Uphill Effort To Reverse Net Neutrality Repeal Has The Early Votes

from the reverse-the-reversal dept

As we've been tracking, there are several routes net neutrality advocates should support if they want to reverse the FCC's attack on net neutrality. The best path forward remains with the courts, where the FCC will need to explain why it ignored the public, the experts, 1,000 startups, and all objective data as it rushed to give a sloppy kiss to Comcast, AT&T and Verizon. It will also need to explain why it made up a DDOS attack and blocked a law enforcement investigation into rampant comment fraud during the proceeding; both apparently ham-fisted attempts to downplay legitimate public opposition to the plan.

But we've also noted how there's an effort afoot by net neutrality advocates and Senator Ed Markey to use the Congressional Review Act to overturn the FCC's vote. Under the CRA, Congress can overturn a regulatory action with a majority vote if the Act is used within 60 days of said action. It's what the Trump administration and the GOP used early last year to kill broadband privacy protections before they were scheduled to take effect.

Bringing such a vote to the floor requires at least 30 members of the Senate, something net neutrality advocates now have with the new support of Claire McCaskill:

And while net neutrality supporters are enthusiastic about the CRA route, even with these votes it has a steep, uphill climb to success. The CRA reversal would require the signature of President Trump, which isn't going to happen. And getting House floor time for a comparable vote is likely untenable given the steeper GOP majority in the house. As we've long noted, this binary thinking of net neutrality as a partisan issue is a disservice to the public, since the vast majority of voters support net neutrality and opposed the FCC's handout to industry.

That said, there's still real value in forcing Comcast-loyal lawmakers to put their disdain for the public down on the permanent record. Especially given the looming midterms, when countless politicians will have to explain (espcially to more tech-savvy Millennial voters) why they chose to ignore the will of the public just so Comcast, AT&T and Verizon could explore new, creative ways of screwing over small businesses, startups, consumers, and the health of the internet.

Filed Under: congress, congressional review act, cra, fcc, net neutrality

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2018 @ 9:19am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "so just because it's happening everywhere you shouldn't be bothered about it?"

    It's okay to be bothered about it, just not okay to use it as an excuse to close of an avenue of attack like it mattered somehow. You cannot allow your solutions to be shutdown just because corruption is at hand, there is no such thing as a solution that does not face risk of corruption.

    "I admit I could have been clearer in that statement, what I was alluding to is the fact that ISP's push state rules when it suits them and federal rules when it suits them, IE buying state protection rules but at the same time pushing for the FCC to stop states from enacting their own NN rules or privacy rules for example."

    See, you do understand, they are going to push where we allow them to push. The point of saying now to NN and letting the states build these networks instead is to take money away from the incumbents. Are there other ways? sure, it is just not through NN because that keeps the incumbents rich and that is the root of the problem.

    "I don't even pretend to think I know what is right or wrong for you,"

    I was not trying to imply that you can't know what is right or wrong for us because you are not hear. I was just saying that everyone has corruption problems, just in different ways.

    "Please point out where I implied this, at no stage did I say I disagree with you,"

    Wait.... is this not a disagreement?

    "The biggest problem with this is the state protection law's which have been shown to be nothing but bad for consumers and some times even written by ISP's time and time again."

    This "disagreement" was even complete with two article from TD about protectionist laws being written. If you were NOT disagreeing with me... then what were you doing?

    I want the states to dismantle the ISP's and create their own networks, it will devastate the incumbent ISP's far more than weak sauce NN rules that still let the incumbents keep their monopolies and to buy more time to buy more protectionist laws and buy more regulators and stuff your bills more and more every month.

    If they lose their money because a municipal ISP sprung up its going to be better for everyone even though it is not the best possible solution.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.