House of Representatives passes Save The Net Act to restore Net Neutrality

Protect Net Neutrality rally, San Francisco
Protect Net Neutrality rally, San Francisco (Image credit: Credo Action)

On a cold winter day in mid-December of 2017, the FCC voted to kill Net Neutrality. In June of last year, the protections that Net Neutrality offers were officially repealed.

However, things could be looking up. On April 10, 2019, the House of Representatives voted in favor of passing the Save the Net Act — an act that would restore Net Neutrality in the U.S.

Per Jessica Rosenworcel, FCC Commissioner who's been an active supporter of Net Neutrality, shared the following on April 10:

See more

While this is an important step forward if bringing back Net Neutrality, there's still a lot of work that needs to be done in order for it to be restored.

The Save the Net Act's next stop is the Senate, and this is where things will get heated. Republicans, which are widely against Net Neutrality, currently have a 53% share of the Senate with Democrats holding 47%. For comparison's sake, the House of Represenatives is 54.5% Democratic and 45.6% Republican.

Even if the Save the Net Act passes the Senate, there's the very likely reality that President Trump will veto it.

If you're in favor of Net Neutrality and want to see it get approved by the Senate, your best bet is to get in touch with your local Senator and encourage them to vote in favor of it.

Net neutrality, consolidation, monopolies, and you

Joe Maring was a Senior Editor for Android Central between 2017 and 2021. You can reach him on Twitter at @JoeMaring1.

  • This is dead already. Politicians need to start doing useful things with their time. Maybe they should all get second jobs and give that money to the government. That'd be more helpful.
  • Net Neutrality has been and will always be a false flag.
  • Agreed. It only leads to government controlled internet. False flag all the way
  • Government controlled net? More like not abused by any ISP including government to gain more profit based how I use it.
  • Yes, and the first amendment leads to government controlled speech... wait...
  • Damn, sorry I just enjoy not having to deal with even more ISP bullshit! Guess we're all just government drones!
  • Your political overloads must be happy you believe that...
  • I'd like to see how you arrive at that conclusion. If your purpose is to actually try to persuade people, just dropping accusations will get you no where. You can't just say, "no, you're wrong," and expect people to just say, "oh, duh, yeah. of course." People don't just change their minds when given an opposing idea. If anything, they'll become even more set in their ways. So, without any sort of reasoning behind your statement, it's essentially useless and offers absolutely nothing to the conversation about net neutrality. Maybe kicked up a conversation about debate, but that's not really the point. So, I'll stick with saying its essentially useless.
  • This won't even come to a vote. Mitch McConnell will keep it from reaching the Senate floor, which in turn will protect those GOP senators whose constituents want them to vote FOR Net Neutrality by keeping a "no" vote off their record.
  • Its the wrong time for this legislation. There is no hope it will get further than the house. The Senate and Oval office are controlled by those who favor the interests of great wealth and power. This is just a symbolic line drawn in the sand. We will live to fight another day. Net neutrality will be reinstated.
  • You NEVER stop fighting for what you want...NEVER. People of such little faith.
  • Im nothing if not pragmatic.
  • No, its the right time. Passing legislation isn't the only reason to vote on something. If they can force someone to vote against it, they can use that to run against them during elections. It's much more effective to say "[insert name] voted against a free net," as opposed to saying "i'm *pretty* sure [insert name] is against a free net, but i have no evidence."
  • Which is why I said that it was a symbolic line in the sand. It's a way of forcing the Repubs to publicly own the repeal of net neutrality.
  • Oh, look! A bill that will do exactly the OPPOSITE of its name! You people are such rubes.
  • Why is it that I've yet to ever see an actual informative argument against net neutrality?
  • lEt tHe mArKeT dEcIdE tHe pRiCeS
  • First of all, it wasn't a cold winter day for everyone, I live in Texas. Second, why hasn't the sky fallen yet?
  • Verizon Wireless raised prices on all their plans and severely limited "unlimited" almost to the day it went into effect.
  • None of which has anything to do with net neutrality
  • If the Senate doesn't pass net neutrality, then let there be no doubt that the Senate has zero interest in doing anything for average Americans.... Does the Senate only serve the 1% and corporate America?
  • Too bad most folks do not understand what Net Neutrality actually is. No, it is not getting the internet for free, like some actually think, as I understand it. It is so the internet can be made a level playing field.
  • You're understanding the arguments wrong. The internet is a level playing field, especially with net neutrality. It'll become uneven once your ISP blocks or slows down traffic to the website's of their competitors.
  • Almost the entire mainstream media landscape supports Democrats so it's nearly impossible to find honest reporting on things like Net Neutrality. If you do enough personal research you'll find excellent analysis showing there are serious Pros and serious Cons.