Free Press Action said that, as of Tuesday morning (April 9), hours before the planned debate on the Save the Internet Act, 214 Democrats have now signaled their support. 

The official number of co-sponsors was cut off at 197 last week as the bill started to move toward the floor, but sponsor Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) said that number had swelled to 209 by Monday night, and Free Press said that was now 214, noting several Dems who had voted for it in committee and adding them to the list. 

“The momentum of the Save the Internet Act is a stunning reflection of the public support for real Net Neutrality protections," said Free Press Action's Sandra Fulton. "People across party lines understand that without Net Neutrality rules grounded on the strong legal foundation of Title II, our ability to create, seek and share information is in jeopardy." 

But the bill still needs three more Dems (the House currently has 432 members with three vacancies), or failing that, three Republicans to cross the aisle on the issue, an unlikely scenario. "Any holdouts in Congress need to stop neglecting bipartisan public demand for Net Neutrality safeguards and support of this bill," said Fulton.

The Trump Administration is advising the President to veto the bill if it makes it past the House and the Republican-controlled Senate, which even some Dems agree is a tall order.

Just how far apart the net neutrality camps remain was in evidence in the written testimony for a March 12 hearing on network neutrality legislation.

Robert McDowell, who had an inside-the-ropes seat for the legal and regulatory pendulum swings of net neutrality as a Republican FCC commissioner, did not even mention the Democrat-backed bill that prompted the legislative hearing, saying that a good starting point would be the internet openness principles adopted under former FCC chairman Kevin Martin--though McDowell doesn't think any rules are needed--while Matt Wood of Free Press, a big fan of Title II-backed rules, talked at length in support of the bill and its reimposition of that classification.

That bill, HR 1644, the Save the Internet Act, would essentially restore the Title II-based rules McDowell thinks aren't needed, and definitely not under Title II.

Related: Witnesses Set for Net Neutrality Hearing

"The only path to that goal of meaningful, positive and constructive public policy for the Internet–a law that will last beyond election cycles of two to four to eight years–is through finding that reasonable majority that offers a win-win-win scenario for all who build and are affected by the Internet," said McDowell, currently a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. "Without a large bipartisan majority, any legislative effort is largely symbolic."

And while he did not mention the Title II-based Democratic effort, which also includes the 2015 Open Internet order's "general conduct standard" that McDowell and others see as an overbroad license to regulate that could chill innovation and investment," it is clear the Save the Internet Act would fall into that category.

Matt Wood VP and general counsel of Free Press Action Fund, hardly finished identifying himself before he talked of Free Press' full support for HR 1644.

He talked of its 132 co-sponsors in the House, pointed out that it had been four years to the day since the 2015 Open Internet Order was released, and said the bill would "clearly and concisely" restore that order's provisions. He said that restoring the general conduct standard was also critical.

But most important, he said, was the bill's "fixing in place" the classification of internet access as a Title II telecommunications service. He conceded that "may" cause the most debate, which may be a bit of an understatement.

Despite talk from both camps that Congress probably needs to weigh in to clarify the government's net neutrality authority, a solution seems as far away as ever.

WASHINGTON — Free Press Action Fund released a 2016 Internet Voter Guide Monday (March 14) providing its take on the candidates views on the issues the net neutrality fan says are most important to Internet voters.

Nobody got particularly high marks on the issue of encryption, with free press saying no candidate has backed "strong, pro-consumer" measures.

"Donald Trump, Sen. Ted Cruz and Sen. Marco Rubio have all challenged Apple’s right to protect the security of its users, and both Democratic candidates vaguely advocated for both parties to work together for a solution," Free Press said. For its part, the group has backed protests of the FBI's legal effort to get Apple to help it access info on the phone of one of the San Bernardino shooters.

The guide also out, for example, that Hillary Clinton in 2015 wrote a piece in support of the FCC's preemption of state laws limiting municipal broadband buildouts, while Ted Cruz wrote the FCC claiming it was a threat to states rights

Other takeaways:

• "While more than 34 million Americans lack truly high-speed Internet at home, Donald Trump and Cruz have been silent on the issue and Gov. John Kasich has suggested that consumers are to blame for high broadband prices. In the Republican field, only Rubio has backed legislation to expand affordable Wi-Fi deployment and further use of unlicensed spectrum for Internet access.

• "Though three-quarters of Americans have either no broadband or no choice of Internet service providers, Cruz and Rubio oppose community broadband networks, which give local businesses and residents alternative options for high-speed Internet access. Neither Trump nor Kasich have articulated positions on the issue.

• "Cruz was one of only four Republicans to sponsor the USA Freedom Act, which curbs some of the government’s mass surveillance powers, and Kasich agreed that it was a “step forward.” When Secretary Hillary Clinton was in the Senate, she cast votes that enabled NSA mass surveillance but has since called on the NSA to be more transparent. Sen. Bernie Sanders has opposed the Patriot Act and stated that he would 'absolutely' end sweeping NSA surveillance. Trump and Rubio are both in favor of government spying on Americans.

• "Cruz, Rubio and Trump all oppose the Net Neutrality protections that millions of Americans fought for: All three Republican contenders have come out against the FCC’s open Internet rules. Both Democratic candidates have advocated for enforcing strong Net Neutrality rules."