Democrats Are Just One Vote Shy of Restoring Net Neutrality (engadget.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Engadget: Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer now says Democrats in the Senate are a single vote away from restoring net neutrality. According to the senator from New York, they now have a total of 50 votes for a Senate resolution of disapproval that would restore the Open Internet Order of 2015 and deliver a stiff rebuke to Ajit Pai and other Republican members of the FCC. It would also prevent the agency from passing a similar measure in the future, all but guaranteeing Net Neutrality is permanently preserved. Right now the resolution has the support of all 49 Democrats in the Senate and one Republican, Susan Collins of Maine. But Schumer and the rest of the caucus will have to win over one more Republican vote to prevent Vice President Mike Pence from breaking tie and allowing the repeal to stand. Under the Congressional Review Act, the Senate has 60 days to challenge a decision by an independent agency like the FCC. Democrats have less than 30 days to convince a "moderate" like John McCain or Lindsey Graham to buck their party. Further reading: The Washington Post (paywalled)

Comments

What they really need

[Baron_Yam]

They don't need a moderate Republican. Given the current state of the involved politics, what they need is a pissed off Republican who isn't interested in continuing in public service and who will vote to hurt Trump... OK, and who is also somewhat moderate by the standards of Trumpism.

There are a couple of those, if I've been following things as well as I think I have.

Re:What they really need

[zifn4b]

They don't need a moderate Republican. Given the current state of the involved politics, what they need is a pissed off Republican who isn't interested in continuing in public service and who will vote to hurt Trump

This is the stupidest thing I've ever read. You're suggesting people ought to vote on things not because of the merits of what they're voting on but out of vindictive spite. And you wonder why there is so much vitriol in politics. Your mindset is part of the problem.

Re:What they really need

[thomst]

Baron Yam observed:

They don't need a moderate Republican. Given the current state of the involved politics, what they need is a pissed off Republican who isn't interested in continuing in public service and who will vote to hurt Trump... OK, and who is also somewhat moderate by the standards of Trumpism.

There are a couple of those, if I've been following things as well as I think I have.

If only that were true. Unfortunately, it is not.

What they need - in addition to another Republican vote - is either a signature from the President, or a willingness on his part to allow their repeal bill to become law without his signature.

That might happen, especially if the Democrats cave on funding his ridiculous wall. However, given his record of doing whatever the couch creatures on Fox News tell him to do, that's probably not the way to bet ...

Re:What they really need

[Baron_Yam]

>This is the stupidest thing I've ever read.

No, just a stupid interpretation of what I posted. That's on you.

>You're suggesting people ought to vote on things not because of the merits of what they're voting on but out of vindictive spite.

See, that's where you let your stupidity get the better of you, and you inferred what was never implied.

No 'ought' at all. That's the way it works right now in the GOP; vote Trump, unless you have nothing to lose and are pissed that he's destroying the party.

Re:What they really need

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't need a moderate Republican. Given the current state of the involved politics, what they need is a pissed off Republican who isn't interested in continuing in public service and who will vote to hurt Trump

This is the stupidest thing I've ever read. You're suggesting people ought to vote on things not because of the merits of what they're voting on but out of vindictive spite. And you wonder why there is so much vitriol in politics. Your mindset is part of the problem.

Politics has become a fucking joke. Much like the idiotic meme-laden videos that Ajit created as a pathetic response to NN. You want to know where the childish antics stem from? Look at the fucking morons in charge. And it's not getting any better. We'll be electing a Kardashian to the senate and Zuckerberg will be POTUS at this fucking rate. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

Re:What they really need

[Anonymous Coward]

You're suggesting people ought to vote on things not because of the merits of what they're voting on but out of vindictive spite.

Spite is maybe the wrong word, but I'll take it. Voting against things because you don't like the leadership is an effective strategy for change. Leadership only works if people follow. Not blindly following your party and voting against something you might not even care about, or possibly even agree (in this instance) can work to break up a direction you don't like. There's more to politics than individual battles.

Re:What they really need

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at the fucking morons in charge.

Look at the fucking morons who put them there! The power they have is only the power they were given, by you! the voter!

Re:What they really need

[AvitarX]

My understanding is that it still needs support of the president and the house, simply that it cannot be fillibustered because it is a review and not a law.

Re:What they really need

[jellomizer]

The problem that I see is that loyalty has swapped.
Where Senators and Representatives should have their loyalty in the following order.
To their State, to their Country finally to their Party.
Their loyalty seems to show they are more loyal to their party, then to the country and finally to the State they represent.

The few considered moderate republicans, are not necessarily moderate, but comprehend how such laws will effect their state, and their country first, vs the party line.

Re: What they really need

[Anonymous Coward]

If that was your intent, you sure did not express it very well.

Really, it's easier to understand if you quote the whole sentence:

Given the current state of the involved politics, what they need is a pissed off Republican who isn't interested in continuing in public service and who will vote to hurt Trump.

That's a statement of the politics, not an endorsement or suggestion, but a reflection on said conditions in politics.

Re:What they really need

[jellomizer]

No I got the vindictive vibe from your comment too.
There is an old phrase, "Even a broken clock is right twice a day." So while a lot of Trump presidency is broken, every once in a while something right gets out. So voting just because you don't like the guy and what he is doing, just because he is mostly wrong, will prevent taking advantage of good when it comes out.

That said, from my experience with jerks like Trump, they are actually easily manipulated. You just stroke their Ego, and protect them, and they will let you do whatever you want.

Re:What they really need

[T.E.D.]

This is the stupidest thing I've ever read. You're suggesting people ought to vote on things not because of the merits of what they're voting on but out of vindictive spite. And you wonder why there is so much vitriol in politics. Your mindset is part of the problem.

...only surpassed by the naiveté of acting like the entire Republican caucus hasn't been doing exactly this already since 2008. If they're gonna be like this, perhaps they can use it for GOOD for once.

Re:What they really need

[bondsbw]

Actually what put them there is the system that they exploit.

Only two candidates typically have a shot, so a vote for the best candidate is wasted and we vote against the worst candidate. On which we fervently disagree, giving credibility to the idea that the candidates who rise up are the worst ones.

A better voting system (such as range voting) would help reverse this mentality. Then you could vote based on your individual conscience without sacrificing your political will against the most terrible candidates.

Re:What they really need

[XxtraLarGe]

This is the stupidest thing I've ever read. You're suggesting people ought to vote on things not because of the merits of what they're voting on but out of vindictive spite. And you wonder why there is so much vitriol in politics. Your mindset is part of the problem.

Isn't that exactly what McCain did in the Obamacare "repeal" vote? He dramatically flew back in to Washington and cast a no vote to kill the measure, after saying that he would support it. Allegedly after that, he told Chuck Schumer "Let's see Donald Trump make America great again now."

Re:What they really need

[thegarbz]

You're suggesting people ought to vote on things not because of the merits of what they're voting on but out of vindictive spite.

Is that better or worst than voting on things not because of the merits of what they're voting on but based on what colour appears under their name on their wikipedia page?

Re:What they really need

[PopeRatzo]

You're suggesting people ought to vote on things not because of the merits of what they're voting on but out of vindictive spite.

That's how Trump ended up president.

Re:What they really need

[duke_cheetah2003]

This is the stupidest thing I've ever read. You're suggesting people ought to vote on things not because of the merits of what they're voting on but out of vindictive spite. And you wonder why there is so much vitriol in politics. Your mindset is part of the problem.

Trump's election to POTUS was vindictive spite from the right in this country. I am perfectly ok with the left hitting back. Trump's entire presidency has been one spite after another, reversing everything his predecessor did that he can, not because he believes in those positions, but because Barack Obama did.

Re:What they really need

[Critical Facilities]

No. The problem is that there are no more Democrats left. They all turned into social democrats leaving those of us who aren't communists without a liberal party to vote for.

What an absurd statement. You're throwing the word "communist" around and expect to be taken seriously?

Re:What they really need

[Critical Facilities]

Nail on the head

Re:What they really need

[Anonymous Coward]

No 'ought' at all. That's the way it works right now in the GOP; vote Trump, unless you have nothing to lose and are pissed that he's destroying the party.

What's your solution? More complaining and whining? As I said, you're part of the problem. You're either part of the problem or part of the solution. You offered nothing constructive therefore, you are part of the problem.

Will someone invoke the precipitate joke?

Re:What they really need

[Creepy]

Even if they sway the Senate and get their vote and then persuade the House to do the same, I give Trump 162.671% chance of vetoing it (using Trumpian math, anything else is fake news). After that they need 2/3 majority, and I'm sure Comcast and Verizon can provide enough bribes to keep that from happening.

Re:What they really need

[Green Mountain Bot]

The solution seems obvious: vote the GOP out of office.

Re:What they really need

[Green Mountain Bot]

Where Senators and Representatives should have their loyalty in the following order. To their State, to their Country finally to their Party.

Shouldn't "their constituents" be somewhere on that list?

Re:What they really need

[Martin Blank]

Parties have enormous power under the First Amendment (right to free assembly) to determine how their party works. The DNC and RNC have vastly different primary rules and are allowed to as current interpretations of the First Amendment do not allow the government to interfere much with them.

These rules are also not used that often so even ideas meant to improve things don't get much testing. Public selection of candidates for major parties has only been around since the early 1970s, first getting some use in the 1972 election, so they've only been used about a dozen times. That's including incumbent primaries, though, so it's even fewer for each party.

In the case of Democrats, Sanders had a huge hurdle to get past with the superdelegates backing Clinton from the start, putting him at a distinct disadvantage before the first vote was cast. The DNC assigns delegates based on election results, so a candidate getting 60% of the vote in a two-person race will get 60% of the delegates.

Republicans do things differently, leaving it up to states how to apportion delegates. Some go winner-takes-all, some do proportional, some do proportional with floors. On top of that, additional delegates are assigned to a state that voted for the last Republican presidential candidate or has elected positions held by Republicans or a majority of Republicans.

And those are heavily simplified versions, as there are a ton of other caveats. There are other important bits, but one factor that the parties seem to work together on is primary scheduling. This is why Iowa goes first and other states go in weird orders. A state that violates a party's earliest allowed date can be ignored by the party. It's perfectly legal to do so, as freedom of association means that the parties can exclude anyone they want.

It's an ugly mess, but fixing it might get uglier.

Re:What they really need

[werepants]

The problem that I see is that loyalty has swapped.
Where Senators and Representatives should have their loyalty in the following order.
To their State, to their Country finally to their Party.
Their loyalty seems to show they are more loyal to their party, then to the country and finally to the State they represent.

I agree that loyalty isn't where it should be, but it seems to me that Senators and Representatives are often loyal in this order: Campaign donors, Noisy Extremists, Party, State, Country

Campaign donors should be nowhere on the list, especially because they can represent foreign interests or corporate interests that are in opposition to the interests of most of the population (state or country).

Re:What they really need

[ChrisMaple]

Most Senators and Representatives have as their first priority lining their own pockets, which makes as their 2nd priority serving those who bribe them.

Re:What they really need

[sconeu]

I believe "State" is the constituency for a senator.

Re:What they really need

[Ichijo]

You're suggesting people ought to vote on things not because of the merits of what they're voting on but out of vindictive spite.

Sometimes people need a little push to make them wake up and start thinking for themselves. Trump has a certain charisma that makes people blindly follow him like sheep. (And then they accuse the Democrats of being sheep, oh the irony!)

Re:What they really need

[Green Mountain Bot]

No, it is not. The voters of a particular state are the constituency, not the government of that state. That's been the case for more than a century.

Re:What they really need

[Gavagai80]

Sometimes vindictive spite is the only way a lawmaker can get the courage to vote for what they believe, instead of for what the party whip tells them they have to vote for if they want their next campaign financed. It's like when you're in a toxic office environment but you wear a smile and toe the company line until your last day when you spill the harsh truth in your exit interview.

Re: What they really need

[kenh]

They have 30 days to override the FCC's action, any delay past that date would require either the drafting of a bill that not only passes the House and Senate, but is also signed into law by President Trump OR they have to wait to win back the whitehouse and then seat a different Chairman and start the process all over again.

Re: What they really need

[kenh]

You seem to be ignoring that Democrat voters in the primaries, picked Clinton a hell of a lot of times when they could have picked Sanders instead. Blame the DNC if you must, but millions of people did fill in the circle next to Clinton. Were they just following DNC orders?

You seem to be ignoring that the DNC failedto treat Bernie Sanders fairly, denied him resources and support, and at one point he had to threaten to sue the DNC to get that which the party traditionally made available to previous candidates without issue.

Pretend the Democrat party was fair if you must, but Bernie got a raw deal.

Re:What they really need

[duke_cheetah2003]

I don't care if Congress doesn't want to work with a president. That is their prerogative and right. I do care if a president tries to go around a congress to force his agenda.

Oh I get it. Barack definitely made some pretty bad choices. He had a nasty situation with obstructionists in congress whom refused to play ball, no matter what. Now the Democrats are trying the same ploy. I dunno if it's working any better.

However, when (and not if) Democrats retake Senate and Congress, you can bet your panties Mr. Trump will start doing the same shit Barack did. Implementing policy via executive action.

I'm not saying what Barack did was a good idea, obviously it wasn't cuz all it's taking is a lunatic with a pen to undo everything Barack did. But that pen swings both ways, you can also bet your panties there will be lots of reversals and rollbacks of Trump's insanity, too. This is just not how our country was designed to be governed. Barack showed us the way to executive governance, Trump likes it too. It's not good for anyone.

Re:What they really need

[sconeu]

Good point. I stand corrected. I was conflating the two (voters and the government).

In theory, the two are the same thing, but we all know how that goes.

Re:What they really need

[duke_cheetah2003]

Barack Obama is an enemy of the United States, as evidenced by his support of Islam.

Sure I'm bored, I'll bite. You're a racist idiot. Support of some religion has absolutely nothing to do with someone's status as a 'enemy' or 'friend' of our country. Are you really this stupid? Ever heard of separation of church and state?

If anyone is an enemy of the USA, you are. You're an idiot with a broken world view. A waste of the O2 you breath. Good day.

Re:What they really need

[Green Mountain Bot]

Too true!

Re:What they really need

[penandpaper]

However, when (and not if) Democrats retake Senate and Congress, you can bet your panties Mr. Trump will start doing the same shit Barack did. Implementing policy via executive action.

And I will say the same thing. So far the he has undone executive overreach.

For all the problems of undoing stuff like DACA it really was on Congress to fix the problem. For DACA, as example, at least that started the conversation on policy instead of empty rhetoric, broken promises, and uncertain futures. That is a whole lot better than illegally ignoring the law and executive overreach to kick the can down the road.

If it gets to a point that we have the executive undoing everything from the last 4-8 years maybe congress will act and do its job. The ACA is still around because it was law.

Re:What they really need

[Obfuscant]

No, it is not. The voters of a particular state are the constituency, not the government of that state.

No. The Senate was designed and is supposed to function as representatives of the state. That's why every state gets two senators. Every state has the same representation in the Senate. This has not been changed since the Constitution was enacted.

The fact that states have chosen to make the selection through a popular vote does not change that fact.

Re:What they really need

[zifn4b]

This is the stupidest thing I've ever read. You're suggesting people ought to vote on things not because of the merits of what they're voting on but out of vindictive spite. And you wonder why there is so much vitriol in politics. Your mindset is part of the problem.

...only surpassed by the naiveté of acting like the entire Republican caucus hasn't been doing exactly this already since 2008. If they're gonna be like this, perhaps they can use it for GOOD for once.

Really? This is exclusively the behavior of the Republican party and the Democrats are somehow saints? Both parties are crap for different reasons. The whole system is broke because of that. Both of them want to bankrupt the country, they just want to do it in different ways.

Re:What they really need

[zifn4b]

You're suggesting people ought to vote on things not because of the merits of what they're voting on but out of vindictive spite.

That's how Trump ended up president.

It's also how Obama ended being president as well. I swear you liberals think you're all high and mighty on the moral high ground. What a joke. That's why no one takes you seriously because you're a bunch of pompous, arrogant, narcissists living in a delusional world that has infinite money.

Re:What they really need

[zifn4b]

Trump won on a vision of an America advancing by removing the fetters of government.

Contrast that with Obama, who won on the premise that he would effect vengeance on those who were prejudiced.

And of course because you're not evangelizing liberal ideology which seems to be the majority on slashdot here, you get modded Flamebait even though there is nothing remotely flamebait about your comment. Fuck liberal censorship is what I have to say to that.

Re:What they really need

[Karmashock]

The only compromise is one where it is appreciated that the US is not Sweden and the US is not a Unitary government. The only compromise is where the various states are permitted to do what they please as suits those states within reason and the Federal government only concerns itself with what must be federal.

Creating situations where its all or nothing... where its winner take all... where its one group gets everything they want and the other side gets screwed... well, you get "this".

And if it doesn't stop then the union itself will break up. You can't control the US this way. The states must be afforded reasonable limited sovereignty. The Federal government but be held to accountable standards where changes in policy happen democratically through the due process of our legislature and courts.

And if this isn't happening... and it hasn't been happening... then the republic will dissolve and those demanding control over all will have control over none.

This is non-negotiable.

The price of maintaining a unified nation is respecting rule of law and tolerating diversity between the sensibilities of the states.

If you can't do that, then the political instability will get worse until it shakes the republic apart at its foundations... leaving you with less than you'd control had you simply respected the law and your fellow citizens.

Re:What they really need

[just another AC]

Senators and Representatives are often loyal in this order: Campaign donors, Noisy Extremists, Party, State, Country

...or more accurately

Campaign donors, Noisy Extremists, Media, Party, Potential future employers, State, Country, People of the State, People of the Country, ... and then a long way behind the environment and people of the world.

Re:What they really need

[penandpaper]

The fact that states have chosen to make the selection through a popular vote does not change that fact.

Although, it seems the lofty goals of the 17th amendment have failed to materialize.

The Senate, supposed to be a bulwark of public passion, is in effect the same as the House with longer terms.

Re:What they really need

[Obfuscant]

The Senate, supposed to be a bulwark of public passion, is in effect the same as the House with longer terms.

A lack of civics education in the free public schools has led to a confusion in the masses. It has become what you say, but was not intended to be that way. Had the states remained firm in appointing senators instead of making them popularity contests, I think things would be different today.

Re:What they really need

[iMadeGhostzilla]

Actually I'm rather pleased with Slashdot. You should see the angry liberal mobs on Ars. In my opinion this is not even about being liberal as it is about the herd pressure among nerds to stand against absolutely anything Trump because he is seen as anti-intellectual. That a good amount of slashdotters ignore the pressure and choose to think for themselves (I'm not counting those anonymous first posts) is encouraging.

Re:What they really need

[mjwx]

They don't need a moderate Republican. Given the current state of the involved politics, what they need is a pissed off Republican who isn't interested in continuing in public service and who will vote to hurt Trump... OK, and who is also somewhat moderate by the standards of Trumpism.

Or one republican who's worried about their chances of re-election.

Re:What they really need

[Green Mountain Bot]

The 17th didn't give states the option to allow the popular vote to decide Senate races - it REQUIRED it. And it did indeed change the constituency from state governments to the population of the state. The original intent doesn't matter when the intent has been legally changed through constitutional amendment.

Re: What they really need

[kenh]

They promised him a fair shot at being their candidacy, then worked against him every time they could.

Re: What they really need

[kenh]

In America today, many/most voters choose not to vote FOR someone but to vote AGAINST someone else.

Many Trump voters chose Trump because they didn't want to see Hillary in office. Similarly, many Hillary voters chose Hillary because they didn't want to see Trump in office.

Re:What they really need

[zifn4b]

In my opinion this is not even about being liberal as it is about the herd pressure among nerds to stand against absolutely anything Trump because he is seen as anti-intellectual.

That's just another form of elitist douchery. It's the pot calling the kettle black.

scare quotes

[Orgasmatron]

Calling John McCain and Lindsey Graham "moderate" is the best use of scare quotes I've seen in a long time.

Unintentional?

Re:scare quotes

[JackieBrown]

It's perspective. Some call them conservative, some call them moderate, some call them liberals (by American standards - please refrain from the "they are extreme right for Europe), and some call them sell outs who will go against what they say they believe for some positive press.

Re:scare quotes

[AmiMoJo]

The old system was better than the new one. They are one vote away from getting it back.

Why would they write a new bill from the ground up and start fresh building support for it?

Also, do you not see the irony of complaining about people screeching "nazi" and the immediately, in the very same sentence, screeching "nazi" yourself?

Re:scare quotes

[Holi]

Since when are you the person who defines what being a Republican means? Maybe it's you guys on the extreme right who are RINOs as most are far more moderate then you.

Re:scare quotes

[Mashiki]

Why would they write a new bill from the ground up and start fresh building support for it?

Ask yourself the question: "Why do I want to support a bill which has the backing of organizations that are actively censoring."

Also, do you not see the irony of complaining about people screeching "nazi" and the immediately, in the very same sentence, screeching "nazi" yourself?

No, because I'm using the left's definition of "nazi." If the left wants to screech that Richard Spencer is a nazi for being an ethnonationalist, and the democrats vote in a person who's an ethonationalist. They are by their own definition a nazi.

Re:scare quotes

[Mashiki]

Since when are you the person who defines what being a Republican means? Maybe it's you guys on the extreme right who are RINOs as most are far more moderate then you.

"Extreme right" aka constitutionalist that believes it's not a "living breathing document", holds "pro-gun" views, doesn't like censorship, and believes that "smaller government" and "state rights" should be the primary drivers.

Re:scare quotes

[AmiMoJo]

Ask yourself the question: "Why do I want to support a bill which has the backing of organizations that are actively censoring."

Ask yourself the question: "Why do I want to block a bill that will prevent organizations that are actively censoring having an even greater financial interest in censorship?"

Re:scare quotes

[Mashiki]

So why don't you tell everyone why a bureaucrat in Washington DC., should be the one to decide where a new hospital is built. I'm not sure what's worse, that Canadian provinces have more control over healthcare decisions then US states, or you bringing up "ye olde Somalia" bullshit because that's the very definition of spewing ignorant talking points like a parrot.

Re:scare quotes

[Mashiki]

Ask yourself the question: "Why do I want to block a bill that will prevent organizations that are actively censoring having an even greater financial interest in censorship?"

So in other words you have nothing? That bill doesn't prevent organizations from censoring anything, if you actually read it? It's far more useless then anything else with so many loopholes that it actually allows censorship via regulations to exist at the behest of the ISP.

Then again, for a Brit that has serious problems in their own country censoring speech and the police acting as modern day censors? I'd say look to your own damn mess before commenting on things on this side of the pond.

Re: scare quotes

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a lie comcast was blocking torrents before net neutrality. Look it up. Even now video gets throttled on various ISPs. We need net neutrality now!

Re:scare quotes

[AmiMoJo]

You are conflating two completely different issues. Net Neutrality isn't about censorship, it's about charging more for access to some services or giving preferential treatment to some services.

The new rules don't do anything about censorship anyway, so by going back to the old ones you will not be in a worse position on that front. The old position is well understood, and has almost enough support now. Starting over with a new anti-censorship bill would only ensure that nothing gets passed and you get to pay $49.95/month extra for "HD video services" on your broadband bill.

Re:scare quotes

[Mashiki]

Ever been to Switzerland? How about Singapore? No, I'm guessing not. How about before China started cracking down on Hong Kong. How about you should grow the fuck up and realize that *smaller government* doesn't mean no government? The only thing you're doing is showing everyone that your range and understanding of politics could fill a teaspoon.

Re:scare quotes

[jedidiah]

> I don't even think you have a clue where and how the term "states rights" originated.

It originated with the fact that the original colonies viewed themselves as independent nations. Even now, individual states run their own affairs. The national government was never meant to micromanage things. It's supposed to be inherently limited. Even the Constitution is supposed to be limits on government (rather than an enumeration individual rights).

The original colonies were so wary of a national government that they tried and failed to set up the US as a loose confederacy.

Re:scare quotes

[jedidiah]

> well show me and example of this so called great "small government" you crave.

Health insurance before Obamacare. My state handled it well on it's own. I could buy insurance on my own independent of my employer. The private option was actually better and cheaper than what any employer offered.

Now the private market has been destroyed. Prices tripled. The best class of plans is no longer available. If I were in the private market, a lot of doctors would be out of network for me. I would be locked out of the single best facility available to treat my condition.

After 10 years of having the same very good insurance company, I now have to switch policies annually at the whim of my employer. They do this in the middle of the year to screw me out of my deductible (companies get around the new ACA rules meant to stop this).

Every time I have to deal with the crap from a crappy insurance company I would never have chosen to use, I want to kick Obama in the balls and I get a renewed appreciation for federalism.

I don't mind that my city has a free hospital. I don't mind that we pay for it directly. That is far more sensible than sending our money to DC and then having our local hospital mired in federal nonsense.

You're trying to conflate more localized governance with Somalia. That's the kind of dishonest nonsense that poisons useful public policy debate.

We just don't want idiots that can't manage their own states spreading their incompetence around any further.

Re:scare quotes

[Mashiki]

You are conflating two completely different issues. Net Neutrality isn't about censorship, it's about charging more for access to some services or giving preferential treatment to some services.

No, I'm actually not. Go read all the regulations and get back to me, you'll figure out the ones that allow organizations to censor fairly quickly if you've studied law at all.

you get to pay $49.95/month extra for "HD video services" on your broadband bill.

Funny thing, that was already happening under that set of regulations. Including restricting traffic, and traffic shaping.

Re:scare quotes

[skam240]

"Paul is far closer to an actual Liberal(not the modern corrupted version)...."

Sigh...

In America a liberal is some one associated with the political Left. If you want the classical deffinition to be used, go elsewhere but please stop with the convoluted word play.

We also call what the rest of the world calls football, soccer.

Furthermore, your claim that a self declared Libertarian would vote for a strong federal government program that helped people get health care if only it were simpler is rediculous.

Re:scare quotes

[AmiMoJo]

Switzerland and Singapore both have pretty harsh taxation, especially by US standards. I don't think you would like living in those countries.

Re:scare quotes

[Green Mountain Bot]

It's perspective. Some call them conservative, some call them moderate, some call them liberals (by American standards - please refrain from the "they are extreme right for Europe), and some call them sell outs who will go against what they say they believe for some positive press.

They are not even vaguely liberal by any standard, including American standards.

Re:scare quotes

[Mashiki]

Switzerland and Singapore both have pretty harsh taxation, especially by US standards. I don't think you would like living in those countries.

Tax rates don't determine the ability for citizens to actually have control. I realize that this might be difficult for you, but systems of government outside of a westminister parliament exist, and a system of hereditary senate which isn't elected doesn't exist in most places.

Re:scare quotes

[AmiMoJo]

You know that I don't actually like the UK or the UK parliamentary system, right? I guess not, as you keep arguing against this imaginary version of me.

Re:scare quotes

[Drakonblayde]

Yeah, I suggest you Google 'Comcast' 'Sandvine' and 'BitTorrent' sometime. You might be surprised.

Re:scare quotes

[Mashiki]

You know that I don't actually like the UK or the UK parliamentary system, right? I guess not, as you keep arguing against this imaginary version of me.

People reflect their government in many cases, you just happen to reflect the general craziness that your authoritarian leaders keep pushing.

Re:scare quotes

[Mashiki]

In America a liberal is some one associated with the political Left.

Only in the last 20 years or so, most people don't actually use that bastardization in that sense in political circles even *in* the US.

Furthermore, your claim that a self declared Libertarian would vote for a strong federal government program that helped people get health care if only it were simpler is rediculous.

Think you've got your people mixed up on that one. That's Paul Ryan, not Rand Paul.

Re:scare quotes

[AmiMoJo]

But I oppose my government on those things, and have done do repeatedly in posts on Slashdot.

If I tell you that I oppose something, and then you invent some reason why I must in fact support it... Well, what's the point even arguing with you if you don't listen?

Re:scare quotes

[Mashiki]

Considering your anti-free speech, and support against free association it sure doesn't look like you oppose that. Especially when the government(s) that have been in power over the last decade have directly echo'd that. Why don't you try looking back over your own posts and maybe you'll figure out why people besides myself see you as a far-left authoritarian.

Re:scare quotes

[AmiMoJo]

What is this about me being against free association? Where did you get that from?

I know about the free speech thing, you only think that because you have an unrealistically extreme definition of freedom of speech.

Re:scare quotes

[david_thornley]

Only in the last 20 years or so,

Really? People were using "liberal" to mean "left" as far back as I remember, which is the 60s.

Re:scare quotes

[skam240]

"Only in the last 20 years or so, most people don't actually use that bastardization in that sense in political circles even *in* the US."

Nope

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"Modern American liberalism is the dominant version of liberalism in the United States. It is characterized by social liberalism,[1] and combines ideas of civil liberty and equality with support for social justice and a mixed economy

That's literally describing the modern American Left.

"Think you've got your people mixed up on that one. That's Paul Ryan, not Rand Paul."

Nope, again.

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"Paul has said that he identifies as both a "constitutional conservative"[5][6] and a "libertarian conservative."[6"

He is most certainly a self declared libertarian. Couldn't find anything in regards to Paul Ryan about that.

Untrue

[Anonymous Coward]

They are one vote short of the first hurdle: next they need the house to approve and the president to sign.

This headline is simple untrue.

Re:Untrue

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes they are.

The Congressional Review Act of 1996 established expedited (or “fast track”) procedures by which Congress may disapprove a broad range of regulatory rules issued by federal agencies by enacting a joint resolution of disapproval. For initial floor consideration, the Act provides an expedited procedure only in the Senate. (The House would likely consider the measure pursuant to a special rule.) The Senate may use the procedure for 60 days of session after the agency transmits the rule to Congress. In both houses, however, to qualify for expedited consideration, a disapproval resolution must be submitted within 60 days after Congress receives the rule, exclusive of recess periods. Pending action on a disapproval resolution, the rule may go into effect, unless it is a “major rule” on which the President or issuing agency does not waive a delay period of 60 calendar days

Stop lying AC.

Re:Untrue

[Obfuscant]

This headline is simple untrue.

So is the summary, and I assume TFA itself:

"It would also prevent the agency from passing a similar measure in the future, all but guaranteeing Net Neutrality is permanently preserved."

All it takes is another senate next year to undo all of this. And you could probably include an executive-order-writing President.

Fake News

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot summary is retarded. From the article:

"The measure must survive the Republican-majority House and be signed by President Trump to take effect."

Re:Fake News

[Rick Schumann]

Republicans who vote against it are declaring they don't give a fuck about NN.
If Trump won't sign it then he also declares that he's for coporate interests and against NN for American citizens.
Either way they come out clearly on one side of the fence or another.

Quick, someone start a GoFundMe

[olsmeister]

We need to buy a Senator.

Re: Quick, someone start a GoFundMe

[VikingNation]

Somebody beat you to that store. They have already been bought with campaign contributions.

Re:Quick, someone start a GoFundMe

[thomst]

olsmeister urged:

We need to buy a Senator.

Someone with points: please mod parent +1 Funny ... !

Re:Quick, someone start a GoFundMe

[fustakrakich]

Do you deliver?

Re:Quick, someone start a GoFundMe

[originalGMC]

We need to buy a Senator.

like this? https://www.gofundme.com/ask-f...

What about abstenations?

[pots]

Maybe I just don't know how the senate works, but it seems unlikely to me that all fifty of the remaining GOP senators would vote against this. Though they might not vote for it either. Is it necessary to reach the fifty-one vote threshold, if some senators abstain?

I know the senate has some weird rules about some of these things, so what I'm really asking is whether any of those apply here.

Re:What about abstenations?

[CanadianMacFan]

The remaining 50 GOP Senators know who their campaign contributors are and will vote accordingly.

Re:What about abstenations?

[jeff4747]

You need a majority to vote "yes" to pass the bill. Abstentions are effectively voting "no" when it comes to passing the bill.

Re:What about abstenations?

[bluefoxlucid]

I know who my contributors are; I just don't care. Then again, I'm also running for D-MD07 so.

Never let money get in the way of integrity. People will literally back you when you tell them what you're trying to do is going to harm them if they think you have integrity. I'm not sure why; I think it has something to do with folks not wanting to be the one against doing the right thing, even if it's personally inconvenient. You can't buy that.

Re:What about abstenations?

[pots]

Okay, thanks. That's the answer I was looking for.

Re:Would the Senate vote be sufficient?

[TheRaven64]

The last step is easy. Just call it the Make American Internet Great Again Act and he'll sign it. You don't think he actually reads the bills that he's asked to sign do you?

Misleading title

[rsilvergun]

The Republicans are stronger in the House making restoration unlikely there. Even then Trump will almost certainly veto it. If NN is going to come back the Dems have to take the House and Senate by a wide enough margin to overturn a veto.

Re:Misleading title

[El Cubano]

The Republicans are stronger in the House making restoration unlikely there. Even then Trump will almost certainly veto it. If NN is going to come back the Dems have to take the House and Senate by a wide enough margin to overturn a veto.

And as the Republican effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act has shown, it is much easier to gather support for something that has no hope of winning ("look, I can engage in some posturing, support something politically popular with my base without actually being on the hook if things go wrong") than it is to actually change something. So, even if the Democrats take both houses of congress and the next president is a Democrat, it wouldn't be surprising if this falls victim to political maneuvering.

It's a toxic measure

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a very very toxic measure, especially among rural Republican voters who are the ones usually stuck with one ISP. They're the ones who get screwed over by Verizon/Comcast/ ATnT. So each Republican Senator they force to support Ajit's toxic measure, is a Republican that will have to face his constituents later and explain why they supported this anti consumer measure.

This has value even if Republicans overturn it later.

Ajit has helped enormously with his insulting and patronizing videos and ignoring of all those fake comments with half a million of them from Russian email addresses. I assume he'll go on helping as the State Attorneys investigate all the identity theft. Identity theft is a crime, and obstruction of the investigation of it, is also a crime, and Ajit loves to make smug videos, reveling in his temporary power.

Re:It's a toxic measure

[Smidge204]

It's a very very toxic measure, especially among rural Republican voters who are the ones usually stuck with one ISP. They're the ones who get screwed over by Verizon/Comcast/ ATnT. So each Republican Senator they force to support Ajit's toxic measure, is a Republican that will have to face his constituents later and explain why they supported this anti consumer measure.

Not a problem; They're also the ones who are thoroughly convinced that Net Neutrality is the digital equivalent to Nazi concentration camps... the most egregious attempt at government control and censorship in all of history.

Ajit has helped enormously with his insulting and patronizing videos and ignoring of all those fake comments with half a million of them from Russian email addresses.

...which, ironically, few of the aforementioned constituents have seen since they lack decent internet speeds. Besides, if/when things do come to a head, I'm sure Fox News will slap a (D) next to his name.
=Smidge=

Re:It's a toxic measure

[sexconker]

He wishes he had cable. He's got shitty DSL, shitty satellite, shitty 4G and some unknown WiFi (which is probably shitty).

DSL, satellite, and 4G are shitty by definition.

Re:It's a toxic measure

[Penguinisto]

It may not be gigabit, but honestly, it works just fine for most purposes.

But that's cool - you do you. ;)

Re:It's a toxic measure

[Penguinisto]

In most cases, they do. Sat works anywhere with a clear view of the Southern sky. 4G works in most areas. DSL is astoundingly common out here (doubly so with the miniature DSLAMs).

No excuse for another partisan vote...

[atrex]

There is no excuse for there being only a single Republican vote for this. Net Neutrality is a completely non-partisan issue with majority support from voters on both sides of the isle. Any politician that doesn't vote for it is complete scum and needs to be kicked out of office.

Re:No excuse for another partisan vote...

[arbiter1]

Sadly Democrat's love to put noble names on their bills like its a good thing, Affordable care act? Yea not very affordable is it. Net Neutrality is another one those that claims to prevent things like censor ship but it only applies that to ISP's but lets companies like facebook, twitter and google off the hook when they censor people's views when they don't like them. Its not people calling violence that have their posts on twitter deleted no its people that have right leaning views calling for things based on common sense and using stats to back the view. Yet liberal can call for violence or call someone by racial words and no problem.

Re:No excuse for another partisan vote...

[ChrisMaple]

"Net Neutrality" is government control of the Internet. How big a fool does one have to be, how ignorant of history, to not understand that this is a tool for the party in power to suppress opposing views?

Re:No excuse for another partisan vote...

[atrex]

Censorship on privately owned web services is a completely separate issue from Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality's only purpose is to prevent ISPs - the gatekeepers of the internet - from deciding what content they are going to allow and how fast they're going to allow it to be.

If you want to talk about free speech on the internet, that's fine, and that's a discussion worth having, but that is not what Net Neutrality is about. Please don't confuse the issue.

Re:No excuse for another partisan vote...

[diamondmagic]

The USA PATRIOT act was adopted from a bill written by Joe Biden in 1995, and passed on bipartisan lines.

How about LEGISLATONG.

[Anonymous Coward]

If NNis so vital why didnâ(TM)t the Dems push it as a bill signed into law when they owned house senate and presidency in 2009 and 2010? If you want it to stick long term donâ(TM)t have a beurocrat do it. Write a law. Thatâ(TM)s the whole point of congress anyhow.

Re:How about LEGISLATONG.

[AvitarX]

Because they need to drum up enough support to get a bill voted on.

The public response to how this vote goes will be very relevant to that.

Re:How about LEGISLATONG.

[Khyber]

How about ditching your iDevice first and using a functional computer?

Half Measures

[ElizabethGreene]

I disagree with this approach. If Congress wants Net Neutrality they should write it as a law, not just force the FCC to not repeal the existing rule which DOES NOT apply to wireless carriers.

Wireless carriers will be the big winners here. It gives them freedom their wired carriers don't have.

Re:Half Measures

[jeff4747]

Writing it as a new law requires overcoming some arcane legislative procedures. Most notably, you'd need 60 votes in the Senate to get to an actual vote on the bill.

That's why the Republicans passed the "review" law that is being used here. The Republicans repeatedly could not find 60 votes to block the regulations they wanted to block. So they changed the rules so that they only need 50 votes.

Re:Half Measures

[Mashiki]

Democrats changed the rules so they only need 50 votes. That was back when they held majority in the senate FYI.

Re:Half Measures

[jeff4747]

Democrats changed the rules so they only need 50 votes. That was back when they held majority in the senate FYI.

Nope. Democrats changed the rules on nominations for Federal judges.

That change has no effect on executive department regulations, since judges are not regulations, nor in the executive branch.

Re:Half Measures

[bigpat]

I disagree with this approach. If Congress wants Net Neutrality they should write it as a law, not just force the FCC to not repeal the existing rule which DOES NOT apply to wireless carriers.

Wireless carriers will be the big winners here. It gives them freedom their wired carriers don't have.

I only disagree with this approach because it doesn't look like it will work so it appears to be more posturing than actual lawmaking. Yes a full law (with some clear short term exceptions for encouraging real infrastructure investments that will eventually improve service for everyone) would be preferable.

Otherwise if they can cobble together a few more votes in the Senate and a bipartisan majority in the House and just get president Trump to sign it because it appears to be popular enough then so be it. But given other priorities I doubt they can get it together without leadership support in the next several weeks as required by the Senate rules. So we are left with posturing ahead of a very partisan election to fund raise and motivate supporters... which will make it even less likely to get a compromise reform that is better for net neutrality just as other issues have become more and more polarizing and less grounds for constructive deal making.

Re:Half Measures

[david_thornley]

In other words, it was passed by a Republican-dominated Congress with a veto-proof majority, so it didn't matter who the President was. Looks like a primarily Republican measure to me, although it obviously had D support.

Purity tests

[sjbe]

Those people named? They're not moderates or conservatives. They're RINO's,

Only if you have a ridiculously far right notion of what it means to be a republican (which you clearly do). RINO is a pathetic attempt to apply a purity test to a member of the party. By today's standards Reagan would be called a RINO. Heaven forbid someone attempt to have a fruitful negotiation with someone they don't agree with complete. Or *gasp* actually compromise about anything.

Re:Purity tests

[Kierthos]

Reagan raised taxes eleven times during his two terms. That alone would get him called a RINO by some members of the party.

Re:Purity tests

[Mashiki]

Yeah and the democrats also lied when they said that "if we allow amnesty just this one time, it'll never happen again. We swear!" Then again Reagan also presided over one of the greatest economic booms in US history, those tax raises didn't hurt anyone because people had plenty of money rolling in. Compare today to then, the average American is 1mo away from insolvency, has less then $1k in the bank and has no backup in-case of an emergency. That's the exact opposite of that time where most people had 4-6mo, and at least $900(non-adjusted) in the bank.

Re:Purity tests

[JackieBrown]

By today's standards Reagan would be called a RINO.

This gets said allot but it's bullshit. He was pro-life, pro-military, as anti-communist as you could get. He did tax cuts for businesses. Heck, the term trickle down was made popular from his administration. He did agree to a one time amnesty but that was on the condition the wall get built - hopefully a trick that Trump doesn't also fall for.

If you want a party hero that would be opposite of what his party stands for today ... take no look further than JFK.

Re:Purity tests

[skam240]

Not a single thing you said challenged what the above post said. What Democrats did in any context is irrelevant. The fact that he prosided over a moderatly sized economic boom is irrelevant. The modern poor shape of the economy is irrelevant.

The point is that Reagan certainly wasn't very conservative by the standards many want to put on the party today and that is clearly demomstrated by his 11 tax hikes (amoung a lot of other things, like say negotiating with Democrats)

Re:Purity tests

[sjbe]

He was pro-life, pro-military, as anti-communist as you could get. He did tax cuts for businesses.

He also raised taxes eleven times, compromised with the democrats on a variety of issues, and did a lot of other things that today would never fly with the far right and Tea Party types. If he was running for office today he would potentially have never made it out of the primaries for even suggesting the idea of raising taxes. I'm no fan of the man but I'd take Reagan in a heartbeat over Trump or W.

Reagan doesn't stand for the opposite of his party but neither do a lot of other republicans who get crucified in the primary for trying to govern responsibly. There are a lot of perfectly reasonable republicans but lately they've been getting shouted down by the unreasonable extremists.

If you want a party hero that would be opposite of what his party stands for today ... take no look further than JFK.

I could say the same thing about most politicians from >50 years ago. The political parties looked a LOT different prior to the Civil Rights act of 1964.

Re:Purity tests

[Solandri]

Only if you have a ridiculously far right notion of what it means to be a republican (which you clearly do). RINO is a pathetic attempt to apply a purity test to a member of the party. By today's standards Reagan would be called a RINO. Heaven forbid someone attempt to have a fruitful negotiation with someone they don't agree with complete. Or *gasp* actually compromise about anything.

For decades the Washington Post kept a database of votes by Congresscritters. If you go to the 113th Senate (the last one before they shut the project down), and click on "Votes with party" it'll sort the Senators by what percentage of the time they vote with their party. You'll find that contrary to what the media has spun for years, it's actually Republicans who are more likely to cross the party aisle and vote with Democrats, not the other way around. I mean sure there are a few blues scattered in there, but the majority of the top of the list of low faithfulness to their party are Republicans. You have to go all the way back to Bush's first term to get a Senate where Democrats were more likely to vote against their own party.

Likewise, if you click it again to sort it by Senators most likely to toe the party line, you end up with a veritable sea of blue. So hate to break it to you but the media has been feeding you fake news. For the last decade and half, most of the moderates have been Republicans. It's Republicans who've been the ones more willing to compromise, Democrats the extremists who always vote with their party. In the Senate at least. The House is more of a mixed bag, but it's a straight majority vote there. The Senate is the one with (until recently) the funny rules where a minority could stall legislation if they got everyone in their party to vote together. Now, consider that Republican Senators got a reputation for doing that all the time, when their voting record clearly shows they didn't (or only did on a few issues they cared deeply about, which is exactly what the fillibuster rules were there for). That sort of deviation between perception and reality usually comes about when the media disproportionately focuses on one or a few rare incidents which are not representative of and contradictory to the whole.

I was wondering how much longer the Washington Post would keep the database running since the data so clearly contradicted the stories they typically ran.

Re:Purity tests

[penandpaper]

the last one before they shut the project down)

Do you know why they shut it down?

Re:Purity tests

[Mashiki]

Not a single thing you said challenged what the above post said. What Democrats did in any context is irrelevant. The fact that he prosided over a moderatly sized economic boom is irrelevant.

No? Maybe you missed a few things. By the way, do you define a "moderatly sized economic boom" as -18% growth tailing out at the end of 1980 to a +18% economic growth by 1989? Or is moderate defined as the US economy expanded by 1/3 under his term as president? You can try rewriting this as much as you want, but reality is fundamentally different. And I realize that progressive professors really like going out of their way to try and rewrite history on this. Just like they do with Thatcher and Churchill in the UK. And in Canada with the literal fawning of the media over Trudeau Sr.

The point is that Reagan certainly wasn't very conservative by the standards many want to put on the party today and that is clearly demomstrated by his 11 tax hikes (amoung a lot of other things, like say negotiating with Democrats)

No he was conservative. I'm going to remind you that those tax hikes came in time to cover the expenditures caused by cutting. If you're going to try saying "he's not a conservative" because of one thing, then that would make Obama a dictator right? Because his idea of law and order was to simply issue edicts by pen, which is exactly what happens in a dictatorship.

Re:Purity tests

[skam240]

You're still talking about the economic boom that has nothing to do with anything being talked about, that's great.

And no one in this forum thread has said he wasn't a Conservative. You're just making things up.

What has been said that there any many players in the Republican trying to push it towards the fringes who would call him a RHINO if he were some how an active player in today's politics. I don't think I can be any clearer this second time explaining things to you.

Re:Purity tests

[Mashiki]

Your own post said he "wasn't very conservative."

What has been said that there any many players in the Republican trying to push it towards the fringes who would call him a RHINO if he were some how an active player in today's politics.

The people who would call him a RINO(at least get the term right), would be the same people who think that McCain is a stalwart Republican. The fact that you don't get this means that you understand far less about US politics then someone who only lives there part of the year.

Re:Purity tests

[JackieBrown]

What's that got to do with him as President?

Re:Purity tests

[skam240]

"Your own post said he "wasn't very conservative."

Irrelevant, still no one has said that he wasn't a conservative.

"The people who would call him a RINO(at least get the term right), would be the same people who think that McCain is a stalwart Republican"

No it's literally the opposite of that. McCain, just like Reagan, has shown time and time again he's willing to forgo conservative absolutes to get something done with the other side. Moderate conservatism is not having an absolute bias against taxes like Reagan or by not having an absolute bias against government action in healthcare like McCain.

Since you've brought us to the point of diminishing the other, your understanding of modern US politics is no better than your reading comprehension or ability to stay on point.

The other side

[Anonymous Coward]

The right sees Net Neutrality as more government control of the internet
The left sees Net Neutrality as less business control of the internet

There are arguments on both sides

Re: The other side

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatâ(TM)s going on with the hissy fits the left is having over Executive Orders and Regulations? They LOVED them when Obama was President, but now they are something evil and bad?

NN and DACA spring to mind - it was OK to bypass the leglislative process to implement them, but now itâ(TM)s somehow improper to remove them the same way? If itâ(TM)s so important and all, do it the right way and pass a law. If you canâ(TM)t pass a law (Obamacare repeal anyone?) then it isnâ(TM)t going to happen - which is how our government is SUPPOSED to work.

No cherry picking which parts of the Constitution you want to follow or ignore.

Re:The other side

[Anonymous Coward]

The right only sees Net Neutrality as "more government control of the internet" because they've been tricked by politicians like Ted Cruz calling net neutrality "Obamacare for the internet", which is completely disingenuous.

The fact is, NN boils down to just this: ISPs can't discriminate against (or be in favor of) data flowing through their pipes.

Re: The other side

[Green Mountain Bot]

The left doesn't think using the Executive Order process is evil OR bad. They think the executive making use of the process is using it for evil and sometimes bad ends. It's the right that has done an about face on whether the process is good or not.

Re:Would the Senate vote be sufficient?

[thomst]

TheRaven64 chortled:

The last step is easy. Just call it the Make American Internet Great Again Act and he'll sign it. You don't think he actually reads the bills that he's asked to sign do you?

Of course not. Donald Trump? Read?

Unfortunately, Stephen Miller does read them - and he's the new Steve Bannon ...

As they used to say....

[mark-t]

... "close" only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

If they are short one vote, then they are still short.

Also, my understanding of US law is somewhat limited, but I thought the president could still veto a proposal like this, and that being the case, they are actually *two* votes shy of restoring it.... and to that end, for all intents and purposes, they may as well still be 50 votes away.

Democrat party are anti-american

[Anonymous Coward]

The USA is a free market, and this means at it basist level NO goverment regulations to put corrupt cronies and fat cat union bosses in charge of critical infastructure such as the internet. That is why I am not surprised that the democrat party are acting so unamerican in their attempt to over ride the duly elected goverment decision to deregulate the internet to bring more freedom and more competition to the market. Really really sad and pathetic attempt at hurting President Pai who is the best FCC president in history.

Re:Democrat party are anti-american

[GonzoPhysicist]

I'd mod you funny had I the points

Re: I favor abolishing of "Net neutrality"

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL

What a load of crap.

I don't think so.

[rsilvergun]

The Dems are all in favor of this as is the electorate. The trouble with the ACA repeal was that the electorate figured out it meant losing access to healthcare and billions of dollars in insurance subsidies. That's what shut it down.

Re:I don't think so.

[Mashiki]

The trouble with the ACA repeal was that the electorate figured out it meant losing access to healthcare and billions of dollars in insurance subsidies. That's what shut it down.

Maybe you can tell that to the millions of americans who had their healthcare premiums go up by 400%(to 500-600/mo) with a $6000 deductible. To the point where the penalty for not having ACA insurance was cheaper then having insurance in the first place, or the millions who lost health insurance because of it. Because I'll tell ya something, there were a lot of seniors in FL(Zephyrhills) where I stay for part of the winter who couldn't afford insurance anymore.

Re:I don't think so.

[david_thornley]

You're saying that premiums went up 400% to $600/month, which means the original rate was $120/month. Exactly what is a $120/month policy good for in the US? Are you sure that policy is going to do anything significant if people get seriously ill, aside from the insurance company coming up with some reason to cancel the policy, meaning you've now got a pre-existing condition and can't get any insurance for that?

Americans are further becoming...

[Anonymous Coward]

... the laughing stock of the world. Keep it up!

I'm talking percentages

[rsilvergun]

as per the polls. Comparing polls to policy in a Republic is how you gauge how Democratic your Republic is. Ours is pretty much an oligarchy.

Re:I'm talking percentages

[penandpaper]

This doesn't makes sense. By design change at the federal level is slow and requires broad support in the country. Obviously, polls will be disconnected from federal initiative. The Senate was supposed to be a bulwark to public opinion and passion! The article and you are complaining that the federal government isn't as whimsical as popular opinion. Duh. That article is saying, "536 people were given more power and it costs a lot of time and money to influence their opinion that is beyond the reach of the average citizen." ... No kidding. You know what wasn't supposed to matter to the daily lives of the average citizen? The federal government.

The local government was supposed to have a more direct impact on the daily life of the people and is supposed to be more responsive to the people. Do the study with state and local government then tell me the same conclusion. Democracy is not the end all be all of civics and governance. There are reasons for undemocratic measures in government.

Also, considering the BBC. The UK government will arrest people for making jokes. I'd hardly want their opinion on "undemocratic governance" because they're government is more whimsical to public passion that gets rallied into a witch hunt against their own citizens. #governmentpunchanazi amirite.

I say let it be

[Phoinix]

Trump did not come from the void.
When Trump won the election one comment was:
Such constituents deserve such a president...

The same applies to internet rules and regulations...

It's not worth following the news clutter. May be this will make circumvention methods more robust.

The ACA wasn't responsible for that

[rsilvergun]

private insurance was. Your premiums are going up because medical care isn't something that should be paid for by the private sector. It's too complex. You can't 'shop around' for a heart transplant like you can for a breakfast sandwich. Also, you can go without the breakfast sandwich. You can't go without the heart transplant.

The ACA was a bad law. But it was the best we could get with a Congress full of Republicans and Blue Dog Dems. We already know the solution, which is Single Payer. Bernie Sander's has a townhall meeting coming up to discuss it. Hopefully it gets some traction and we can join the rest of the civilized world (who pay 1/2 what we do for better results).

Re:The ACA wasn't responsible for that

[penandpaper]

I would have more faith in Sander's single payer if his state and others would implement it first. California is the closest I think to try and it was a law that had no mechanism to fund it.

If democrats can't get it to work at the state level why would it work at the national level?

Re:The ACA wasn't responsible for that

[SlaveToTheGrind]

the rest of the civilized world (who pay 1/2 what we do for better results)

The problem with this old tired meme is that Americans' higher prices subsidize the rest of the world's lower prices. If we join the rest of the world and institute our own governmental price fixing, some combination of availability and/or innovation in care will disappear -- for everyone. There is no free lunch, no matter how many Bernie Sanders there are out there sweetly crooning otherwise to people who really really wish it were true.

(And if I'm late to the party and shittier-but-equal services for all is the actual goal, let's just be honest about that.)

Re:The ACA wasn't responsible for that

[Uberbah]

The problem with this old tired meme is that Americans' higher prices subsidize the rest of the world's lower prices.

Nonsense. Most pharma and medical devices profits go into dividends, bonuses and advertising. Not R&D. And much of that research you paid for anyway, as taxpayer-financed research at public universities - before the university licensed it to a pound-you-in-the-ass corporation.

Re:The ACA wasn't responsible for that

[Mashiki]

The ACA was directly responsible for that. The bill was a piece of stinking garbage, with a pile of streaming shit on top that should never have been passed in the first place. The ACA itself *priced* insurance companies directly out of the exchanges, and as it stands right now? Nearly every exchange is bankrupt.

FYI as someone who lives under "single payer" it's damn terrible. Unless you have an absolute life or death situation, you're going to be waiting. And waiting, and waiting some more. And maybe, possibly, with a bit of luck? When you've got stage 4 cancer, you might actually get in for treatment before it metastasizes. Worst case? You'll still be waiting another 60 days before treatment starts. Even with that single payer system that I live under, I still *need* private health insurance otherwise I'd go bankrupt. Why don't you take a look and get a feel how 43% taxes are, and then dropping another $200-300/mo or so for private insurance to cover things in the single payer system.

Really, Sanders plan would have been just as disastrous. Take it from those of us that already live under it. By the way, here's the average wait times in Ontario. I hope you're ready to wait 50-90 days for a CT, and 70-140 days for a MRI. Go on, search, look, read how long you'll wait. Let me recommend the following "major hospitals" LHSC(London Health Sciences) that also includes "sick kids london" service area around 500k-700k people. Toronto(approx 6.7m) and then Ottawa(~1m).

Re:The ACA wasn't responsible for that

[mjwx]

private insurance was. Your premiums are going up because medical care isn't something that should be paid for by the private sector. It's too complex. You can't 'shop around' for a heart transplant like you can for a breakfast sandwich. Also, you can go without the breakfast sandwich. You can't go without the heart transplant.

The ACA was a bad law. But it was the best we could get with a Congress full of Republicans and Blue Dog Dems. We already know the solution, which is Single Payer. Bernie Sander's has a townhall meeting coming up to discuss it. Hopefully it gets some traction and we can join the rest of the civilized world (who pay 1/2 what we do for better results).

As much as I agree with single payer... it's not the magic bullet for the US's health woes.

The problem is the amount of profiteering going on. Unless you fix the corruption in the private sector, they'll just charge the government as much as they want to... and it's not like the US isn't already paying almost twice as much as the UK per person in tax money (and then the individual pays more from their own pocket).

Re:The ACA wasn't responsible for that

[david_thornley]

From the city names, I assume you're talking about Canada. Yep, that's not a real good single-payer system, although it's better than the US system.

Re:Would the Senate vote be sufficient?

[Ferretman]

That's a remarkably uninformed and apparently quite biased observation....can you back it up? Just curious.

Ferret

Welcome to the Idiocracy

[JoePete]

What we're witnessing is after decades of presidents playing legislator through executive action, Congress has decided to try to play president through legislative action. Inevitably our system of government has unraveled to the point where left seems right, up appears to be down, and something coined "net neutrality" really isn't all that neutral.

That's not true

[rsilvergun]

and it does a great disservice to Americans. Trump became president for two reasons. First, he ran as a left wing populist. He promised jobs for all, medical care for all (and if rumors are to be believed he floated Single Payer to his cabinet before they shut him down), expanded infrastructure spending and His America First platform gave the impression he'd end the 7 wars we're fighting. Meanwhile Hilary stood for... well nothing. She ran a campaign almost completely without content. I'm knee deep in politics and I couldn't tell you a single policy she'd enact. She was the definition of true conservatism: Keep everything exactly as is. But for millions of Americans living paycheck to paycheck that wasn't enough...

The second reason is she got bilked out of $700 million dollars. That's the amount of money the DNC gave 5 (count 'em 5) consultants to run Hillary's campaign. By all accounts they didn't actually campaign for her. There were numerous reports of zero effort made in the rust belt. Funny thing is same thing happened to Rhomney. You'd think she'd have learned from his mistake...

Anyway, the point is Dems need economic populism if they're going to win; even if the Corporate Blue Dogs don't like it. If the Dems run another "I'm not Trump" style right wing candidate Trump will skate right into another term. Because after all, what have you got to lose?

Re:That's not true

[PopeRatzo]

Trump became president for two reasons. First, he ran as a left wing populist

Here is the full text of Donald Trump's acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention.

He did not run as a left-wing populist. He ran on an agenda of racism, jingoism and owning the libs.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics...

You can thank Clinton (Bill) for that one

[rsilvergun]

he moved the Dems to far right to form a coalition of left and right to get himself in office. The Republicans had to follow suit in order to maintain a distinct brand identity. Around this time money started flowing into politics like never before and a new type of 'Corporate' Democrat appeared; e.g. economically right wing but socially left wing. They used the corporate money to take over the DNC and push out the left and the old school moderate Dems. There's a movement called 'Justice Democrats' trying to take the party back with the help of Bernie Sanders.

Re:You can thank Clinton (Bill) for that one

[Orgasmatron]

How old were you in 1992? Any analysis of "How Bill Clinton became President" that doesn't begin and end with Ross Perot. is wrong.

Re:You can thank Clinton (Bill) for that one

[Mashiki]

Uh, I think you mean Jimmy Carter. It's pretty obvious that you've got little to no understanding of the political history of your own country. Those "Justice democrats" are nothing more then the progressives who weren't "progressive enough" for the DNC when they started their purity spiral.

Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

100% troll.

The internet grew successful by implementing net neutrality. The internet itself is proof positive that net neutrality is a good thing. There were other factors to the success of the internet as well, but net neutrality was foundational.

Your ignorance of net history and design is exceeded only by your ignorance that posting such drivel makes you look stupid. Try again, only smarter this time!

Maybe it's the pessimist in me...

[Last_Available_Usern]

But part of me thinks they have no intention of getting that last vote and this is just a song and dance so they can generate good will and use it later for leverage without ever having actually done something (ie. "Hey, remember in 2018 when we tried to fix NN but the Republicans stopped us..."). I really hope I'm wrong, but...

Re:Maybe it's the pessimist in me...

[david_thornley]

There's no possibility of the Democrats being able to pass anything against Republican opposition until January 2021. In the meantime, they're raising the issue and can use it for leverage. That's how a minority party functions What do you expect them to do?

Re:Maybe it's the pessimist in me...

[Last_Available_Usern]

You may be misunderstanding. I'm suggesting the possibility they don't want it protected at all - That they're potentially as wooed by the telecoms as the other side, but in order to garner public favor they're putting on a nice show. It's kind of like when someone offers to help you move when they already know you paid movers or it's happening on a day they'll be out of town.

Re:Maybe it's the pessimist in me...

[david_thornley]

Politics as usual. In order to find out, we'd have to wait for Democratic control of Congress and a Democratic President, which Trump is campaigning hard for.

I'm well aware of his speeches

[rsilvergun]

and yes, he wouldn't have won if the racists stayed home. But there aren't enough racists to put him in office. Not anymore. He won because he promised the people in the rust belt that the government work act to solve their problems. Meanwhile Hilary gave vague suggestions about retraining them for jobs that don't exist.

Also, as an American on /. we've all seen hundreds of thousands of tech jobs go up in smoke as H1-Bs are brought in. Besides Bernie Trump is the only candidate who addressed this. He addressed the job losses from NAFTA with something besides 'tough luck kiddo'. Of course he won. Now, he didn't do a damn thing. It's one year out and he hasn't even rescinded Obama's order allowing spouses of visa workers to work here let alone addressed the half a million H1-B holders working on expired visas. But If you're living in the rust belt you literally have nothing to lose.

This is what happens when you ignore the plight of the working class. They find themselves a strongman. Trump's incompetent and therefor relatively harmless. The next one might not be.

I don't think that's possible

[rsilvergun]

because the insurance companies will fight it tooth and nail. Remember, they're literally fighting for their lives here. And there's no way a small state like Vermont could survive their onslaught. Hell, I don't think California or New York could.

I'm reminded of this. Basically, we're up against an entrenched player with resources on par with a nation state. Nothing less than another nation state stands a chance.

Re:I don't think that's possible

[penandpaper]

I am not sure I understand. Insurance companies will fight tooth and nail... So what? What are they going to do that they wouldn't do at the national level? The state legislatures are powerless to do what their citizens want amidst the onslaught of insurance lobbying... Yet, I am to believe the congress can overcome that. The same congress that is known for sucking up to lobbyists. Half the country doesn't want single payer and you think that will be easier than a state initiative. Also, I have heard implementations where private insurance could exist with a single payer as an addon.

I don't think you have said anything different. If a state cannot do single payer then why should I think the congress can do it at the federal level? I never thought it would be easy but surely possible. Hell, if California actually had a method to fund their initiative it probably would have gotten further.

Nothing less than another nation state stands a chance.

This is pure hyperbole. Despite the fact that many state economies are larger than many nations (#6 world is California). They have the legal power to do it regardless of what any insurance company or lobby group does. You make it sound like it will be a war instead of slow boring legislative process mired in process and lobbying.

Um... no. That's not true

[rsilvergun]

Who told you that? They're lying. Most of the research going on is done in Europe because it's tough to get America businesses to pay for it. The rest is done in public Universities with government grants. America is all about privatizing profits and socializing costs. I've had a few relatives lives saved by medicine, and even in the States it was by socialized medicine. They ran out of money long before they ran out of illness and the drugs that saved them were developed in Europe. One of their doctors left the States because she couldn't get her cancer research funded. It wasn't profitable enough.

Re: Um... no. That's not true

[SlaveToTheGrind]

Who told you that? They're lying.

This is not even a mildly controversial proposition. See, e.g., here.

Most of the research going on is done in Europe

You're acting as though I said the research itself is happening in the U.S. -- I don't know that one way or the other, and it doesn't matter. All the major pharma companies are multinational corporations, and regardless of where they're domiciled, they pocket premium prices for sales to the U.S., and they factor those expected premium prices into their sales projections, which in turn defines their R&D budget. You're arguing with basic math.

Obamacare BANNED state-based single payer

[Uberbah]

I would have more faith in Sander's single payer if his state and others would implement it first.

See above. States couldn't do their own plans until last year - and even now it requires a waiver from the Secretary of HHS. Good luck getting that through a Trump or Hillary appointed nominee - thanks Obama!

If democrats can't get it to work at the state level why would it work at the national level?

Because its what the rest of the industrialized world does - for less money while providing better care.

Re:Obamacare BANNED state-based single payer

[penandpaper]

And this is where I am reminded that the ACA was designed to fail to pave the way for single payer. A very dishonest way to push a system half the country doesn't want.

Because its what the rest of the industrialized world does - for less money while providing better care.

I don't care about the rest of the industrialized world. There is always a cost. Innovation, universality, affordability, and high quality. You can't have them all. Which are you willing to pay.

Pointless; Trump will veto

[BlueCoder]

Pai does what Trump and the Telecoms tell him. Trump will veto.

State legal measures may have more of an impact since ISP's have a physical presence where they offer service. Undoubtedly some republican will try to ramrod a measure to block the states and it will go the the federal courts which I personally think will fail. Only an ISP like a VPN operating out of state would fall under interstate commerce.

Sure it was

[Uberbah]

Your premiums are going up because the ACA forces everyone to buy insurance while providing zero cost controls

Fixed. Insurers have no incentive not to raise premiums by double digits every year when everyone is forced to buy their junk product by law - or pay a penalty which then underwrites the cost of their junk product for low income Americans. And pharma/device manufacturers have no reason to moderate prices when everyone has insurance to "pay" for them.

Whereas before, people were starting to opt out of insurance all together. Now you have a situation where people can't afford to go to the doctor because money they would have had to spend already went to their premiums. Thanks Obama!

The ACA was a bad law. But it was the best we could get with a right-wing backstabber who killed the public option long before Congress could vote on it

Also fixed. Also a second source for people who like to dismiss HuffPo out of hand.

The reality is that the public option, despite having no real support from Democratic party leaders, enjoyed 80% support from the public, including a majority of Republican voters. You'd have a hard time finding a more popular policy proposal. It could have easily passed, if Obama wanted it to.

He didn't want it to.

They're not OK with Racism

[rsilvergun]

but they don't know what else to do. The rest of the electorate hasn't left them with very many options. We're talking about Rust Belters here. Those are the ones that put him in office. They've spent the last 30 years being look down on and told to retrain. But what do you do if you're not college material? I don't even mean blue collar types, but just folks who for whatever reason can't make it through a 4 year degree. We keep telling those people they have to go back to school when they didn't make it the first time.

And again, you keep side stepping my point. They're not surprised. They've been shit on their entire lives many of them (30+ years of declining wages and stalling social mobility after all). But their lives aren't any worse under Trump. Yeah, somebody's is. But _there's_ isn't. That's the price we pay for abandoning them. This is what happens when you abandon a large portion of your people to poverty. They can be organized into scary things out of desperation.

The nice thing about google is I can find quotes I otherwise would have forgotten. Here's one now.

Re:They're not OK with Racism

[PopeRatzo]

But their lives aren't any worse under Trump.

When they find out their medical expenses incurred by their wife's cancer treatment or their kid's rehab are no longer tax deductible, their lives will be measurably worse. If they're one of the Carrier employees whose job is being moved to Mexico after Trump made promises, their lives will be measurably worse. If they worked at Sam's Club, which closed stores after their parent company got billions in tax breaks, their lives will be worse. If they expect Medicaid to help them with their aging parents' care, they will be in for a major surprise.

Yes, their rust-belt lives will be worse, and it will be significant.

2 Mystifying Things

[rally2xs]

The first is why in hell do people want the US Government f'n around in the internet? It was not doing so before 2015 and the internet worked great. I mean, WTF?

The 2nd is what people really don't like about Trump. Is it the 4.1% falling unemployment rate, where 3.5% is considered "full employment?" Or is it the 6.8% black unemployment rate, which is the lowest black unemployment rate in the history of the USA? Maybe its the GDP that is closing in on 4%, a number not seen for about a decade. Perhaps they don't like the stock market going over the moon, and thier 401K's getting fat because of it? What about wages spiraling upward and businesses across the country offering bonuses to their employees? What about the biggest tax cut in US history, don't they like that? Maybe they don't like the jobs coming back from foreign locations where they once fled our egregious corporate tax rates, with Fiat / Chrysler just recently announcing they are closing one of their Mexico manufacturing plants and relocating it to Michigan where it will provide 2500 jobs? Oh, wait, they probably don't like that Trump eliminated 16 unnecessary Federal regulations for each new one his administration created. Or maybe its the great diminishment of the flow of sneakers-into-the-country? How about sending defensive weapons to the Ukraine to oppose Vladimir Putin's Russia, or Trump approving more natural gas drilling to export natural gas to Europe to break Vladimir Putin's stranglehold in natural gas over Europe? Do they hate that? I really don't understand...

Re:2 Mystifying Things

[david_thornley]

The Internet was working fine before 2015 because the FCC enforced Net Neutrality. In 2015, the courts said they had to classify ISPs differently to enforce NN, that's all.

I see that the Obama economic boom is continuing. Trump really hasn't done anything about the economy. The biggest tax cut in US history is primarily for the wealthy. Some reasonable-income people will pay more, some less. It will, like all tax cuts, swell the deficit. I haven't noticed a net inflow of jobs. Ask the employees and ex-employees at the Carrier about Trump's promise to allow them to keep their jobs. Federal regulations are good and bad. Obama put the brakes on illegal immigration, to the point that Mexicans have had negative illegal immigration.

In the meantime, he's destroying US leadership in the world and saber-rattling with a nuclear power (if a small one).

I do like his approach to H-1B visas, so I can't say he's all bad.

Re:2 Mystifying Things

[rally2xs]

"I see that the Obama economic boom is continuing."

Delusional.

Re:2 Mystifying Things

[david_thornley]

If you have an actual argument, please make it.

divide and conquer

[rsilvergun]

On a national level they might (might) have too many fronts to fight. On the State level they can levy their full resources against each State whenever they consider switching.

Insurance companies are still bigger than even California or NY can take on by themselves. That's not hyperbole. They're approaching the $1 trillion dollar mark in size, and they're rapidly merging to boot; consolidating power. Normally they'd need to devote a lot of that money to being profitable. But faced with the prospect of single payer Armageddon they'll bring all their resources into play. They are quite literally fighting for their lives.

ACA has cost controls

[rsilvergun]

it mandated that 80% of insurance company's outlays go to care. It should have been 90%, which would bring it more in line with Medicare's 92%.

Also, I addressed the reason why Obama didn't get more in my original comment:

The ACA was a bad law. But it was the best we could get with a Congress full of Republicans and Blue Dog Dems.

Re:ACA has cost controls

[Uberbah]

it mandated that 80% of insurance company's outlays go to care

Which is what they were spending already. And if you've heard of Hollywood Accounting, there's lots of creative ways to dress up the numbers. So, back to the ACA having no cost controls.

Also, I addressed the reason why Obama didn't get more in my original comment:

A debunked talking point, with citations provided. Obama killed the public option long before any Republican or Bush Dog could have voted against it. And along with a real jobs plan, this would have been the easiest political campaign in history: "I want to bring you affordable health care but Rep XYZ SAYS NO!"

Single payer fixes profiteering

[rsilvergun]

but putting negotiating power in the hands of the people through their elected representatives. It does mean you've got to block laws like the one that prohibits the government from negotiating drug prices for Medicare, but if you're ever at the point where you can get single payer through I'm guessing that little bit won't be hard. Just overcoming the single payer hurdle alone would be huge.

That's not how this works

[volkris]

Firstly, The Open Internet Order of 2015 was itself illegal. It would be bizarre for Congress to insist that the FCC should do something that Congress bars the FCC from doing.

It would be Congress ordering someone to violate the law.

Secondly, the CRA requires joint resolutions to be passed like other legislation, with both houses of Congress and a signature of the president, or an override of his veto.

This is a particularly misinformative post, even considering how bad Slashdot reporting is these days.