so many current Republicans oppose it, is the association with Obama, and the piles of money Telecom is floating their way.

boomboomsubban 8y ago

Again, this is meaningless. Currently the future of net neutrality is the decision of the courts, and if this miraculously passes the house and president, the future remains in the hands of the courts. A new law is necessary to guarantee net neutrality. This has been known for over twelve years, both Clinton and Obama cosponsored a bill on it in 2006, but so far neither party has made any serious move towards passing a bill.

bifrost 8y ago

Considering where this has been politically, this isn't going to change anything. And really all "killing" NN does is move this back to the FTC, where it was for a decade+

drawkbox 8y ago
Internet is a utility now though and only the FCC can make network / internet a utility / common carrier. ISPs want it at the FTC for that reason, so it isn't seen as a utility, it is. Internet is as required as radio, phone, tv, water, electricity etc, it makes more sense under Title II and 80%+ of people support that. [1] > Americans embrace a Title II vision of internet service. A strong majority (88 percent, 48 percent strongly) agree that “when I buy internet service, I am paying to transmit information between my computer and the websites I visit, free from interference.” This finding demonstrates that the public views internet access as a Title II telecommunications service, similar to phone service. Americans recognize the vital role the internet plays, with 83 percent agreeing that the “internet is essential infrastructure, like roads and bridges.” [1] https://www.scribd.com/document/353285485/Freedman-Consulting-Net-Neutrality-Poll https://www.scribd.com/document/353285485/Freedman-Consultin...
- 0xfeba 8y ago
  Hasn't and doesn't dial-up still fall under Title II?
- moduspol 8y ago
  This kind of polling really bothers me. > when I buy internet service, I am paying to transmit information between my computer and the websites I visit, free from interference. Of course they'll agree with that. Now ask them if they think their VoIP landline phone calls should be required to be treated with equal priority to their neighbor's cat videos or bittorrent traffic. Ask them if their provider should be able to regulate disruptive / chatty protocols used by a tiny minority to improve the quality of the service for everyone else. Ask them if it bothers them to have their Netflix traffic be zero-rated as a bundled-in perk from their ISP. You'll then find the number much lower than 80% in "support." It's difficult to imagine a more leading question.

pasbesoin 8y ago

My Comcast bill, over the course of two consecutive months since the beginning of this year -- and since the apparent, "inevitable" coming end of net neutrality, increased about 25%. My Congressmen are going to hear about this. About how, for the better part of 20 years, Ameritech/SBC/ATT refused to upgrade my neighborhood trunk line, that doesn't even support DSL. In a high-density suburban neighborhood in the home/headquarters state of the corporation. About how Ameritech/SBC (now rebranded ATT) received the better part of three quarters of a billion dollars in tax breaks and other incentives from the State of Illinois, in return for a commitment to provide "universal" (minimum 95% coverage) broadband access throughout the State. Whereupon, they immediately turned around and lobbied the State legislature to let them out of their side of the agreement, that commitment, while keeping the tax breaks and incentives. They're going to hear how, several years ago, I couldn't watch Netflix streaming without constant interruptions, particularly during prime viewing hours, because Comcast refused to peer with Netflix in their datacenters -- at Netflix's expense and providing of the necessary equipment and installation. That problem didn't resolve until the bad publicity and outcry was giving Comcast (and its ilk exercising similar manipulation) an enormous PR black eye. This right at the time Comcast was attempting to launch and gain traction with one of their "competing" streaming video offers. About paid advocacy promoting lies about support for their actions within non-profit centric communities, such as... was it the NAACP, or another organization, that was supporting Comcast quite apparently in return for contributions. How Congressmen supporting these telcos' agenda are functioning as paid shills for these private companies. Not just lobbied. Outright bought, with no effort or success in actually understanding the issues involved. And I don't vote for paid shills. -- P.S. My State Democratic representative made the rounds, a couple of years ago after some heavy local storm damage. I took the opportunity to tell him about our local problem with ATT. (This was after the storm aftermath's crisis period was passed; he wasn't overloaded with it.) He told me that actually, he had a meeting with ATT executives the following day and would bring it up. And that he'd get back to me on that. I never heard a word. And when I followed up later with his staff, I still didn't hear anything. I don't vote for him, any more. I faced that decision again, this past April. And no, still no vote for him.

pasbesoin 8y ago
P.S. I actually do, very occasionally, write my Congresscritters. I'm pretty careful doing so -- doing so well, I hope -- and I have some evidence of some of my correspondence having been read and paid attention to. So when I say they will hear about this, I mean, they actually will. Though I'll write it in a fashion that is more appealing/compelling to them. And regarding some of the history that may not seem to pertain directly to net neutrality? Look, these companies are saying a lot of things as part of their campaign to kill it. And the historical record demonstrates that, with respect to such statements, they are consistently full of shit -- in a self-serving way. They are not to be believed. Neither the people shilling the talking points they've been handed by the companies and their lobbyists.

HillaryClinton 8y ago

It's a victory for Democrats today, but this'll die in the House. Still it will make for good campaign material for the Democrats in the coming midterms.

dng88 8y ago

Single issue vote Seems resolve why many Christians vote for trump. Communist pig strategy of give you a pig like NN and a war then desk with it ... you are grateful to them. Public goods are hard to solve issues. Club, coupon, regulation, ... With actors know how to play the game like communist pigs and select and invent issues per district via big data ... We have a powerful chi-na with no respect of humanity and a sick America with trump and gaming politicians ... Who has said that is end of history and we are all liberal democratic ...

dreamcompiler 8y ago

Whether this passes now or not is immaterial. Net neutrality is guaranteed to come back in the next administration, which will have as its primary agenda undoing all of Trump's damage. The question the big ISPs need to ask themselves is whether it makes any business sense to try to capitalize on this for a short time, knowing that they'll have to spend money to undo it all later.

alistproducer2 8y ago

I am on the one hand happy to hear about this, but I couldn't help but laugh at the way it was reported on NPR. They said Democrats see this as an issue that can bring voters to the polls. I immediately thought of how few people even know what the heck net neutrality is (about 1 in 4 [0]). Either NPR is making stuff up or the Democrats are seriously in need of some new advice. [0]:https://americanactionnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02.. https://americanactionnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02....

leot 8y ago
Base enthusiasm matters a lot, since it drives turnout. And the only thing that matters in elections in the US is turnout and undecideds (of whom there are very few).
crowbahr 8y ago
Young people are less likely to vote but far, far more likely to know about Net Neutrality. I think it's a shrewd strategy: it will get more young people out, who tend to vote Democrat.
- moduspol 8y ago
  I think actual concern is vastly overstated. The number of people truly willing to vote over net neutrality despite virtually none of the post-apocalyptic claims made last time around coming true has got to be borderline non-existent. If someone's ISP starts blocking / heavily throttling Netflix or YouTube for them, I could see it becoming a voting issue. But otherwise? Meh.
favorited 8y ago
Do you know how it breaks down by age group? It could help drive younger voter turnout at the midterms, which is traditionally impossible.
smsm42 8y ago
1 in 4? That is insanely high. I would be surprised in 1 in 10 can explain what NN is properly (not "evil ISPs are gonna to make us pay for pr0n!") and about 1 in a 100 to explain what actually happened in 2015 and what happened in 2018 and what is the state of current legislation around ISP-content provider relationships. These things are complex patchwork of years of legislation and require non-trivial knowledge to understand. I rate the chance of 1 in 4 of Americans having this knowledge as the chance 1 in 4 Americans can fluently speak ancient Sumerian.

caf 8y ago

It's interesting the way that the Congressional Review Act operates, to require both houses and the president to sign off on overruling the decision of an executive agency. In bicameral Westminster-style systems, delegated legislation (ie. executive regulations) can usually be vetoed by either chamber. This being under the principle that if the regulation in question had been enacted as regular legislation it would have required the approval of both chambers to pass.

dannyw 8y ago
In this case, the action is repeal of net neutrality regulation. To establish net neutrality through legislation would require both house and senate.
fjsolwmv 8y ago
It's a fiction either way. There's no way to decide whether the vetoed action was in or out of scope of the original delegated authority. Maybe one chamber just changed their mind.
- caf 8y ago
  Well, no - the idea is that the delegated authority is simply "you may make regulations without prior approval of the legislature for the sake of expediency, but it is subject to veto so you can't use it as an end-run around the legislature".

virtzzz 8y ago

My rep has already sent me a firm, automated "fuck you" but I've sent him an email anyway.

letsgetphysITal 8y ago
Your email went into the junk folder. Send a letter and phone call.

Andre_Wanglin 8y ago

Isn't this how things are supposed to be done anyway? I imagine I will have to keep waiting for Congress to re-assert their authority over making war.

exabrial 8y ago

The root issue is entrenched (literally and figuratively) local monopolies. We want Net Neutrality because we can't switch providers when our ISPs behave badly. I think if they go after that issue think manner they will get the votes. However, I see them going after the regulatory route, which unlikely to be pass.

shmerl 8y ago
They do all they can to pretend that there is "competition". It's the only way they can ignore the obvious, that opponents of Net Neutrality are simply proponents of monopolies.

briandear 8y ago

I am not in favor of government enforcement of net neutrality under libertarian/free market grounds, however, that being said, I am really happy about this vote on a ideological/philosophical level because one of my problems with government regulation is that it is often unaccountable — it’s via executive/administrative or quasi-government entities that aren’t directly accountable to voters. The Congressional Review Act (proposed and passed as part of the Republican Contract with America) is an exceptionally important law because it allows the public, through their representatives, to essentially override bad regulation (bad, as determined by voters.) So while the outcome of this particular vote isn’t one With which I agree, I wholeheartedly agree and endorse the vote itself. My big problem with government and regulation in general is that I feel that regulations lag or exceed the will of the public and there is little recourse when those rules are made by officials removed from the direct accountability from the voter. I could be wrong on Net Neutrality, but if it passes or is defeated, at least the process of our actual representatives voting on such an important issue is happening. Such consequential decisions ought not be at the whims of bureaucrats. Bureaucracts should implement the law, they shouldn’t be making it.