Senate bill to reverse net neutrality repeal gains 30th sponsor, ensuring floor vote

[GennGreymane]

http://thehill.com/policy/technology...onsor-ensuring

A Senate bill that would reverse the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) decision to repeal net neutrality received its 30th co-sponsor on Monday, ensuring it will receive a vote on the Senate floor.

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) announced her support for the bill on Twitter, putting it over the top of a procedural requirement to bypass committee approval.

The bill, which is being pushed by Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), would use Congress’s authority under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to reverse the FCC’s rollback of its popular net neutrality rules.


“We’ve reached the magic number of 30 to secure a vote on the Senate floor, and that number will only continue to climb,” Markey said in a statement Monday. “Republicans are faced with a choice — be on the right side of history and stand with the American people who support a free and open internet, or hold hands with the special interests who want to control the internet for their own profit.”

Under the CRA, if a joint resolution of disapproval bill has enough support it can bypass committee review and be fast-tracked to a floor vote. If the bill is passed and signed into law, it would vacate the FCC's vote last month and prohibit the agency from ever trying to repeal the rules in the future.

Lawmakers have 60 legislative days after the FCC submits its regulations to Congress to pass the CRA. The repeal order is currently awaiting approval from the Office of Management and Budget.

With Republicans in control of both the House and Senate, the bill faces long odds to win the simple majorities it needs to reach the president’s desk. But Democrats and activists see a clear upside in forcing GOP lawmakers to take an official stance during an election year on the consumer protections, which polls have shown to be popular among voters.

“Today’s news shows that lawmakers from both parties cannot hide from their constituents on this issue,” said Evan Greer, an activist with the group Fight for the Future, which has promised to rally voters around the issue in the midterm elections. “Every member of the U.S. Senate will have to go on the record, during a tight election year, and either vote to save the Internet or rubber stamp its death warrant.”

[some guy]

Good news. Hope it doesn't turn into more partisan shit.

[Thetruth1400]

I honestly don't get why it took so long to even get 30 on board. My guess is people know it will not pass, and therefore didn't feel like wasting the time. It may pass the Senate since it's 51R/49D, but it's unlikely to pass the 239R/193D House. Even if they pass, they go to the president's desk where it will more than likely be vetoed down.

Overall though, it's a pretty partisan issue considering every vote that has come up for it has pretty much been split down party lines.

While it may get people to see "Hey, my Senator is up for election and he doesn't support Net Neutrality, which is important to me." It's going to be a massive undertaking to get some of those same people to decide to abandon their party and vote Democrat come next election.

[smooshtheman]

I think there is a positive and negative to both sides of this issue, I would personally prefer it stays repealed as long as consumer protections are put in place to ensure a fair market place. My problems are with the monopoly called comcast.

[kail]

Good news. Hope it doesn't turn into more partisan shit.

That is near impossible with this government. If the Ds or Rs support a bill, the others have to dislike it. It's all in the programming.

- - - Updated - - -

I think there is a positive and negative to both sides of this issue, I would personally prefer it stays repealed as long as consumer protections are put in place to ensure a fair market place. My problems are with the monopoly called comcast.

NN is the consumer protection.

[Barnabas]

Trump wont sign it.

[Jeezy911]

Oh boy, we get to hear all the rhetoric again about how many people will die and how the internet will get shut down ect.

[aviger]

Good news. Hope it doesn't turn into more partisan shit.

this is 'murica, it's all partisan shit

[Barnabas]

Oh boy, we get to hear all the rhetoric again about how many people will die and how the internet will get shut down ect.

All of which fix none of the problems the internet faces right now. Much like net neutrality did.

[RayenDark]

Trump wont sign it.

And congress can overwrite his veto...it doesn't matter if he signs it or not really.

[Barnabas]

And congress can overwrite his veto...it doesn't matter if he signs it or not really.

You won't get enough votes for that to happen either. Net neutrality didn't fix anything. I'll even give you an example. During the time of net neutrality a couple of companies started offering better connections to game servers. They created low latency 'fast lanes' by traffic shaping the internet. These companies still operate right now. So why didn't a bill that was supposed to protect against this fail to do so? Want to tell the truth and admit not all traffic is equal even with your useless net neutrality rules supposedly 'protecting' against that?

[Elba]

Isn't this anti capitalist government overreach?

[CostinR]

It's possible this will pass the Senate but will not even be held for a vote in the House where Paul Ryan has that kind of power.

[Orbitus]

Oh boy, we get to hear all the rhetoric again about how many people will die and how the internet will get shut down ect.

Considering that after Net Neutrality was reversed by that fucking douche from the FCC, that some carriers have reduced their speeds, then yeah, it is already taking effect. You are just ignoring it because it hasn't effected you yet.

[Zan15]

Oh boy, we get to hear all the rhetoric again about how many people will die and how the internet will get shut down ect.

so far the only person i have ever seen even post that garbage is you.

[Barnabas]

Considering that after Net Neutrality was reversed by that fucking douche from the FCC, that some carriers have reduced their speeds, then yeah, it is already taking effect. You are just ignoring it because it hasn't effected you yet.

Interesting because here is the experience of real customers.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/business/...193317359.html

[tyrlaan]

Oh boy, we get to hear all the rhetoric again about how many people will die and how the internet will get shut down ect.

How many people will die?? Lolwut

I think you've breathing in a bit too much of the incense surrounding your Trump shrine.

[Orbitus]

Interesting because here is the experience of real customers.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/business/...193317359.html

So you have a few anecdotal posts from random people? But we have the FCC already lowering their standards on speeds, which means, I fully expect douches like Comcast and Time Warner to fully follow through on it, or jack prices up.

[Xeones]

I think there is a positive and negative to both sides of this issue, I would personally prefer it stays repealed as long as consumer protections are put in place to ensure a fair market place. My problems are with the monopoly called comcast.

This is a joke right? There is no positive to the repeal side.

Net Neutrality is a common sense measure that we need.

[Barnabas]

So you have a few anecdotal posts from random people? But we have the FCC already lowering their standards on speeds, which means, I fully expect douches like Comcast and Time Warner to fully follow through on it, or jack prices up.

Yeah because they want use 802.22 to cover rural areas with wi-far technology. I know CNN won't tell you this but it's their business to push lies that everyone's internet will slow a crawl which is a total crock of shit. Sorry you don't need gigabit speed for a couple of tractors to do routes in fields. 802.22 covers the speeds the FCC is wanting to issue for this technology. Go find a paper bag and start to breath normally again.