Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Democrats Government Republicans United States Politics

Net Neutrality Bill 38 Votes Short In Congress, and Time Has Almost Run Out (arstechnica.com) 229

Posted by BeauHD from the last-ditch-effort dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Legislation to restore net neutrality rules now has 180 supporters in the U.S. House of Representatives, but that's 38 votes short of the amount needed before the end of the month. The Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution, already approved by the Senate, would reverse the Federal Communications Commission's repeal of net neutrality rules. But 218 signatures from U.S. representatives (a majority) are needed to force a full vote in the House before Congress adjourns at the end of the year.

Net neutrality advocates previously said they needed 218 signatures by December 10 to force a vote. But an extension of Congress' session provided a little more time. "[Now that the Congressional session has officially been extended, members of Congress could be in town as late as December 21st," net neutrality advocacy group Fight for the Future wrote yesterday. "This means we have until the end of the year to get as many lawmakers as possible signed on to restore net neutrality." A discharge petition that would force a vote on the CRA resolution gained three new supports in the past two weeks, but even if all Democrats were on board it still wouldn't be enough to force a vote. Republicans have a 236-197 House majority, and only one House Republican has signed the petition.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Net Neutrality Bill 38 Votes Short In Congress, and Time Has Almost Run Out More

Net Neutrality Bill 38 Votes Short In Congress, and Time Has Almost Run Out

Comments Filter:

  • Both sides are bad... Oh wait.. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bit trollent ( 824666 ) on Tuesday December 11, 2018 @11:35PM (#57790454) Homepage

    Except that Democrats are overwhelmingly in favor of Net Neutrality, while republicans are 99% opposed.

    Hmm it's almost like there is a clear difference between the parties an a critical issue at impacts all of us.

    You might even say that the bothsiderism that people who are stupid or intellectually dishonest constantly engage in is absolute fraudulent nonsense.

    • Re:Both sides are bad... Oh wait.. (Score:4, Informative)

      by bhcompy ( 1877290 ) on Wednesday December 12, 2018 @12:07AM (#57790568)
      If it passed the Senate, which the summary says it did, then it had at least two Republican Senators to support it

      • Re:Both sides are bad... Oh wait.. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Actually, I do RTFA ( 1058596 ) on Wednesday December 12, 2018 @03:32PM (#57793670)

        Except that Democrats are overwhelmingly in favor of Net Neutrality, while republicans are 99% opposed.
        Hmm it's almost like there is a clear difference between the parties an a critical issue at impacts all of us.

        If it passed the Senate, which the summary says it did, then it had at least two Republican Senators to support it

        So, your sick burn is that it's not 99% of Republicans, but 96%?

        Also, please understand that the Senate voting records are pretty noisy, because of the small sample size. The House commonly has the same number (or fewer) dissenters with a larger pool of voters.

        Also, in fairness, it was 94%. Three Republicans voted for it. And the Democrats were 100% in favor of it. If you cannot tell the difference between Party D, 100% in support, and Party R, 6% in support, I cannot help you.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by SirAstral ( 1349985 )

      The fraudulent nonsense is on you. Both are terrible, just because they have different rhetoric and ways of acting out that corruption does not change the end result that corruption is end to end, party before country, constant lies and deceit, dancing around the issues, backroom deals, rushing votes on recently changed bills, pork, omnibus, budget, gerrymandering, filibusters, taking bribes, lobbyists over citizens, fear mongering, and a general disconnect with reality BOTH FUCKING SIDES!!! People like

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by drinkypoo ( 153816 )

        Gerrymandering and a general disconnect from reality are Republican hallmarks in particular. Democrats at least pay lip service to reality, and gerrymandering is overwhelmingly a Republican-dominated activity. It's not that no Democrats have ever gerrymandered, but throughout our history they have done a lot less and and in recent years it's been all but 100% Republican.

    • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

      by fustakrakich ( 1673220 )

      Except that Democrats are overwhelmingly in favor of Net Neutrality, while republicans are 99% opposed.

      Yeah, and Mary Poppins can fly.

      You really take the theatrics for real [demsagainstthe.net]? How convenient that such a small group can hold things up so effectively. Makes the rest look good, doesn't it? Almost like it's planned that way.

      House discharge petition

      Oh good, Bruiser's Bill will pass!

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • So cute that US politics always thinks that there are only two sides in political issues.

        There are many sides of a political issue. However, because of our electoral system, we slowly whittle it down to two sides. Kinda like most tournaments in sports. Sure, there was also side 3, but people argued and decided that side 2 was better than side 3, moving on, side 3 is eliminated.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Shaitan ( 22585 )

      "Except that Democrats are overwhelmingly in favor of Net Neutrality, while republicans are 99% opposed."

      No, the Democrats SAY they support net neutrality which is a different thing altogether. Remember the rules the FCC overturned were called "net neutrality" but didn't actually block the abuses we are all concerned about. Providers could essentially do whatever they wanted with a bit of fine print "disclosing" it somewhere.

  • It was never supposed to pass (Score:4, Informative)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Tuesday December 11, 2018 @11:37PM (#57790458)
    the Senate passed it while they could be content in the knowledge that it couldn't pass the House. Now that the House is flipping to Dems it'll die in the Senate next. And in any case it doesn't have a super majority to overcome a Presidential Veto.

    I say this on every NN forum, but if this matters to you then you're going to have to change your voting. That means showing up at Primaries, voting against both the GOP _and_ the Clinton Democrats and putting actual, left wing candidates in office who are in favor of government regulation like NN.

    Because make no mistake, Net Neutrality _is_ a government regulation on a private industry. The libertarians can argue that it's only a psuedo-private industry and that everything would be fine if the government just deregulated completely (because that worked so well when AT&T was in charge) but it's _still_ a government regulation. If we keep voting for folks who don't believe in government this is what we're going to get.

    • Domocrats support NN, Republicans oppose (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bit trollent ( 824666 ) on Tuesday December 11, 2018 @11:41PM (#57790472) Homepage

      Well, lets see, almost all votes for NN are from Democrats, including centrist democrats. Only one single republican supports this legislation.

      So when you say to vote out the Clinton democrats you are telling us to vote out the people who actually signed their name to this legislation, while fail to even acknowledge that the republican party is 99% against net neutrality.

      This ridiculous claim that both sides are at fault when one is at fault while the other works to protect us is the exact reason that our country is in the mess we are in.

      I hope Bernie Sanders gets last place in the primary, tied with some other sore loser who can't tell the difference between his allies and his adversaries.

      • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

        by 110010001000 ( 697113 )
        Yeah, I wonder why. It is almost as if both parties are being directed on what position to take, and unwilling of make individual decisions based on what is best for the country and their state.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by MrKaos ( 858439 )

          It is almost as if both parties are being directed on what position to take

          Almost as if the people who vote actually matter.

      • Guess you're going to deny the democrats play the rotating villain [urbandictionary.com] also (works in both directions). Too bad you actually take their kabuki seriously. You're being fished in by tag team wrestling.

        And you should be very happy with all the money Bernie kept in the democrat corral. They don't call him a sheepdog for nothing. To wish him ill is most ungracious of you.

      • Both sides are playing the game. Not just with NN but with almost all of the important issues. Instead of tackling them they play politics and power games. NN is unresolved. DACA is unresolved. It seems like there's a chance of a government shutdown almost every year because they put in a stop-gap measure instead of finding a longer term solution. Republicans are doing everything they can to make the vote turn in their favour. And so on.

        The current system is broken and tossing out one half of the players bu

        • It seems like there's a chance of a government shutdown almost every year because they put in a stop-gap measure instead of finding a longer term solution.

          That's actually a constitutional requirement, that spending laws cannot last 2 years or more. It's precisely because the chance of a government shutdown is part of the balance of powers. Specifically, it's a powerful weapon for the US House. Which is reset every two years. So if the government starts doing X, and the US population doesn't like it, the

      • They take money from every corporation on Earth. I call the "Clinton Democrats" because they got their start under Clinton, but Wikipedia calls them "New Democrats", which is B.S., they don't act like the Dems and don't follow the principles of the party platform).

        3 Republicans voted for NN, but they did so safe in the knowledge that it wouldn't pass. I'm guessing the Clinton Dems will do the same. When the vote has a real chance to pass their either abstain to give the GOP the votes to kill it or they'

      • I hope Bernie Sanders gets last place in the primary

        How are you dragging Sanders into this? He is neither against Network Neutrality, nor is he a sore loser. I mean... I never played a game with him, but he was gracious enough in his defeat for the democratic primary and encouraged his supporters to support Hillary (who is also not against Network Neutrality).

    • That private industry, one way or another uses public property. Telcos and cable companies have use of right of ways for copper and fiber, wireless companies use publicly-allocated spectrum. If an ISP actually owned the land through which their lines ran, you might have a point, but as it is they use public lands for much of their infrastructure, and thus regulation is not only necessary, but desirable. The argument that somehow regulation of the Internet is an intrusion on their property rights is disingen

  • Yet the vast majority of people want it. Who does the government work for? Certainly not me.
    • They will work for you if you give them something in return. That is how it works.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      You're just figuring out that Gov works for corporations and not you the lowly individual?

    • Who does the government work for? Certainly not me.

      Sorry, it's up to the voters to unite against the GOP/DNC. You got a better way?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by MobyDisk ( 75490 )

      It doesn't matter what people want, it matters how they vote. And since most voters have no clue what the issues are or what their candidates are actually voting for, it really doesn't matter. There's a total disconnect.

  • Still don't get it (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Texmaize ( 2823935 )
    I sincerely do not understand slashdot's near religious devotion to this. I honestly want to understand what I am missing. As I understand it, net neutrality basically says that you do not want to have the cost of your internet usage be proportional to how much you use. It does not seem wrong to me that if you use a ton, pay more or get throttled. Otherwise, someone else is paying the bill for your usage.



    So, am I off or is this just a case of millennial wanting free stuff?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      You're off. Way, way off. Without Net Neutrality, one side's ISP can hold the other side hostage and refuse to deliver the data they've already paid their own ISP for. It's like if the mailman decides he doesn't like one house on the block and won't deliver their mail, even if the sender already paid postage.

    • Re:Still don't get it (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12, 2018 @02:11AM (#57790860)

      That's not at all what it's about. It's the concept that your ISP should be considered as a telecommunication utility rather than a content provider. As such, they should not be allowed to selectively throttle your connection based on what media you consumed, but rather treat all bits as equal. We're paying for the connection already, and the entities we're connecting to are paying for theirs -- nobody is trying to get anything for free.

      They can still have data caps, but things like 0-rating to make their own content more desirable would also be illegal. Since most consumers only have 1 or 2 broadband choices, letting them take advantage of their natural monopolies does not lead to a competitive market.

      The repeal has far-reaching implications, as with it providers are free to throttle their competitors or even block any content they want to discourage -- we have to take them at the word for it that they won't. And we've actually seen them throttle competitors before, which is the entire reason NN was enacted in the first place.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by meglon ( 1001833 )
      So is that what the real problem is... not a single fucking conservative even understands what NN is? I mean, the alternative is you're a fucking idiot....which granted is highly likely as well. We already know you're a neo-nazi apologist, so don't worry, our opinion of you can't get any worse no matter how fucking clueless you are.

    • Re:Still don't get it (Score:5, Informative)

      by Actually, I do RTFA ( 1058596 ) on Wednesday December 12, 2018 @03:26AM (#57791024)

      What you described has nothing to do with net neutrality. NN is what keeps Microsoft from paying Comcast so that Bing loads faster than Google. It's horrible for start ups, as it puts a giant cost in the way of using their service. Plus, who wants Comcast deciding which sites they get to use at regular speeds, and which get arbitrarily slowed down.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Falos ( 2905315 )

      >the cost of your internet usage be proportional to how much you use

      No, that's a different conversation. NN is packet priority, eg Comcast throttling Netflix to a crawl. In plain sight.

      ISP billing residents on bandwidth consumption is up to ISPs. They can do that now. They can do it after NN.

      Personally I'd be for it. I'm not a big fan of streamfags and the industry cajoling them along. Downloading the same content repeatedly. Inferior streaming quality. Passing the costs along (not that it costs fuckall, ISPs are just babies about spending a dime to deliver it).

      But for some

  • More correction needed (Score:5, Informative)

    by hyades1 ( 1149581 ) <hyades1@hotmail.com> on Wednesday December 12, 2018 @08:07AM (#57791524)

    It looks like the recent kick in the teeth Republicans got at the polls wasn't enough to educate them about what happens when Americans get annoyed with their government. Perhaps in a couple of years another electoral kick, this time straight to the balls, will get through to them.

  • Leave it to the states (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Perhaps Net Neutrality is something best left to the states. This way the effect of net neutrality legislation in certain states could be compared to states that do not have it yet, this allows us to see what works best. This is as the founders intended, that states should be laboratories of democracy where where laws and so on can be tested and improved without affecting the country as a whole.

    Also, I think what we need should be called Common Carrier rules, rather than Net Neutrality rules, because Commo

    • the issue is when states try to make there own the fcc runs saying no you cant do that,

    • . This way the effect of net neutrality legislation in certain states could be compared to states that do not have it yet, this allows us to see what works best.

      I don't know if it technically can be left to the states. Also, frankly, there's no need to test it. NN is better for 99% of people, and bad for owners of Comcast/Verizion/etc.

      Internet service is a little bit too expensive as it is and I would not want to pay more because someone with 4 netflix streams going 24/7 at once of HD video,

      NN has nothing

Slashdot Top Deals

"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Close