This vote seems like the best chance of maintaining NN at the national level. Congress ultimately directly serve at the pleasure of their constituents, unlike the FCC commissioners.
Point being, the time leading up to this vote is probably be the best time to let your congress members know your opinion on NN. Do not let the "failure" of previous efforts to get congress to act in defense of NN dissuade you from future action, particularly now: It is far easier for a politician to take no action (as they could when the FCC was ones doing the voting) than to actively vote against the wishes of their constituents.
 Failure in scare quotes since it seems likely part of the reason NN is still a topic being actively fought for in congress, in the courts, and at a state level is because there is a large amount of vocal support for it.
This vote is an important device that serves to decouple net neutrality as a distinct political issue, rather than a footnote in a particular politician's larger platform which -- to many voters -- isn't as important as some other hot-button stances to merit single-issue voting. By triggering a senate vote, this gives an opportunity for each senator to make their stance on this a matter of official record, theoretically independent from any other affiliation they might hold. With the FCC's latest ruling opposed by a majority of liberal and conservatives alike, this is an opportunity to stand with their constituents.
The other objective of those who brought the vote is to illustrate just how few, if any, of those on the other side will vote to oppose the FCC's new rules. This can be weaponized on the ground in later elections, especially competitive districts -- or in this case, states.
The U.S. Senate voted on an older version of net neutrality in 2011 with a resolution introduced by former republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (a resolution of disapproval of the FCC's Open Internet Order of 2010). It was a party line vote, 48-52, with republicans (the minority caucus in the Senate at that time) voting against the order and democrats voting in support of the order.
Also in 2011, the U.S. House of Representatives had a disapproval vote which passed 240-179, since republicans were in the majority at that time. All but 2 republicans voted to disapprove the FCC order, while all but 6 democrats voted in support of the order.
Good, force people to put their name behind an issue.
What I don't understand is: why did it take so much effort to get to 30 supporters, when Democrats have 48 in the Senate? What are the other 18 Democratic Senators doing? Why are they not fully behind NN?
Would a CRA force a House vote as well?
(The House has another procedure called a discharge petition to force votes on things that are supported by a majority of representatives but opposed by a majority of the majority party -- it seems unlikely that there are enough votes in the House to force a net neutrality vote, though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discharge_petition)
If your senator(s) are on this list  write them to THANK them for stepping up to do so. (And if they're not, write them to request that they do so!)
This is risky. If lack of net neutrality regulation doesn't result in clearly-out-of-bounds behavior by ISPs in the near term, Democrats will be the ones looking bad for trying to add useless regulation. I hope they've thought this scenario through.
What's a good resource for understanding broadband markets as a whole?
At least in SF in the past 5 years, Comcast seems to have upgraded 100Mbps connections to 1Gbps connections. Not sure whether that translates to a bigger shared pipe for the city as a whole, but it certainly looks like a good amount of improvement in $:bits, at least in comparison with $:sqFt.
As usual, Democrats are the only party that gives a damn. Really baffling why anyone younger than me votes for anyone else.
IIRC, the FCC commissioner's (stated) argument against net neutrality was that it was Congress's job to legislate things like that, not the FCC's job to just write regulations to make it so. Arguably, it's a defensible point.
Note well: I take no position on whether this was his actual reason, or just a smoke screen.
Why net neutrality has turned into a partisan issue is beyond me, but in this era seemingly everything must be politicized as part of a divide and conquer strategy.
I suspect the best hope for net neutrality is for states to adopt it themselves at the state level.
Title II was never meant to be a good solution to net neutrality. It was used because it was the only level that the FCC had.
Congress can actually craft internet specific legislation and should. It seems like Title II has become the end game for many because of pure politics, not because it is a good solution. Remember, parts of Title II had to be ignored to get this square peg to fit.
No, don't vote for this. Develop an actual, specific policy if that is what you want. I fear that after Title II is enacted it would be very difficult to move to better policy in the future.
So they’ll lose in Congress instead. Lovely.
Bernie did it right. There is no reason for the government to force net neutrality if instead the government focused on maintaining a competitive ISP landscape.