Senate Vote May Be Coming on FCC Net Neutrality Rules

DooKey

DooKey

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 25, 2001
Messages
13,559
Senator Ed Markey announced on Twitter that he now has enough votes to bring the FCC net neutrality rules to a vote under the Congressional Review Act. However, in order to rescind the new rules a majority in the Senate and the House would have to approve it and then the President would have to sign the bill. This is one tall order and I don't expect this effort is going to be successful.

...we now have the 30 votes we need to force a vote on my CRA to reverse the repeal of #NetNeutrality!
 
Would rather see a real Net Neutrality bill rather then a return to the kludge of the FCC using Title II or whatever to backdoor impose one. If Sen Markey really wants Net Neutrality, he should author a simple bill to do just that. The advantage of a fresh NN bill is it could designate the enforcing agency or process.
 
This bill has no chance of passing, and the Democrats (not all of them) and few Republicans that support it know this. What it will do, however, is force the politicians that are against us average citizens to vote it down on record. This will allow the immensely unpopular decision by the unelected FCC to be used against these corrupt politicians that gladly accept big cables bribes. The midterms, both primary and general, are already hotly contested between progressives and liberals battling each other in the primaries and have Republicans at a severe disadvantage in the general where we've seen various politicians already announce retirement due to them likely being unable to win reelection (with yet another congressman doing this again tonight) This vote will only add more fuel to the fire.
 
Last edited:
Sad thing is we (US) need to be careful what we wish for. These are mostly the same completely corrupt people (REP/DEM both sides) that tried to pass SOPA a while back. I wont be shocked if this bill they draft up is nothing more than window dressing to appear they are doing something. But in reality F**king us in the ass just as hard as the FCC is right now.

Hope i'm wrong and there are still good and decent well meaning people in power in the US...hahahah. omg its funnier seeing that in writing..No we are all F'd.
 
This won't reach the president's desk, and if it did, he would veto it.

Even so, it could be beneficial to force congress to go on record.
 
bsbllclown said:
Sad thing is we (US) need to be careful what we wish for. These are mostly the same completely corrupt people (REP/DEM both sides) that tried to pass SOPA a while back. I wont be shocked if this bill they draft up is nothing more than window dressing to appear they are doing something. But in reality F**king us in the ass just as hard as the FCC is right now.

Hope i'm wrong and there are still good and decent well meaning people in power in the US...hahahah. omg its funnier seeing that in writing..No we are all F'd.
Click to expand...

Most of them are corrupt, but they're a product of the system. There is no hope of curbing corruption as long as money is considered free speech. Just sayin'.
 
Dead Parrot said:
Would rather see a real Net Neutrality bill rather then a return to the kludge of the FCC using Title II or whatever to backdoor impose one. If Sen Markey really wants Net Neutrality, he should author a simple bill to do just that. The advantage of a fresh NN bill is it could designate the enforcing agency or process.
Click to expand...

Author a simple bill? That's not at all how they work. They won't take the bill up for vote unless it has an extra 600pages of backdoor deals that have nothing (at all) to do with the legislation.

Sadly, the roundabout way is the only way things get done in our two party government.

Our government would actually function somewhat if they could do simple stay-on-topic legislation proposals.
 
The Democrats had two full years of total control of Congress, the Senate, and the Presidency, and failed to pass or even bring to a vote what they now insist is "critical to democracy" so-called Net Neutrality.

It's because this was never about net neutrality, it was about expanding the FCC's authority into areas it had none before. This was always about the long game, and not the pretty message on the wrapper. If Net Neutrality gets enacted with Dems in power, it will not be via legislation voted on by our elected representatives, the way it should, even if they have more than enough votes to do it.

Instead, those sweeping changes will be enacted by proclamation of an unelected FCC, a very dangerous precedent going forward.
 
Last edited:
Montu said:
Senator Ed Markey announced on Twitter that he now has enough votes to bring the FCC net neutrality rules to a vote under the Congressional Review Act. However, in order to rescind the new rules a majority in the Senate and the House would have to approve it and then the President would have to sign the bill. This is one tall order and I don't expect this effort is going to be successful.

...we now have the 30 votes we need to force a vote on my CRA to reverse the repeal of #NetNeutrality!
Click to expand...

Instead of trying to reverse the FCC classification and rules changes why don't these losers just do their damned job and amend the Federal Trade Act and the Federal Communications Act and straighten out the laws that are the real problem to begin with.

With just a few small changes they could straighten all this out, the Internet could go back to being a Title II utility and the FTC would be able to enforce the shit they are supposed to enforce with ISPs.

This thing won't get right until Congress steps up and does their job, instead they are going to continue with this back and forth goat fuck. Lord knows we don't want them to actually pass a law or anything.
 
Offer free internet but charge for making it non painful to use or call the connectivity packages DLC, people will eat it up then.
 
lcpiper said:
Instead of trying to reverse the FCC classification and rules changes why don't these losers just do their damned job and amend the Federal Trade Act and the Federal Communications Act and straighten out the laws that are the real problem to begin with.

With just a few small changes they could straighten all this out, the Internet could go back to being a Title II utility and the FTC would be able to enforce the shit they are supposed to enforce with ISPs.

This thing won't get right until Congress steps up and does their job, instead they are going to continue with this back and forth goat fuck. Lord knows we don't want them to actually pass a law or anything.
Click to expand...
Two things I think:
First, any amendment would be a regular bill and they stick all kinds of riders in there to buy votes. Thus the compromises needed to get such a thing on the floor might not be desirable.
Second, if the problem can be blamed on an unelected bureaucrat instead of laid directly at the feet of a congresscritter, that's a win for the people who have to win elections.

So no, Congress will almost never repeal or amend anything unless the interests that bought them push for it.
 
GlowingGhoul said:
The Democrats had two full years of total control of Congress, the Senate, and the Presidency, and failed to pass or even bring to a vote what they now insist is "critical to democracy" so-called Net Neutrality.
Click to expand...

Probably because they didn't expect anyone to actually be bone-headed enough to dismantle it. They also failed to pass any laws making breathing free...

Which simply underscores that one could use your rationale to blame any political party for just about anything, which is useless...except as a political football.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WhoMe
like this
bugleyman said:
This won't reach the president's desk, and if it did, he would veto it.

Even so, it could be beneficial to force congress to go on record.
Click to expand...

Really? I wouldn't be so sure. He's definitely a pro-business president.
 
Well now, now the net neutrality repeal makes a ton of sense, as does the reclassification of broadband.

For those that missed it, Trump is pushing for full broadband rollout to the rural areas of the country, which are currently gouged with satellite internet prices.

He reduced regulation barriers to this (a lot of which was in the so called Net Neutrality regulations), and is making it cost effective to expand.

Which means broader connections and cheaper access for flyover country.
 
Zion Halcyon said:
Well now, now the net neutrality repeal makes a ton of sense, as does the reclassification of broadband.

For those that missed it, Trump is pushing for full broadband rollout to the rural areas of the country, which are currently gouged with satellite internet prices.

He reduced regulation barriers to this (a lot of which was in the so called Net Neutrality regulations), and is making it cost effective to expand.

Which means broader connections and cheaper access for flyover country.
Click to expand...

One additional thing. The upshot to this is that when the rural areas have the infrastructure, opening up competition will cause a bidding war - prices will reduce and speeds will increase as a natural competitive result.
 
Zion Halcyon said:
Well now, now the net neutrality repeal makes a ton of sense, as does the reclassification of broadband.

For those that missed it, Trump is pushing for full broadband rollout to the rural areas of the country, which are currently gouged with satellite internet prices.

He reduced regulation barriers to this (a lot of which was in the so called Net Neutrality regulations), and is making it cost effective to expand.

Which means broader connections and cheaper access for flyover country.
Click to expand...

And yet all the telcoms are foaming at the mouth to not have to support last mile customers because they are cost sinks.
 
LodeRunner said:
Two things I think:
First, any amendment would be a regular bill and they stick all kinds of riders in there to buy votes. Thus the compromises needed to get such a thing on the floor might not be desirable.
Second, if the problem can be blamed on an unelected bureaucrat instead of laid directly at the feet of a congresscritter, that's a win for the people who have to win elections.

So no, Congress will almost never repeal or amend anything unless the interests that bought them push for it.
Click to expand...


Except, that they do submit new laws, pass new laws, and they amend laws all the time. Your concept flies right in the face of reality my friend.

EDITED: Now if you want to say that voting to roll back the FCC's reclassification of the internet and new rules changes is "low hanging fruit", something they believe they can do easily that's a "easy win", I couldn't disagree. And it isn't going to "fix" anything cause the first thing it's going to do is completely fuck those people in the FTC vs AT&T throttling case.
 
Last edited:
lcpiper said:
Except, that they do submit new laws, pass new laws, and they amend laws all the time. Your concept flies right in the face of reality my friend.

EDITED: Now if you want to say that voting to roll back the FCC's reclassification of the internet and new rules changes is "low hanging fruit", something they believe they can do easily that's a "easy win", I couldn't disagree. And it isn't going to "fix" anything cause the first thing it's going to do is completely fuck those people in the FTC vs AT&T throttling case.
Click to expand...
Your edit is what I implied and failed to directly communicate, though I thought the "unless the interests that bought them push for it" portion of my statement would make it clear that I feel it's either business interest or special interest groups with deep pockets that tend to drive change in Washington. Because after 20-40 years in congress (seriously, some of them have been there that long), I seriously doubt many of them listen to the people they allegedly represent.
 
LodeRunner said:
Your edit is what I implied and failed to directly communicate, though I thought the "unless the interests that bought them push for it" portion of my statement would make it clear that I feel it's either business interest or special interest groups with deep pockets that tend to drive change in Washington. Because after 20-40 years in congress (seriously, some of them have been there that long), I seriously doubt many of them listen to the people they allegedly represent.
Click to expand...

Some have been there that long and I am in favor of term limits for Congressional seats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top