McConnell: Net neutrality bill 'dead on arrival' in Senate | Hacker News Reader

McConnell: Net neutrality bill 'dead on arrival' in Senate

thehill.com

This is just reporting on party politics and effectively contains no information.

I kinda agree, except that if McConnell says the bill is DOA, then it is.

And this bill is relevant to HN because net neutrality is.

Unsurprising news, though. Despite popular support, the GOP doesn't support it, and they control the Senate. Why would they pass this? (from their perspective)

Why would they pass it? Because the majority of Americans want it and they are supposed to represent us? Because it’s good for the country? Because they’re supposed to put country over party, not the other way around?

There’s lots of reasons.

This is cronyism, plain and simple. Get out and vote in the next election cycle for candidates who align with your interests. Run for office if you have the time, money, and most importantly, the fortitude.

There's a PAC you can donate to if you would like to see Mitch voted out (google it, they've already raised +$500k). I won't link to it here in order to not be more political than this comment already has to be. This shouldn't be a politics issue (as jedberg mentions, a majority of Americans support NN [1]), but it has become one.

Disclaimer: I have donated to the PAC I mention, but have no other affiliation.

[1] https://thehill.com/policy/technology/364528-poll-83-percent... (Poll: 83 percent of voters support keeping FCC's net neutrality rules) (My note: 83 percent!!!)

Your representative represents you, among many. That's the vote you share. Representatives are supposed to put state or district above everything else.

EDIT: Parent edited their comment to no longer reflect who McConnell represents.

"Only 33% of Kentucky voters approve of McConnell and an overwhelming 56% disapprove." [1]

[1] https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/431002-poll-33-of-kent... (Poll: 33% of Kentucky voters approve of McConnell)

> Because the majority of Americans want it and they are supposed to represent us? Because it’s good for the country?

I’m a Manhattan Democrat. We ran a state net neutrality bill. Nobody called. Nobody wrote in. This isn’t an issue voters care deeply about (yet).

Net neutrality has popular support (I think). But nobody is there to organise the interest into an issue.

If it included anti censorship aspects they could get some GOP support from Cruz.

If the speaker doesn't want it then it will never get to the floor of the Senate.

The Speaker has minimal influence on the Senate; I think you mean th Senate Majority Leader.

It could get to the floor via a discharge petition. But Democrats are currently pro censorship so that sort of language would never get into the bill.

As the article called out, they could have worked with the GOP to pass something that would get through the Senate and president. Rather the Democratic House decided to pass a DOA bill for posturing purposes. (the GOP regularly does this too). Maybe the media should stop reporting on the posturing of the parties.

> Rather the Democratic House decided to pass a DOA bill for posturing purposes.

Are you really going to try and twist this into being the Democrats' fault?

The bill has popular support and simply returns to the rules that previously existed. It's not a drastic posturing bill. The GOP leadership could also just not be bought and paid for and do what's good for the country instead of their personal bank accounts.

I'm blaming this on all most federal politicians. As I said, republicans do this same thing. The D's passed a bill without compromise, knowing it is dead in the upper chambers. It's also the fault of the GOP not looking to compromise.

If either side was interested in actually passing something useful here, they would work together. The problem is that the federal house and senate have long been hard divided and stopped working together.

Not everything needs to be a 'compromise'. Sometimes you can just judge a bill on its merits.

The Democrats are interested in passing something useful here, while the Republicans are interested in opposing everything the Democrats could possibly do because they're Democrats.

This bill just restores the rules from the Open Internet Order of 2015.

Last term the Senate, controlled by Republicans, voted in favor of restoring those rules when there was an attempt to use the Congressional Review Act to cancel Pai's FCC's repeal of them.

The Senate is slightly more Republican now than it was then, so it might have less chance now, but it is in no way a foregone conclusion that this Senate would not vote for restoring those rules.

How is concerns about net neutrality and the absence of net neutrality party politics. Aren't all politics party politics in the USA.

As far as the topic concerns. It just goes to show how much power big business has. Clearly net neutrality is what caused the USA to become leaders in internet technology. Why not keep things fair. Who are our politicians supporting by not adopting this bill.

It’s mind blowing to me that Senate procedure still allows one party/person to control what bills even are voted on, whether that bill would gain majority vote or not. One person should not be able to say no. Let the votes speak for themselves. Even if they are just bought. This needs to change.

> It’s mind blowing to me that Senate procedure still allows one party/person to control what bills even are voted on

McConnell doesn’t wield absolute power. The Senate can remove him at any time. His leadership is a matter of efficiency and convenience, not necessity.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com