Not to sound like a pessimist, but I don't take anything like this seriously. "Political Party resumes fight for popular thing" really means "political party knows how to quickly get some good PR"<p>You can't take what politicians publicly support at face value unless they are proposing a law that will be passed because they hold the numbers to pass it.<p>Its easy to pick up some popular thing and parade it around when you will never have to put your money where your mouth is.
The actual bill: <a href="https://www.markey.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/net_neutrality_and_broadband_justice_act.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.markey.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/net_neutrality_a...</a>
Is essential service the same as a utility? With only having one or two provides in many areas, what happens if you end up taking the provider to court for service issues and they kick you off your platform and you have no other options, or the other option is a small fraction of the speed?<p>I think one of the best things Democrats could do would be to eliminate the enforcement of arbitration clauses and jury waivers from ISPs. If it is an essential service, there is no reason you should be forced to sign an arbitration agreement in order to get service.
I've learned to tune out any headline that includes "Democrat" or "Republican" as it's typically useless PR or an otherwise biased piece.
One aspect of net neutrality that doesn't make sense to me is the ban to throttle traffic. It's bandwidth over some time period and higher peak loads does cost more.<p>A simple example is how on airplanes, WiFi doesn't support streaming video, etc. but allows text messaging. So would this bill make that illegal? If so, that wouldn't make video streaming on planes come sooner, just make plane WiFi more expensive.
net neutrality was repealed a while ago. what effects do we see today? because all of the predictions of internet plans that only included google and Facebook, with access to more sites for more money, seems to have not happened.