U.S. Senate democrats stage a phony vote on so-called ‘net neutrality’

“One extreme part of the anti-Trump ‘resistance’ is outrage, including death threats, against Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai because he wants to roll back the Obama Administration’s regulation of the internet,” The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board writes. “Senate Democrats are now whipping up this base ahead of a phony vote on Wednesday, and the ironies are many.”

“Senate Democrat Ed Markey of Massachusetts and colleagues are forcing a floor vote to ‘save’ something called ‘net neutrality.’ That foggy concept has become in practice regulating the internet as a public utility, which the Obama Administration did in 2015,” The WSJ Editorial Board writes. “The real issue isn’t if you’ll be free to surf the web but whether the federal government should dictate what rates providers can set for services. The FCC’s Mr. Pai is rolling back the Obama rules, which means restoring the status quo of a mere few years ago.”

“Senate Democrats are trying to overrule Mr. Pai by deploying the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to reject Mr. Pai’s rule within 60 legislative days. The Democrats can force a floor vote with a mere 30 votes. Resolutions can dodge a filibuster and pass with a simple majority,” The WSJ Editorial Board writes. “How could this pass a GOP Senate? Meet Republican Susan Collins of Maine, who is supporting the resolution. The irony in her case is that largely rural states like Maine need more broadband investment, which has been a casualty of the neutrality scheme. Apparently investment to broaden the reach of broadband lacks the emotive political appeal of ‘net neutrality.'”

“By pushing a vote Chuck Schumer is exploiting the fact that Republican John McCain of Arizona is battling cancer and unavailable to vote. That won’t be remembered as a class act,” The WSJ Editorial Board writes. “And here comes the farce. Remember all the shock and horror over Facebook ’s data misuse? The move by Democrats would bifurcate and weaken privacy protections online… Then again, none of this is about the policy merits: The point is to fire up Democrats ahead of midterm elections. Net neutrality is the perfect issue for the left because it sounds virtuous and hardly anyone knows or cares what it means… All of this is for political show because the House is unlikely to take up the measure”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: As we wrote last December regarding the repeal of so-called ‘net neutrality’ rules:

The Internet will be just fine, just as it was before the FCC instituted these rules on June 12, 2015.

As we also wrote last December regarding the call by U.S. Senator John Thune (R-SD) for Congress to pass ‘net neutrality’ legislation:

There is a right way and a wrong way to do things. The former is harder, but lasting; the latter is quicker, but ephemeral.

Real net neutrality legislation is the solution to the FCC/FTC regulatory seesaw.

As we wrote over a decade ago, back in August 2006:

We don’t presume to know the best way to get there, but we support the concept of “Net Neutrality” especially as it pertains to preventing the idea of ISP’s blocking or otherwise impeding sites that don’t pay the ISP to ensure equal access. That said, we usually prefer the government to be hands-off wherever possible, Laissez-faire, except in cases where the free market obviously cannot adequately self-regulate (antitrust, for example). Regulations are static and the marketplace is fluid, so such regulation can often have unintended, unforeseen results down the road. We sincerely hope that there are enough forces in place and/or that the balances adjust in such a manner as to keep the ‘Net as neutral as it is today.

And as we followed up in September 2009:

That we have the same Take over three years later should be telling. Government regulations are not a panacea, neither are the lack thereof. It’s all about striking a proper balance where innovation can thrive while abuses are prevented.

Make that “the same Take over a decade later.”

SEE ALSO:
U.S. FCC reversal of so-called ‘net neutrality’ rules expected to be published Thursday – February 20, 2018
NARUC regulators respond to scrapping of so-called ‘net neutrality’ regulations by U.S. FCC – December 15, 2017
Republican senator calls on U.S. Congress to pass ‘net neutrality’ legislation – December 12, 2017
Millions of people post ‘net neutrality’ comments on FCC docket; many are fake – December 12, 2017
U.S. FCC rejects calls to delay vote to repeal so-called ‘net neutrality’ rules – December 5, 2017
Dear Aunt Sadie, please step back from the so-called ‘net neutrality’ ledge – November 27, 2017
U.S. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai: Killing Obama-era rules for so-called ‘net neutrality’ will set the internet free – November 22, 2017
U.S. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai: How the FCC can save the open internet – November 21, 2017
U.S. FCC plans total repeal of Obama-era rules for so-called ‘net neutrality’ – November 21, 2017
U.S. FCC plans December vote to kill so-called ‘net neutrality’ rules – November 16, 2017
Apple’s call for ‘strong’ net neutrality rules is a hint about the future of its business – September 1, 2017
Apple breaks their silence on ‘net neutrality,’ remains open to alternative sources of legal authority – August 31, 2017
Trump administration gives thumbs up to overturning FCC’s rules for so-called ‘net neutrality’ – July 19, 2017
]Apple’s deafening silence on so-called ‘net neutrality’ – July 14, 2017
FCC kicks off effort to roll back so-called ‘net neutrality’ rules – May 18, 2017
FCC Chairman Ajit Pai explains why he wants to scrap so-called ‘net neutrality’ rules – April 28, 2017
FCC Chief Ajit Pai develops plans to roll back so-called ‘net neutrality’ rules – April 7, 2017
U.S. FCC chairman wields weed whacker, takes first steps against so-called ‘net neutrality’ – February 3, 2017
How so-called ‘net neutrality’ will fare under President Trump – January 26, 2017
New FCC chairman Ajit Pai vows to take a ‘weed whacker’ to so-called ‘net neutrality’ – January 24, 2017
President Trump elevates Ajit Pai to FCC Chairman – January 23, 2017
Outgoing FCC chief Tom Wheeler offers final defense of so-called ‘net neutrality’ – January 13, 2017
Under President Trump, Obama ally Google may face policy setbacks, including roll back of so-called ‘net neutrality’ rules – November 18, 2016
Jeb Bush on FCC and so-called ‘net neutrality’ regulation: ‘One of the craziest ideas I’ve ever heard’ – March 8, 2015
Who loves the FCC’s overreach on so-called ‘net neutrality?’ Telecom lawyers – March 5, 2015

53 Comments

    1. As if we need yet another demonstration of MDN’s far right political proclivities, the headline promotes the fallacious assertion that this is a “phony” vote. How is this floor vote phony? All members of the Senate will get to vote. That is called “democracy.”

      How many times must we inform people like you that something isn’t “phony” or “fake” just because you disagree with it. By the same token, incessant repetition of GOP bullcrap does not render it any more valid or palatable.

      If you want phony, then look at Mitch McConnell making up reasons to obstruct the operation of the Senate during the latter part of the Obama administration.

      If you want phony, then observe the undermining of Senate rules and processes, the nepotism in the White House, the corruption in the White House, the incompetence of so many White House appointees, the inability of the POTUS to read and comprehend anything of complexity.

      The Republican Party has shifted to the far, far right in its political extremism and has raised obstructionism, misinformation, and corruption to an art form. Compromise, the cornerstone of peaceful democracy, has been declared heresy by the GOP. Listen to John McCain before it is too late. Trump wouldn’t make a pimple on McCain’s ass.

      1. “The Republican Party has shifted to the far, far right in its political extremism and has raised obstructionism, misinformation, and corruption to an art form.”

        You could not be more WRONG. The Republican Party has replaced the Democrats as the party of the people in the last election. Hundreds of thousands of Democrats switched parties to vote for Trump, particularly in Pennsylvania that sealed the win and put him over the top.

        The Democratic Party has shifted to the far, far LEFT in its political extremism and has raised obstructionism, misinformation, and corruption to an art form. There, I fixed it for you.

        Compromise, the cornerstone of peaceful democracy, is not in the Democrat DNA. With all the positive signs in the economy as a result of Trump’s policies when was the last time Schumer or Pelosi gave him credit or worked with him? Compromise with a typical hyper partisan like yourself is a one way street.

        “Listen to John McCain before it is too late.” You mean the senator who lost a presidential campaign and just disrespected and threw his running mate under the bus after defending her? You mean the lone senator that cast a Trump spite vote to derail repeal of the awful Obamacare? No surprise you like the phony Republican …

    2. The Results Are In. A victory for REAL NET NEUTRALITY! This is how government is supposed to work, representing We The People, for a change.

      Senate votes to save net neutrality: Here’s what you need to know
      Maneuvering on Capitol Hill. Protests on the web. This thing isn’t over just yet.

      Democrats were victorious in their final stand to save net neutrality. And you can thank a few Republicans who decided to switch sides.

      Senate votes to restore net neutrality: Here’s how every senator voted
      How did your senator vote on the successful last-ditch effort to maintain net neutrality? Find out below.

      Thank you to these Republicans who dared to represent their constituents:

      Murkowski, Lisa (Republican – Arkansas)
      Kennedy, John (Republican – Louisiana)
      Collins, Susan M. (Republican – Maine)

      Maybe there’s hope yet for the Republican Party. – – It could happen!
      ✊🎉🎊🍾🍻👏👏👏💞👍

        1. I hope not. Getting the same resolution through the House of Representatives is likely to be more difficult. I say this having watched the clown show con-job that was the house passage of SJR 34:

          S.J.Res.34 – A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission relating to “Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services”.

          THAT was a political stunt with devastating consequences. Marsha Blackburn (R, TN) was caught lying to her colleagues and the abomination still passed.

          Q: So why are so many Republicans dedicated to destroying REAL NET NEUTRALITY?

          A: Because they serve corporate interests, NOT the interests of their actual constituents. Obviously, in this case, they’re representing despicable:
          • Comcast
          • Verizon
          • Spectrum (Chapter + Time Warner Cable)
          • Cox
          • AT&T
          • Ad nauseam

          It’s customer abuse for the sake of maximum financial gain, aka predatory fake capitalism, the shite that gives real capitalism a very bad name. It’s overlords versus peon peasants. That’s the medieval crap the USA was founded to END. Anyone in the USA falling for this garbage has had their brain seriously compromised.

    3. Fake vote, by the fake Democraps, reported by the fake media. Republicans don’t have to do anything to win mid terms, Democraps are on autopilot down a mineshaft. I’m lovin it (suppose McDonald’s will sue me now)

  1. Pn the wrong side of the issue on this one. Most techies – especially Apple users favor Net Neutrality. It is important for fair competition – the basis of capitalism.

    So you think Comcast should decide what content I should be able to view?

    1. So are they doing this to you now? Have they done thus in the past 10 years?

      Spare me the hypotheticals, most people’s understanding of what they perceive as fair access and believe that is what the bill called NN is are mistaken, but just like Obamacare, once someone gets into their head they are either going to get something free or the government is going to protect them from the big, bad Strawman they created to scare people into supporting crap legislation like this to give “some” officials more control just dont get it.

      1. No one who has ever done a thing before will ever do that thing in the future, you can TRUST companies! Especially Comcast.

        I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, if ANYone is on Comcast’s side in ANY discussion, then they’re on the wrong side. Lotta Comcast apologists out there 🙂

        1. I was a Netflix user before, during and after NN was supposedly ‘enacted’, a Comcast customer AND worked for another ISP all at the same time.

          I know that Netflix traffic coming into systems was disproportionately high and causing congestion and thus the need for Netflix to up their game in delivery because if they didn’t they were going to HAVE to be throttled just like any other internet hog.

          This traffic didn’t just stop at the “main” router (part of the CMTS), it persisted throughout the delivery system but was even worse after arriving at the local nodes when changed from optic to RF.

          Now two things happened: One, new DOCSIS methods were employed to bond channels that handled MUCH more traffic on the RF level (last leg) and Netflix began distributing servers to systems of a certain subscriber count that allowed the most popular content TO BE STORED LOCALLY THAT FREED UP FIBER BACKBONE TRAFFIC TO POPs.

          Neither of these solutions were derived from Obama’s over-reaching FCC, and much of the BS put out before about Comcast or any other provider “throttling” service were all made in Netflix’s favor when in reality THEY needed to provide a more suitable structure for access and delivery.

          This way of distributing content would NOT have happened had Netflix been able to force the carriers to give them equal access to bandwidth, which could have accounted for up to 90% of traffic during peak hours. This crush on bandwidth affected the entire system’s network for bandwidth headroom, so EVERYONE’S speed would’ve slowed, like when they have those damn bike rally’s in a small town and all of a sudden it takes an hour and a half to go get a quart of milk because the roadways weren’t built to take that much use!

          You want to handle that much traffic every day you up the ability of the roads and this is (supposedly) done through taxes on users (via gas) but also for companies that use highways for profit, take up more room and cause slowdowns in traffic plus give more physical wear and tear on the highways provide an HIGHER percent to tax revenue (I’m taking trucking system here) so in reality it was fair to look at the internet in the same light, only the free market found a way to handle this with evolving technology. You kill that incentive, you kill growth in technology. Techies don’t understand this side of business.

          1. So, you’re on Comcast’s side of the discussion?

            Ok.

            You’re on the wrong side. Glad I could help you to figure that out! And, for your sake, I hope those damn kids and their consarned bikes remain forever off your lawn. 🙂

        1. I was a Netflix user before, during and after NN was supposedly ‘enacted’, a Comcast customer AND worked for another ISP all at the same time.

          I know that Netflix traffic coming into systems was disproportionately high and causing congestion and thus the need for Netflix to up their game in delivery because if they didn’t they were going to HAVE to be throttled just like any other internet hog.

          This traffic didn’t just stop at the “main” router (part of the CMTS), it persisted throughout the delivery system but was even worse after arriving at the local nodes when changed from optic to RF.

          Now two things happened: One, new DOCSIS methods were employed to bond channels that handled MUCH more traffic on the RF level (last leg) and Netflix began distributing servers to systems of a certain subscriber count that allowed the most popular content TO BE STORED LOCALLY THAT FREED UP FIBER BACKBONE TRAFFIC TO POPs.

          Neither of these solutions were derived from Obama’s over-reaching FCC, and much of the BS put out before about Comcast or any other provider “throttling” service were all made in Netflix’s favor when in reality THEY needed to provide a more suitable structure for access and delivery.

          This way of distributing content would NOT have happened had Netflix been able to force the carriers to give them equal access to bandwidth, which could have accounted for up to 90% of traffic during peak hours. This crush on bandwidth affected the entire system’s network for bandwidth headroom, so EVERYONE’S speed would’ve slowed, like when they have those damn bike rally’s in a small town and all of a sudden it takes an hour and a half to go get a quart of milk because the roadways weren’t built to take that much use!

          You want to handle that much traffic every day you up the ability of the roads and this is (supposedly) done through taxes on users (via gas) but also for companies that use highways for profit, take up more room and cause slowdowns in traffic plus give more physical wear and tear on the highways provide an HIGHER percent to tax revenue (I’m taking trucking system here) so in reality it was fair to look at the internet in the same light, only the free market found a way to handle this with evolving technology. You kill that incentive, you kill growth in technology. Techies don’t understand this side of business.

          This is for both of the people replying to me.

  2. You can tell this is an irrational highly biased article

    “By pushing a vote Chuck Schumer is exploiting the fact that Republican John McCain of Arizona is battling cancer and unavailable to vote.”

    I have a lot of respect for Sen. McCain but is congress supposed to come to a halt for his illness? Have the republicans stopped all Senate business to wait for him? Like total total BS.

  3. Boy oh boy.I will come back here and check this thread from time to time today. I am sure political nutbars will be slinging crap back and forth like there is no tomorrow.
    Last time I look, GOP has control of congress AND the senate so if a single member is sick, it should still not be an issue.
    As jSeunnasep just said above, total BS.

  4. Murdoch Street Journal Editorial Board- just to the left of Attila The Hun.

    It is not a “phony vote”. Former Verizon employee Ajit Pai is the buttboy of the Telecom/ISP lobby- exactly why Trump promoted him to Chair of the FCC.

    Sir Tim Berners-Lee , who is the father of the World Wide Web, made this statement on behalf of preserving Net Neutrality:

    https://youtu.be/5Gh0NIQ3yd0

    “When I invented the web, I didn’t have to ask anyone for permission, and neither did America’s successful internet entrepreneurs when they started their businesses. To reach its full potential, the internet must remain a permissionless space for creativity, innovation and free expression. In today’s world, companies can’t operate without internet, and access to it is controlled by just a few providers. The FCC’s announcements today suggest they want to step back and allow concentrated market players to pick winners and losers online. Their talk is all about getting more people connected, but what is the point if your ISP only lets you watch the movies they choose, just like the old days of cable?”
    -TBL

    BTW- He did it on NeXTStep.

    1. Your ISP cannot block competitive content or throttle competitive content. This is easily handled by existing anti-trust laws. I’d like to see one try. The resulting “outrage” (there’s that word again) would be thunderous, to say the least.

      1. “Your ISP cannot block competitive content or throttle competitive content.”
        Yes. They can. And, if they do, all you can do is get pissed and take it. Comcast is already, right now, blocking Usenet.

        1. Spectrum (Charter + Time Warner Cable) has been blocking Usenet for over a DECADE. This is not real net neutrality. This is biznizz as customer overlord. This is self-destructive FAKE capitalism. We might as well live in the dark ages, we stupid little peon serfs to our overlord corporations. This is how loony leftists perpetrate the lunacy that is communism ad nauseam.

          Positive capitalism works. Predatory, parasitic, fake capitalism destroys. This is not difficult to comprehend. Fake capitalism is not hard to stop.

      2. AT&T zero rates DirecTVNow content on AT&T Wireless Networks. That means if you buy your streaming TV content from them, they do not apply the data to your plan, but if you get it from Sling, PlayStation Cue, Hulu or Comcast it does.

        This is plainly uncompetitive behavior and should be controlled by government in the interest of competition. The Wheeler FCC would have acted on this quickly, Pai is a former lobbyist for Verizon and sees no problem with it.

        Back when AT&T was denied the right to purchase T-Mobile by the Feds as harmful to consumers, Deutsche Telecom had to spend some money and make the company competitive with Verizon and AT&T. That has immensely improved competition in the wireless market space to the benefit of consumers.

        I am not a Democrat and the party has plenty of problems, but today’s Republicans in DC have no problem with anti-competitive behavior by corporations and will not lift a finger to protect consumers against predation in the marketplace. One need look no further than appointments at EPA, Interior, & CFPB for evidence.

    1. Actually, as is clearly attributed, it’s an editorial by the The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board, not “another MDN political rant” of which there have been none that I’ve seen over the years. Care to point us to your ever-growing collection of “MDN political rants?”

      So, are you a liar or just highly confused?

      1. Furthermore, MDN clearly supports this article via its past and present Takes. Furthermore, MDN chose the title under which the article excerpt is posted – including the “phony vote” claim. On many occasions, MDN has modified the title of an article, but not on this one. Therefore, MDN supports the misinformation campaign.

        This article clearly represents MDN’s political stance. Therefore, it represents yet another far right MDN rant. Case closed.

        1. Not wanting overbearing rules to stifle innovation is hardly “far right.”

          You sound like to need to read, view, listen to more disparate sources of information than you’re currently being fed (outside of MDN).

      2. So are you blind, incapable of understanding editorial intent, or just an hubristic fool?
        MDN has become an alt-right mouthpiece, panting and dribbling saliva with every Trump monstrosity. They allow his mouth breather toady arse-lickers to spew their stupidities, with endless Trump promotion and INTENTIONALLY BAN MANY FROM POSTING OPPOSING VIEWS They have promoted the “Birther” conspirators, gun freaks, racists, misogynists and xenophobia and hate.
        How is this not political?

        1. You do realize you are on a one sided political RANT.

          You do realize you are WRONG on motives blaming MDN because they posted an excellent editorial from a respected newspaper.

          You do realize you are INSULTING SB, MDN, President Trump and his many supporters.

          You do realize you are making a totally FALSE claim that you get banned here for having a political viewpoint that does not support Republicans.

          You do realize you are spewing FALSE potty mouth accusations of arse-lickings like your banned buddy.

          You do NOT realize you are STEREOTYPING INTOLERANT LEFTIST BIGOT …

          1. Oh no! Someone is insulted by words on a webpage!! Anyone who read that and felt insulted was just a ConSnowflake. There once was a time long ago when we conservatives could take as good as we give. Sometimes, it feels like same crybabies from the left just switched parties.

            1. “Oh no! Someone is insulted by words on a webpage!!“

              Don’t put words in my mouth. I never said I or any fellow conservative were OFFENDED. That’s reserved for the Libtard snowflakes.

              What I did say was they were insulted. Learn the DIFFERENCE …

            2. Is THAT what they’re teaching you in consnowflake school?

              The words I put in your mouth were the words you said… which was “insulted”. So, effectively, you put words in your own mouth my inferring that you said that I said that you said “offended”. LOL! That’s a circular argument right out of the liberal playbook, are you SURE you didn’t just switch when you saw Trump was going to win?

              So, libtard snowflake “I’m OFFENDED!! PLEASE DON’T USE THOSE WORDS!!”
              Constard snowflake “I’m INSULTED!! PLEASE DON’T USE THOSE WORDS!!”

              Conservative “You were probably attempting to offend or insult, but you failed at both.”

  5. MDN is just wrong on this issue. There is such a thing as net neutrality.

    Some of you may recall an article here on MDN a few months back where a specific nuance of the lack of true net neutrality would directly, negatively affect MDN. MDN quickly and explicitly voiced its stance against such a change. So… MDN is pro net neutrality when it benefits them *directly*, but MDN could not care less if the loss of net neutrality does not affect them but negatively affects many, many others.

    Organizations have already proposed fast lanes (for an added fee) and special fees for other common modes of use. So far no organization has barred access (if you pay a special fee you get access) and none have put forth that co-branded services get priority over non co-branded services, but there’s nothing to stop them from doing that if net neutrality goes away.

    A few people on the threads on this site a few months back claimed that all this should be run under the FTC and not FCC (one of Pai’s main planks). My pushback was that the ‘net is all about communications. Therefore it should be under the FCC. My push back included this and the simple fact that once Pai pushes control over ISPs to the FTC companies would sue claiming that the FTC does not have jurisdiction.

    Guess what? It has already happened. One of the major ISPs in the U.S. has filed suit claiming they don’t come under the FTC either. IF (though hopefully this IF never happens) they win the suit and the FTC cannot regulate them and the FCC under Pai will not regulate them, then ISPs become entities that are not regulated at all. The whole field becomes a free for all where companies can do *anything* they want. (Maybe that’s Pai’s goal?)

    1. No, you see, by the genius logic above, if a company has NEVER done a thing before (even if the reason why, is because it was illegal then), they absolutely won’t do it in the future! You can TRUST corporations to have your well being rather than their shareholders in mind!!

      It’s all fine, though. While they may not be good for much else, some blue states are passing their own state’s rights allowed protections. 🙂

  6. “MacDailyNews Take: As we wrote last December regarding the repeal of so-called ‘net neutrality’ rules:
    The Internet will be just fine, just as it was before the FCC instituted these rules on June 12, 2015.”

    Remember why net neutrality was first enacted? It was abuse/conflict by a carrier punishing it customers.

    Please remind us why the GOP controlled FCC wants to get rid of net neutrality?

Add Your Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.