Net Neutrality Repeal Will Get a Senate Vote In the Spring, Democrats Say (arstechnica.com)

Congressional Democrats today introduced legislation that would prevent the repeal of net neutrality rules, but they still need more support from Republicans in order to pass the measure. According to Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), they will force a vote on the Senate version of the resolution sometime this spring. Ars Technica reports: Democrats have been promising to introduce a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution ever since the Federal Communications Commission voted to repeal its net neutrality rules in December. But lawmakers had to wait for the FCC's repeal order to be published in the Federal Register, which only happened last week. The CRA resolution would nullify the FCC's repeal order, allowing net neutrality rules that were passed in 2015 to remain in place. The resolution has public support from 50 out of 100 senators (all Democrats, all Independents, and one Republican), putting it one vote shy of passage in the Senate.

"The grassroots movement to reinstate net neutrality is growing by the day, and we will get that one more vote needed to pass my CRA resolution," Markey said. "I urge my Republican colleagues to join the overwhelming majority of Americans who support a free and open Internet. The Internet is for all -- the students, teachers, innovators, hard-working families, small businesses, and activists, not just Verizon, Charter, AT&T, and Comcast and corporate interests."

Comments

Good luck

[Anonymous Coward]

The FCC will probably be dismantled by then

Don't bother.

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless your concern has a campaign check attached, your congresssman could care less.

Re:Never passing the House

[Anonymous Coward]

The CRA doesn't need the approval of the House of Representatives.

Problem with executive fiat

[Karmashock]

... is that anything done through it can be undone through it.

I have a phone and a pen? Remember?

Well, that has limitations and the first of those is that the next guy that comes along with a phone and a pen can reverse it.

No substitute for going through the proper legislative process.

Here people will say "its slow"... its faster than the alternatives because the alternatives won't work. The way that takes a long time but works when compared against the way that is fast and fails... Do it the right way.

Get the votes and pass your law.

Re:Problem with executive fiat

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Congress brought this silliness on themselves by devolving much major de facto lawmaking power onto regulatory agencies, which constitutionally means the President as part of his power to "execute" the laws.

Golly! Some are upset by it!

Golly! "Regulatory agencies remove the politics from it is a feature, not a flaw!"
Until it isn't and you need outrage.

 

Re:Problem with executive fiat

[bobbied]

... is that anything done through it can be undone through it.

Executive orders are easy for the next administration to reverse, just issue a new order. Enact regulations though the administrative processes, can also be undone using the administrative process....

However you *cannot* redo a regulation which was reversed using the CRA process easily, because then it takes an act of congress to undo the act of congress, literally. It's like you passed a law that says "Congress forbids you from making a regulation like that".

In Fact, some have suggested that this feature should be used to prevent regulations... You have the agency issue regulations you don't want or like, then you get a CRA on them enacted, and presto.... The agency may NOT issue regulations which are like the ones reversed by a CRA. It's a backwards way to keep regulations from being made. Sounds stupid to me, but the law could be used that way.

Re:Problem with executive fiat

[Karmashock]

Of course, which is why it should be done through congress.

We agree.

Re:Problem with executive fiat

[bluefoxlucid]

I'm typically of the mind to create the regulatory impetus and then refine it as we learn new things through the fast-moving nature of administration. When the administration does it wrong, we fix it; when it does something right, we can try to define and describe that in a broad sense to create a safety net against backwards administrative action.

We all seem to be looking at the problem in the same way, with the same general approach, and working out the details.

Re:Problem with executive fiat

[Karmashock]

Just don't get married to any solution until its been codified by the legislature. The authority of it all absent that is "well the executive wants to do it"... which remains law until the executive changes its mind.

Re:Problem with executive fiat

[bluefoxlucid]

Pretty much, yeah. I'm a free-enterprise market capitalist through and through: I think legislative solutions are rigid and stifle innovation, whereas broad regulatory power is flexible and sensitive to unpredicted facts of economy and emergent situations. When the regulatory bodies discover a basic form from which we want to build, however, I favor a move to regulate that body by codifying the control into the foundational mission of the administration.

That's also why I push for a stronger ACA requiring an individual employee's healthcare insurance and responsible portion of premium to fit to their income (or wage), and a healthcare public option following the same rules and providing no-premium insurance from a Federally-operated fund to all Americans not covered by affordable care for any reason: the Government can push regulations and take other moves to control the market, but has to accept the economic fact that a certain amount of labor (represented by costs and prices) goes into providing all of that. You have the insured, the insurer, the provider, and the supply chain; unless you take full control of all of it, something's exploitable.

Instead of all of that, we can just use the insurer-negotiated rates per provider to discover the lowest rates (e.g. 3 standards down, bottom 2.5%) at each provider and negotiate our rates within that range. We'll tier providers based on their grouping of rates for each service, and use that to determine who we send people to first. Providers generally have a primary service (cheap) and secondary services ("we also $THING, but we're really $OTHERTHING, so $THING costs 5x as much here than it does at $THINGPROVIDER across the street"), so we're trying to identify those Tier 1 providers who do this as their main, low-cost, high-quality service.

By doing further analysis, we can publish standards of fairness in local markets which show the usual and customary rates for services. We should lean on bundled services to reduce BIR overhead and minimize risk. This allows certain insurers to negotiate better: some insurers negotiate e.g. $180 for a service that's generally a $250 service, whereas CareFirst is negotiating $43 for the same service from the same provider, and the median Tier-1 market rate is around $48-$57. Those insurers should see this published fact sheet that tells them they're getting screwed, giving them negotiating power to drive rates down and hold providers and their suppliers accountable for pricing within the range of reasonable profits.

A number of health insurers are incorporated as non-profit or not-for-profit, and have to pay taxes and keep under profit limits. Some health insurers are required to return excess profits by cutting premiums to sub-market rates in the following year. They also generally have a 501(c)(4) or other non-profit fund for their premiums and claims, as well as operational expenses. Regulating how insurers operate--not necessarily giving them such broad tax exemptions--would be an attractive proposition, as many today operate as full for-profit entities.

You can see the pattern there, all the way from how I want to manage regulators themselves to how I want to leverage regulators to keep the free-enterprise market working in the interest of the American people. I'm well-aware of why we put rules in place; I'm just careful about how far I trust mine or anyone else's judgment in creating new, comprehensive, and specific rules out of whole cloth. Yes, that means sometimes someone will misbehave or route around the rules, and then we have to come back and specify what precisely we intended; it's a trade-off to avoid implementing bad rules in the first place.

I know: I'm strange for a progressive candidate. I'm still going to end poverty and bring universal healthcare to this nation--somehow. Real healthcare, not the Norway model where you don't get prescriptions, dental, or vision unless you pay for that yourself. We're going to make sure people have health

Re:Problem with executive fiat

[Karmashock]

in regards to the ACA... I think a lot of people are using a series of different unrelated problems to justify a preconceived solution.

The entire thing has been dishonest from the start.

And as the means are the ends, the ends are misinformation and deceit.

Re:Problem with executive fiat

[bluefoxlucid]

Perhaps. People are pushing for universal single payer and claiming something something corporate profits out of healthcare etc. I worry that the private providers will get soaked by private suppliers, and then the sampling of the market to adjust will show that, yes, it actually does cost ...wow when did healthcare get this expensive? Giant hand-out to suppliers on the taxpayer dime.

I want universal access to healthcare, and I want it at the lowest risk possible, with minimal costs, and with comprehensive coverage. Those are my parameters. Things like the moral ideals surrounding for-profit healthcare or the political ideology of a single-payer system are irrelevant; what matters is the service provided to those in need, and the cost of that service to the taxpayer.

Re:Problem with executive fiat

[Karmashock]

Its a more expansive issue when you see it economically and see that we're making the same mistake across several different problems.

University education costs are going up and up.
House prices are going up and up.
And Healthcare costs are going up and up.

They are all being very heavily subsidized by the government and being supplied by private interests.

They're all examples of "demand side" subsidy. Where you give people money to buy something. This is known to increase costs. Its basic supply and demand.

If you increase demand by dumping money on the market you reduce the value of the money and increase the value of the supplied good. You also tend to increase use of the supplied good. The hope is that the supplied goods are produced in greater number at some point which will lower prices. But prices will not lower below the rate of subsidy. If the government offers X dollars for subsidy then the price will NOT go below that number and will typically = government subsidy PLUS private financing PLUS whatever money you have in your pocket right now.

To make matters worse, the government has responded to price increases by increasing rates of subsidization which has lead to a feed back loop with the market. Every time the subsidy goes up the price goes up which causes the subsidy to go up which causes the price to go up.

This has made it very hard for people to afford these goods without government subsidy.

People used to pay for college by working a part time job that would pay their living expenses AND their college fees.

The solution is either full socialization which I don't support for a series of reasons or a gradual reduction in DEMAND SIDE subsidy followed by a shift to SUPPLY side subsidy.

This is what... mostly socialists got mad at Reagan for back in the day. Voodoo economics. Its not complicated and the wisdom of it has become increasingly evident. What you do is build hospitals, build medical schools, build pharma factories... increase supply. Directly. And that lowers COST because the amount on the market relative to demand will increase thus lowering the bargaining power of the supplier because the market will be flooded with competition.

You can do that with universities, housing, and healthcare.

And whether people want single payer or not, we can at least acknowledge that demand side subsidies are just increasing costs and fucking the system up.

Re:Problem with executive fiat

[bluefoxlucid]

They're all examples of "demand side" subsidy. Where you give people money to buy something. This is known to increase costs. Its basic supply and demand.

Medicare for All advocates say we'll dictate the prices, essentially.

My strategy is to expand the ACA, meaning consumers buy goods from employers, and employers want the lowest prices (really: most profitable prices) because consumers will go to another seller to get things cheaper (competition impacts profitable price). Employers thus want the lowest costs, which means lower-priced insurance. We mandate what insurance they must supply, so there's a bound; otherwise, it goes down from there: consumer, employer, insurer, provider, supplier.

From there, we can look at remittance rates at every individual provider and do some simple statistics: go down 3 standards (lowest 2.5%, discarding outliers) and negotiate within that price per-provider. The Government isn't trying to figure out the cost of healthcare; it's using the private market to compute that cost. We supply a Public Option based on that, instead of being the only insurer in town and trying to magically guess the smallest price we can pay without collapsing the market.

We can also use the data to identify the fair-market average range in the local market. That is: Tier 1 providers (providers whose primary service is X will supply X cheaper than the guy who mainly does Y and also does X) become our reference group for the fair market price. We publish these so as to enable fair negotiation in the private insurer market.

So I'm basically proposing we enable the market by increasing demand in a highly-competitive market, and by ensuring private interests are managing that demand and are impacted by the price. The insurer has to face big groups (employers, unions) who will want low prices and can just shop for the next insurer. We can cash-subsidize some (e.g. small businesses), but only partially: they still need to feel the sting of higher prices and be thus motivated to avoid them.

What you do is build hospitals, build medical schools, build pharma factories... increase supply. Directly. And that lowers COST because the amount on the market relative to demand will increase thus lowering the bargaining power of the supplier because the market will be flooded with competition.

The supply is unsustainable without the demand; however, you're not wrong: this is why we treat small businesses specially and help them to thrive. We don't want more supply; we want more competition. A giant monopoly is more supply; a bunch of other suppliers who will undercut your 40% profit margin to try and become the multi-billion-dollar gorilla in the room is a nightmare requiring you to engage in the ancient art of price war.

What we want, mainly, is universal access to healthcare. I can supply that while making the Government demand-side cash subsidy--the Federal dollars paid in--a minority of the overall market, and one not prone to become a successful business by way of price competition (because the ACA mandates your employer provide healthcare). There will thus always be this vacuum if we remove profitable entities, and so they'll keep fighting to get the lowest costs, the best prices, and the most customers to maximize their profits.

So I would caution and say the answer is not to cut off social welfare and give the hand-outs to businesses--the price at which they can make profit will be the minimum price, and not everyone will be able to afford any price--but rather to take the mixed economy approach and use well-designed government services alongside well-implemented government regulation to keep the free market healthy and functioning in the interests of the people, while also participating in that market as another payer instead of the single payer (another payer with advanced, unfair knowledge, but not competing with business interests).

Re:Problem with executive fiat

[Karmashock]

As to dictating prices, you have to take control of supply when you do that otherwise the market will respond with shortages.

Which means full socialization. Medicare for all will require that or you'll get a Venezuela/Weimar response from the market.

As to solutions, I'd point out that most of the "problem" is increasing costs. If we compare the cost of a broken arm 50 years ago to what it costs to set a broken arm today... we find that it is dramatically more expensive despite the procedure used to set broken bone being the same. Costs are between 5 to 10 times higher after accounting for inflation.

This is a common trend across most treatments.

We can look at where costs have gone up. Doctors are not paid more than they were in the 1960s. In fact, in most cases, doctors were paid MORE in the 1960s.

People will often say "its the insurance" but go to a hospital without insurance and you'll see that your costs are if anything higher. That is, insurance is demonstrably either of no relevant to the cost increase or is actually actively holding it down through collective bargaining through the insurance company.

If its not doctors and its not insurance companies... what?

I can go through changes in bureaucracy, medication costs, regulations of medical devices through the FDA etc, but there is a lot of blame to be laid at the feet of government for actively increasing the cost of healthcare in the US.

As such, solving the problem by socializing the industry. I'd be more accepting of that as a notion if at the same time we also liberalized the industry from most of the restrictions put upon it over the last 50 years.

The top three floors of the hospital didn't used to be an office with people doing insurance and compliance paper work. Remove that as a requirement.

Allow shift nurses to dictate who gets treatment and when just like they used to do it. That includes for example letting shift nurses send people AWAY from the emergency room if they deem them to not have an emergency and instead send them to urgent care or whatever. I've seen people abuse the emergency room to get flu shots. That's unacceptable.

My general impression is that a lot of the dysfunction in the system was either the result of foolisly implimented altruism with more than a little cynically introduced sabotage to further certain political interests.

I feel that socializing the system under these circumstances would effectively allow failed policy to FAIL UP... and also reward anti social players that have manipulated the system to encourage precisely this result.

The incuriosity in policy makers as to what actually increased in price and why to me demonstrates that the policy makers are either incompetent or complicit.

If people ACTUALLY want to solve the problem, first determine what is the problem. They literally blamed the health insurance companies to justify the ACA. A concept which makes no logical sense given that absent the insurance companies costs to patents are HIGHER or the same. Thus removing the relevance of the insurance companies right there. Added to that, we can look at the profit margins of the insurance companies... NON-PROFIT insurance companies were charging about the same as FOR-PROFIT insurance companies demonstrating that the margins the for profit companies were subsisting on were very thin. We can validate this further by going over their balance sheets. They're rarely flush.

It was on this justification the ACA was based... it at best a confession of stupidity given that even a basic examination of the evidence would invalidate the argument.

Again, I'm very interested in fixing the American healthcare system. But IF it is to be fixed, it will be fixed by people that ACTUALLY want to fix it and that ACTUALLY have the patience to examine the issue seriously.

Absent good faith or patience any agent that presumes to dictate policy will likely do more harm than good. I'd just assume go back to what we had before the ACA until the interested parties want to try again with more seriousness and integrity than they did the first time.

Re:Problem with executive fiat

[bluefoxlucid]

As to dictating prices, you have to take control of supply when you do that otherwise the market will respond with shortages.

Wrong! The supply in a free market adjusts to effective demand; it's just a grand fantasy that things are free. Production require human labor (time), and you can't magically dictate that things are cheap and have it be so: you will end up without the labor capacity to produce all those lovely things you thought you could get free by asserting that money is imaginary and we are infinitely-wealthy by the simple fact that we can command banks to give people infinite free money.

The market will respond with supply shortage anyway. You have to provide services which supply only what can be supplied.

I can go through changes in bureaucracy, medication costs, regulations of medical devices through the FDA etc, but there is a lot of blame to be laid at the feet of government for actively increasing the cost of healthcare in the US.

Regulation is actually big. Testing drugs is hard: there's this molecule that settles a methyl group in a magnetic domain on one side, and inhaling the molecule through your nose will cause vasoconstriction and clear up a stuffy head. It's great. If you lean that methyl group a bit in the other direction, it sticks in a magnetic domain 40 degrees away; inhale that up your nose and you might die, or feel frigging awesome, but in any case you're not sleeping for the next two days. That's Methamphetamine.

Well, they're both methamphetamine. One's levorotary, and the other's dextrorotary. The bonds are all between the same atoms.

There's another drug that's an excellent anti-convuslant and will stop an epileptic seizure; but one chirality will kill you at extremely low doses. All chiralities of the same molecule share the same physical characteristics (although a racemic mixture can itself have different characteristics), so you can't distill these or otherwise separate them; you have to react them into stereoisomers (the resulting compounds are structurally-different), separate those, then react the stereoisomer formed from the desired chirality back to the original molecule, and you get the drug you want.

The only way to find out whether a drug is actually safe and effective is to do all of the testing that's done on every drug, starting with the type of testing most-likely to reveal a drug is unsuitable. It costs $300 million, and drugs frequently fail in clinical trials due to non-fatal but highly-annoying side-effects that patients simply will not tolerate.

We kind of have all these expensive regulations because it helps us avoid that thing where you were taking a harmless drug for 10 years and now we know that you're going to decay into dementia by 45 and your life is totally-ruined. I'm up to do continuous review and optimization of all of our regulations; however, any slimming down does take a risk with human lives (if we're wrong about X being equivalent to A B C D and E, we've lost the benefit of doing all of those).

Allow shift nurses to dictate who gets treatment and when just like they used to do it. That includes for example letting shift nurses send people AWAY from the emergency room if they deem them to not have an emergency and instead send them to urgent care or whatever. I've seen people abuse the emergency room to get flu shots. That's unacceptable.

I'll have this discussion with some medical professionals. That's an interesting consideration.

Again, I'm very interested in fixing the American healthcare system. But IF it is to be fixed, it will be fixed by people that ACTUALLY want to fix it and that ACTUALLY have the patience to examine the issue seriously.

Fixing the system and getting healthcare to everyone are two separate problems. The main problem in getting healthcare to everyone is the managemen

Re:Problem with executive fiat

[Karmashock]

As to prices going down when demand increases, that is contrary to econ 101.

Price is set by Supply AND Demand. If there is high demand for hand made Italian super cars, then you don't suddenly get a dramatic fall in Italian super cars. The Supply is limited. As demand increases, costs generally go up.

You see the same thing with Gasoline etc.

If you want me to cite wikipedia or something then I can do that. But you're basically saying 1+1=5.

That's incorrect. I suggest not doubling down on that error.

As to Time and labor etc, I'm not advocating socializing the system. I'm merely saying that ""IF"" you subsidize Demand, prices go up. If you want to avoid that, you have to either take total control over the market or do Supply side subsidies.

Subsidize Supply and prices go down. Subsidize Demand and prices go up. That's pretty basic.

As to regulations being important because otherwise we'll all be killed by poisoned drugs. I think we can accept uniform drug standards from other countries that have reasonable standards. What is more, if your regulations are causing phrama companies to go out of business and costs to spiral out of control... consider that on a cost benefit analysis you might be going too far. Consider the whole issue. We need not only safe drugs but we need affordable and abundant drugs as well... we need innovative drugs... we need a dynamic market. If the regulations are making the drugs affordable, creating shortages, stifling innovation, and crushing a dynamic market place... then clearly the regulations need to be made more manageable to take into consideration other priorities.

As to going to the best people to solve the problem. Those are the same people that crafted the existing shit show. It isn't enough to have a big shiny hat that says God talks to you or any other honor credited to an individual by an institution. Its all ad hominem. Who you are doesn't make 1+1=5. 1+1=2 because of the inherent definitions of those symbols and the underlying logic they represent. Who writes it doesn't matter. It is what it is. Anyone who has the solution of shutting off their brain and listening and believing to the first person that comes along with a title is the very definition of the sort of person that shouldn't be involved in the solution.

If you care and you're serious... then you'll actually think about it. If the fix is "find some guy with a title and do what he says"... that's a peasant strategy. Get a noble or a clergyman and do what they tell me.

We've done that... it clearly isn't working. Try something else.

Re:Problem with executive fiat

[bluefoxlucid]

As to prices going down when demand increases, that is contrary to econ 101.

Yep, it is.

That's incorrect. I suggest not doubling down on that error.

Challenge accepted!

So the concept of supply and demand suggests that, with greater supply, prices go down; and with greater demand, prices go up. People interpret this in a vacuum, until they realize supply and demand are relative to each other: supply outstrips demand, or demand outstrips supply.

This is still inexact, and so people eventually refine the argument to discuss the demand curve, which is the demand (dependent) for a product at a particular price (independent).

So what does the demand curve describe, and how does it describe it?

On the face, the demand curve suggests that the demand for a product at a high price is low; yet if the demand for that product remains the size of, roughly, the whole market of people capable of buying that product across a span of lower prices, then you can raise the price up to that point. That is: if the demand is the same at $1,000,000 as it is at $3,000,000, you can raise the price to $3,000,000.

That's still inexact: what about the demand below $1,000,000?

Well, it turns out you can't make the product for less than an actual cost of $1,000,000: no business can stay in business selling below that price, so the price will not be below $1,000,000.

What about other sellers, then?

With a sufficiently-small market, the risk of entering the market grows. Put another way: the sheer cost of a product is a barrier to entry. With a product being expensive and thus having a small market, success--capturing enough market to break even and thus survive as a business--relies on capturing a large proportion of the market. So, for example, if you need a volume of 30,000 per year to break even and your market is 100,000 consumers, you need to capture 30% of the market to survive. Most won't invest capital into this--which means VCs and banks aren't backing you.

As the cost to produce a product falls, the market expands. Where before you couldn't get into the market very easily--brand loyalty and a price war with the other 2 producers would not end well for you--the market now includes 200,000,000 consumers. Entering this market is costly, and you need a volume of at least 1,000,000 per year to survive; however, that's only 0.5% of the market--not 30%! Before, you'd have needed to be 60 times as successful to break even.

So what happens?

The two or three players in the market, trying to sell for over $1,000,000, now face someone showing up to sell a product for $2,000! Brand loyalty is one thing; but this guy is selling exactly the same thing, he's selling it to 199,900,000 other customers, and he's putting price pressure on your market. Your 1,000 super-super-rich customers like the prestige, while the rest--millionaires who spend 8 years making payments--decide they're so damned elite they'll buy a hundred of those commodity supercars and appear in pictures with their freshly-waxed, blindingly-shiny toys behind them.

Besides that, the new entrants to the market now have all this cash flow behind them, having successful businesses. It's not just that one guy, either; dozens get into the market, since it's so easy to succeed. The big ones start making better supercars in limited production runs. You catch up, but now you have to jockey with all these offerings--which means those $1,000,000 cars can only sell for $1,250,000 unless you can gimmick up your brand to get loyalty nobody else can replicate. You're, again, relegated to your most-elite, super-rich clients for that.

So what happened?

The demand curve extended down. Demand went up massively, because people who can't or won't pay high prices are able to buy. As a result, competition increased; and an increase in

Re:Problem with executive fiat

[Karmashock]

As to the argument that subsidizing demand by handing everyone a fixed amount will lower prices.

We can see emperically that that didn't happen.

Beyond that, you're not employing market forces to drive competition because the government is setting a base level subsidy that suppliers will not go below because they don't have to go below it.

What is more, the government raises this subsidy basically whenever suppliers say they want more. This means prices will continue to go up.

Given regulations and other market barriers you have artificially restricted supply with inflated demand.

Your prices can only go up in that environment. This is textbook.

And even your cartoon is calling bullshit on you here. The punch line in the cartoon is "why can a plane fly upside down"... that is, empirical evidence contradicts the simplified theory.

Well, empirical evidence agrees with me and disagrees with you.

Again, if you want to lower prices, you have to remove barriers to entry into the market, increase consumer choices by allowing consumers to choose the products they desire instead of dictating which products they must buy.

The Bronze, Silver, Gold concept is infantile in its simplicity and offers the consumer very few options to mitigate aspects of the industry that are inefficient, ill advised, and need to be starved of funding to kill them off.

This is exactly what the market does with products and services it finds to be non-competitive. It starves them of resources.

You've misread market choices. Many people don't buy health insurance because they are not attracted to the product.

As to providing subsides for the very poor... medicaid is fine. But that's for the very poor... not everyone. If you want it for everyone, then just advocate full socialization. I think a good hybrid system is having some government hospitals that have government doctors... You will only be able to attract substandard doctors if you pay below market rate unless you entirely monopolize the market. At that point, doctors will either leave the country to get better jobs elsewhere or accept artificially restricted prices in your monopolized system.

Look, empirical reality is very sticky. We are seeing several products all inflate radically in price.

Healthcare
Education
Housing

They all share ONE thing in common. Heavy government demand side subsidies.

Very clever people said it wouldn't happen. They had all the accreditation and titles.

It happened.

Consider the shaman that cuts open a chicken's entrails to foretell the future. Considered to be smart by his society... he talks to God... the King trusts him.

But its all bullshit.

And that's what all those accreditation turn into when you can't actually model reality accurately. It all turns to horseshit. Emperor with no cloths on.

If your model were right, prices wouldn't be inflating after the ACA.

You can say "give it time" but the projections for the ACA held that prices would have been lower ALREADY. So, its a goalpost move. We can go over the projections that were laid out for the ACA. They've not come true.

They were wrong. Exactly why should your models retain credibility when they fail to model reality?

Re:Problem with executive fiat

[bluefoxlucid]

Beyond that, you're not employing market forces to drive competition because the government is setting a base level subsidy that suppliers will not go below because they don't have to go below it.

Not really. The Government is requiring the purchase of a certain thing, as with car insurance, when you have an employee (it's employee insurance!). You have a competitive market trying to be the supplier of that thing.

It's the same thing as food: everybody buys it.

You keep suggesting that we'll be handing every consumer some money, they'll spend that money on a thing, and the supplier will raise the price of that thing.

Problem: we're not handing consumers money.

Consumers are, as rational actors in a free market, purchasing health insurance by their own decision. We're requiring employers to purchase some base level of health insurance; and so there is a huge amount of demand. Employers must select for the insurance to purchase based on market behaviors: the employer wants low employee costs so as to reduce their own prices so their customers will shop from them--that revenue stream of the customers buying burgers or shoes or whatnot is affected by the price of the insurance the employer buys, and so that price impacts the decision of consumers to buy from that employer.

So the Employer has Carefirst, Aflac, Aetna, Union Healthcare, United Healthcare, NationWide, Liberty, Progressive, Farmer's, All State, and a bunch of smaller insurers to pick from. Those insurers are competing. They're facing an artificially-expanded market of natural demand.

That means they put pressure on the providers, and providers on suppliers, as in an open and free market with lots of natural customers.

So what about expanding it?

80% of Americans have insurance unrelated to Medicare or the ACA. So you've got a solid market which reflects pricing, and from which we can read trends and patterns to ensure fair pricing.

Keep that number in mind: 80%. Four of every five.

The ACA allows small businesses to not provide healthcare coverage for some Americans and, likewise, allows all businesses to supply minimal health insurance to all employees so long as 90% receive care covering 60% of the average out-of-pocket costs for a premium cost to the employee of no more than 9.65% of their paychecks. That's a lot of people not covered.

First thing: Adjust the ACA to mandate a level of care aligned with the employee's actual income, thus expanding the unsubsidized demand in this free market directly. That 80% number gets bigger.

Second: Adjust the ACA to provide a partial subsidy to small businesses, and require them to cover their employees. Why a partial subsidy? Between 8 insurers offering the same insurance, you're going to pay $6,500 to $9,800 per employee. Obviously, the rational businessman is going to buy into the $6,500 plan. We can make this $3,250 to $4,900 per employee, and the rational businessman will buy into the $3,250 plan.

The insurer has to provide rates in line with the local market, and any attempt to increase rates for subsidized customers will draw regulatory attention; likewise, the businessman can sign on with unions--who have larger groups and stronger negotiating power--and let them raise holy hell about it, especially when they have one group with one rate and are paid by the employer (i.e. the union is getting it for $6,500; the small business pays $3,250, and the subsidy pays the union the rest).

That's even more people on private care. There's a subsidy, but it's only partial, and it's in a market that's generally (80%) unsubsidized. That means prices can't move with the subsidy without moving in a market that doesn't have the subsidy. It also means the relative prices remain similarly relative.

That leaves you with only a few left. 10%-20% of Americans, if that.

For those, you look at the entire private

Re:Problem with executive fiat

[Karmashock]

Look, we can all just say things that aren't so and pretend.

Santa clause will do it... hide the eggs for the easter bunny and so on.

Your "competitive market" has suppliers fleeing it left right and center. To the point where there are many people that have only ONE licensed supplier in their area. And in some places... NONE.

So that's a fantasy. If your market were competitive then it would be healthy. It is a forced system that operates contrary to market forces in almost all ways and pays the price for that in that it is dysfunctional. This is merely a fact.

You want to go through statistics on this? Because it would be a bit like daring me to find someone who's name begins with the letter "A" in the phone book.

As to not handing consumers money, that's effectively what medicaid does and the passive subsidies to insurance companies that participate in the market do the same thing... its just the consumer never sees that money.

In fact, that is one of the many things that violates the market principle... PRICE DISCOVERY doesn't happen in medical practice between the consumer and service provider.

For example, do you see hospitals and doctors bidding against each other for the business of sick people? Not so much. Do you see hospitals bragging about how affordable their care is? Not so much. You often don't even see upfront pricing.

The only place you tend to see proper market forces operating is in plastic surgery and in a lot of dental practices. Which are both the most healthy private sector medical providers.

We're seeing private practice doctors shut down across the country since the ACA. They can't handle the paperwork. They are shutting down their offices and just becoming doctors in hospitals where fees are higher to the patient or they're retiring which reduces supply and increases costs.

Look, if you want your socialized system... Great. I'm not standing in the way of that. But you have to be realistic about it and interact with "this universe". Otherwise you're going to have a system built on "hope" which is more or less what Venezuela banked on.

And look at the people in Venezuela... they still haven't learned. That's how bad it can get without anyone learning... because it has gotten that bad there and they still haven't learned.

I don't want that for my country. If you want to do socialism then you have to "this universe" socialism such as exists in Sweden.

They have for example a balanced budget law that requires the government of Sweden to cut spending or raise taxes... either one so long as the budget balances. And if it doesn't balance then automatic deep systemic cuts happen. This is a law that was proposed in the US by Richard Nixon. THAT is what keeps Swedish socialism stable.

Now... If the idea is make up theories, ignore that they don't work, ignore empirical contradictions to your perspective on reality, and persue what seems to me an ideological concept with no practical benefit to the public... You don't get my vote.

Maybe you take this as non-constructive or mean or trolling... I don't know... From my perspective you're a very biased, factually disinterested, evangelist for a failed concept. My perspective. You keep talking about the ACA like its a free market or something. You talk about how the costs go down because of it... Anyone that examines the facts would give your assessment of the matter an "F". The marks the kid gets for not reading the book he was supposed to do a book report on.

I feel like I'd be getting farther debating the foreign policy of the kingdom of Oz.

Re:Problem with executive fiat

[bluefoxlucid]

Look, we can all just say things that aren't so and pretend

Sure, that seems to be your primary debate strategy.

do you see hospitals and doctors bidding against each other for the business of sick people?

Yes. The collective bargaining organization I'm signed up with--Carefirst of Maryland--negotiates prices lower than even Medicare, which is why I suggested the Federal system use the lowest market-negotiated rates as its price ceilings at each provider: the private market is better at this.

Next, you'll be claiming labor unions push wages down.

Re:Problem with executive fiat

[Karmashock]

No, what I am doing is not denying reality.

Prices under the ACA went up. That is a fact. According to Obama administration estimates they should have gone down. They did not.

The models you are basing your logic on failed to model reality. They failed.
They are bad models.
Your doubling down on validating failure is bias on your part.

We can talk about arriving at a solution you like. But we cannot make any rational plans about anything if you start with false premises and will not correct your positions when contradicted by reality.

Re:Never passing the House

[Anonymous Coward]

Believe it or not, I actually read the article, particularly this part:

Democrats face a tougher task in the House, where Republicans have a 238-193 majority. President Trump could veto the resolution if it passes both chambers.

It's DOA and they know it. It may not even make it past the Senate.

Evidence that parties matter

[JoshuaZ]

This should be more evidence that there are real and substantial differences between the Democratic and Republican parties. When people say that the two major parties are just the same, this sort of thing shows that isn't the case. There are real differences between the major political parties. This isn't the only example: on both having minimal amounts of gun control, and on climate change, there are real and substantial differences between the parties as they currently stand. And who one votes for and supports can make a real difference.

Re:Evidence that parties matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that for many of us it's still a "choose your poison" sort of decision as neither party represents us on enough issues important to us to throw our full weight behind them. In either case they champion one right that we want to keep while trampling over others that we also find important.

Re:Evidence that parties matter

[ClickOnThis]

True, this is evidence that parties matter. But it's also evidence that opposition parties matter.

Even though the effort by the Democrats to call a vote is Quixotic, it puts both parties on record as to where they stand.

Both parties do this, and generally it's a good thing -- unless it's overdone. For example, Republicans voted to repeal Obamacare over 60 times, knowing full well it would never happen. That was abusive of the process.

Re:Evidence that parties matter

[JoshuaZ]

Last year I heard Trump was Hitler and going to start up concentration camps, now Democrats want us to disarm.

Let's be clear: if there's any situation where who has guns matters, the Democrats will have already lost since they have far fewer weapons and far less understanding of them (witness for example the repeated statements about "assault weapons" like it is a real category of weapon).

As for climate change? They may "believe" two different things but they both live the same lifestyles. Show me how much you "believe" in climate change by how you live, not how you vote. I don't give a fuck what some dickhead says about CO2 emissions if they're driving a SUV, living in a large house and eating meat.

I agree that lifestyle changes are important. I don't own a car and use public transit for that reason, and while my wife and I aren't 100% vegetarians, our house is vegetarian- pretty much the only times we ever meat is on occasion when visiting a friend or relative. But even given that, lifestyle changes aren't the only thing that matters the Democrats generally favor policy differences that will matter. For example, both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton favored large-scale programs to increase solar and wind power as well as more use of electric cars, whereas we now have a President who has the stated goal of "bringing back coal" even in a country where there are already far more people employed in renewable energies than with coal http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-solar-power-employs-more-people-more-oil-coal-gas-combined-donald-trump-green-energy-fossil-fuels-a7541971.html, and where coal is being largely beaten down not just by renewable energy sources but also largely because natural gas is so cheap. And coal isn't the only example of this: Trump has actively encouraged further oil drilling off the coast https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-11/trump-is-said-to-open-door-for-oil-drilling-off-u-s-east-coast (although not off of Florida because he and the governor there get along well apparently https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-administration-says-no-drilling-off-florida-coast/2018/01/09/91981160-f5a8-11e7-a9e3-ab18ce41436a_story.html?utm_term=.7322b1e2b3b5 when we shouldn't be producing more oil in general.

Yes, the Democrats aren't perfect. Yes, some of them are pretty hypocritical. That doesn't stop them from being a far, far better option on climate issues.

Re: Evidence that parties matter

[rHBa]

sewing hate

It's funny how people try to stitch negativity into everything they say

Re: Evidence that parties matter

[ClickOnThis]

sewing hate

It's funny how people try to stitch negativity into everything they say

Only on some threads here.

Re:Evidence that parties matter

[Anonymous Coward]

The Republicans are against government control and regulation of the Internet. That shows they don't consider it important.

Re: Evidence that parties matter

[daniel.w.wood]

I believe it's "pick your poison" as the saying goes. No big accord. Have a nice 12 hours of light!

Re:Evidence that parties matter

[JoshuaZ]

Externalities are a thing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality. We have actual theorems about when markets solve appropriately and when they don't, and the most basic situation when they don't is when there are lots of little negative externalities and high transaction costs. This is precisely why we have government regulation of pollution in general. There's nothing special about coal there.

Re: Evidence that parties matter

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe it's "pick your poison" as the saying goes. No big accord. Have a nice 12 hours of light!

Imnsho, the best way to do a lot of the process of government is to assign weights to all major issues, then work out an optimum way to assign resources based on that weighting. Of course some will say, you can't assign value to a human life. Well, yes, you can. You can make it astronomically high, you just have to accept that everything else's then must get weighted astronomically low. Math is a real thing.

Basically it is a politicians job to figure out that balance, but voters have responsibility to. Typically you have primary choices and main election choices, all of which you have a say in. You can also of course run yourself and provide an alternative.

Which choice, by the numbers was the best choice each time?

In short, saying there is no difference, is basically saying your too lazy to bother to try.

Re:Evidence that parties matter

[phantomfive]

There is no position strongly supported or opposed by either party that won't be flip-flopped within two election cycles. So at any given moment there are some differences, but the are ephemeral and unsubstantial compared to the similarities.

I would also point out that the American people are more similar than we are different, but the election process is designed to hi-light our differences. And thus we fight against each other.

Re:Evidence that parties matter

[MobyDisk]

The problem is the differences are arbitrary and changing - there's no consistent philosphy. So in 4 years the party could be saying the exact opposite of what it says today. Bush Jr was against nation building and offensive wars, yet that is his legacy. Under his leadership, they expanded medicare with the prescription drug plan, then under Obama they fought tooth-and-nail against expanding healthcare. The republicans were fiscal hawks last year, now they are spendaholics. The only reason I can see for them being against NN is because the democrats were in favor of it. So while yes, there are differences, there's little consistency. The only real consistency is the constant expansion of federal power.

Re:Evidence that parties matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. Parties do matter.

One party is currently engaged in doing anything it can to overturn the results of the last election - including misusing the FISA system to use fake data fed to them by a foreign power interested only in sewing hate and discontent to justify using the entire US intelligence gathering powers against the winner.

And then ironically trying to blame the winner of colluding with that very same foreign power.

B-b-b-b-ut RUSSIA!!!!!

Fucking crybaby losers.

Wait! Wait! Wait!

You missed something, it is not the democrats that are concerned about collusion with Russia, if it were just the democrats, the argument would have been shut down by now, a year into the Trump administration!

The reason it is of grave concern is because many of the Republicans even knew that it was going on and thought it was going to result in Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio or some other person the Religious Reich wanted, but they got Donald Trump (who some suspect is a RINO anyway, he was a card carrying Democrat in the 1990s) I know a lot of the kids that are voting these days don't even remember back that far.

Another problem with this argument is that if the FBI were colluding with the Russians to get Donald Trump elected why wouldn't they have pushed the Hillary Clinton email thing harder and not give up on it and try to start it up at the last minute? It almost has the illusion that the FBI was working for the Russians if you want to make the argument that "For Trump" = the position of Soviet Russia Motherland. The argument is really weak if you want to try to say anything other than members of the Trump team had people working for them that turned out to be the same people that were on facebook spreading "Fake news" about Hillary, and then accusing democrats of spreading "Fake News" when anything bad came out about Donald Trump, which let's be serious, is the only PR spin tactic that the Republican party has been capable of doing since Obama was elected!

Anyone who is trying to say that Hillary or the Democrats were in with the Republicans and therefore "TRUMP WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN IN 2020" is full of crap and most of America knows it now, even the poor white low IQ types who are greeters at walmart who voted for Trump thinking that "someone who is such a good business leader would get our country together like a business and all us republicans will get good jobs for voting for the great orange one!" They are pissed and know they messed up bad, but they will never admit it, most of them fall back on the Hillary is Satan or religious argument and try to say that they had evidence they didnt have and that everyone is an idiot for not seeing it their way. (Typical sub 80 IQ Republican crap we have all been used to for years , Probably why Bill Maher referred to it as "Republican Classic".)

The Truth is going to come out in the FBI investigation and either Trump will resign or a bunch more of the Trump cabinet will get let go, but the full weight of it will never be aimed at the Democrats or Hillary like all of the butt hurt republican wanna be intelligencia wish they could spin it but just can't figure out how.

Re:Evidence that parties matter

[DCFusor]

I see by the score on this and the replies that the "control the narrative" trolls are out tonight - I won't waste mod points against the flood of ignorance. Yes, there's a difference. Rotten meat is different than rotten vegetables, BFD. Both are corrupt as ..., it's just that a different set of big money interests own one vs the other, with lots of overlap. Not one initiative in my entire > 60 years has been pro little guy. Not one has done anything but boost big biz, big pharma, MIC, you name it. None represent me, or us. That's where there's no difference. It's just a matter of this party is better for pharma, that one better for Boeing and so forth. But none are for ME. If elections mattered, they wouldn't hold them. And anyone who's been paying attention and has critical thinking facilities knows this. Why was the last real infrastructure project in Ike's administration? Since public indoctorination disguised as school and substituted for parenting...things are downhill all the way. If you're not old enough to have observed this for yourself, ask someone who is. Don't bullshit us Joshua - learn before spouting. Yeah, they're different. But it's without meaning. Look at all the policy changes between say Bush and Obama - I couldn't tell, but it seemed Obama was slightly more aggressive at starting more wars, and reaching into my pocket to benefit big pharma, that it was anything other than a matter of degree - both sucked. Neither walked their talk. Big difference, eh?

Re:Evidence that parties matter

[DCFusor]

And this was voted to -1 when I wrote this? Ya, slashdot has smart people with considered opinions, yep, you betcha. This is so obviously true that whoever did all that downvoting IS THE PROBLEM.

Re:Evidence that parties matter

[leftistsrmentallyill]

GOOD FOR YOU, you found an excuse to use your new word! "Quixotic", nice, you should be a writer!!!!!!!!!!!!

Re:Evidence that parties matter

[BlueStrat]

The Republicans are against government control and regulation of the Internet. That shows they don't consider it important.

"If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -- Ronald Reagan

Not allowing government to get it's grubby little corrupt, criminal, & authoritarian fingers into the internet is *because* it is so important that it must be kept free.

Strat

Re:Evidence that parties matter

[serviscope_minor]

That's the thing with leftists. We have educayshun and know words and shit. Also we know when to stop hitting the exclamation mark key!

Re:Evidence that parties matter

[leftistsrmentallyill]

No, the thing with leftists is, you use "special" words for no reason to try to distinguish yourself and skip the substance. Like a peacock with clipped wings lifting a feather for display, but you delude yourself into thinking you can fly.

Re:Evidence that parties matter

[shilly]

you use "special" words for no reason to try to distinguish yourself.

You know what's special about the new breed of rightists? Your extraordinary ability to contradict yourself in the same sentence. And you're always too fucking dumb to realise you've done it.

Hint: you either need to argue that "leftists...use "special" words for no reason" *or* you need to argue "leftists...use "special" words ... to try to distinguish yourself [sic, obviously it should be 'yourselves', but you have bigger challenges than your inability to match plural with plural]". But arguing both at the same time just makes you look fabulously stupid. Because, and here's the tricky bit "to try to distinguish yourself" *is a reason*.

Here, I'll help you squirm out of this. What you probably meant to say was "leftists use "special words" for no good reason. You just use those words to try to distinguish yourselves and skip the substance". To which the appropriate reply is: "Is that what you think? Oh, that's too adorable. Honey, if that makes you feel better about having to look up Quixotic on Conservapedia because you'd never heard the term before, that's OK. We know your ego is both gigantic and terribly fragile. So you do what you need to. So long as it doesn't involve a fucking AR15."

Re:Evidence that parties matter

[shilly]

This isn't accurate. You've described a problem for the GOP -- all your examples are Republican. The GOP has been shameless for at least three decades in promising and fighting for hard-right policies (like scrapping health coverage, isolationist no-war, fiscal hawks) when they're out of power, and then delivering something completely different in government (Rx expansion, overseas wars, spend like crazy albeit often without the tax income that makes the sums add up).

Re:Evidence that parties matter

[Anonymous Coward]

"Quixotic" is a fairly standard word in most English-speaking countries - there's nothing '"special"' about it. You're not psychic - the motive "to try to distinguish yourself and skip the substance" is just something you imagined.

Re:Evidence that parties matter

[JoshuaZ]

I see by the score on this and the replies that the "control the narrative" trolls are out tonight - I won't waste mod points against the flood of ignorance.

Disagreeing with you doesn't make someone a troll. As for most of your comment, the original article gave an example where the difference matters, and I gave two examples in my post where the difference matters, gun control and climate change. Let's be clear, at this point, there's very, very little that matters as much as climate change on the large scale.

If elections mattered, they wouldn't hold them.

Who is they? Also, what makes you think this other than general cynicism? What is your evidence?

Don't bullshit us Joshua - learn before spouting.

Disagreement with you doesn't mean someone is bullshitting. It is also a deep mistake to assume that people who you disagree with must be ignorant. It is probably a deeply satisfying way to go through life, but it isn't useful if one wants to try to better understand the world around you.

Re:Evidence that parties matter

[bluefoxlucid]

Even though the effort by the Democrats to call a vote is Quixotic, it puts both parties on record as to where they stand.

Until you get people like me in the mix, anyway. I want a bigger conversation on a lot of stuff that's been reduced to political talking points.

Rumor coming out of DC was my Congressman was going to retire and have his wife run for his seat. He never announced his re-election campaign; he just put his name on the ballot and I've met people who claimed they've heard of me because he mentioned my name while canvassing. From what I'm picking up (fourth-hand information), the DNC has identified me as a threat, and told him to run this year so I'll go away.

Whatever, dude; nobody likes you. I'm going to Congress and I'm going to end poverty. We've got like 160 new Democratic candidates coming to replace Republicans and incumbents; I guess I've already not made any friends in DC, but that's okay: we're bringing new friends.

The 2018 term won't be an important term for me; 2020 term will. If I lose this election, I'll come back more powerful than these people can imagine.

Re:Evidence that parties matter

[bluefoxlucid]

Will both of you stop behaving like Congress?

Re: Evidence that parties matter

[WallyL]

sewing hate

It's funny how people try to stitch negativity into everything they say

Only on some threads here.

Stop being so cross! Man, I saw this issue looming, because you just couldn't help weaving in that comment.

Re:Evidence that parties matter

[leftistsrmentallyill]

REASON is separate from DESIRE you mental fucking retard. Just because you want something doesn't mean you have a reason for wanting it. Reason involves modelling and calculation and conscious will. Another thing leftists love is splitting hairs, or atoms, when playing semantics warrior. This is part of the larger trend of their complete self absorption and refusal to talk with, or really even recognize, anyone outside the in-group template the media/schooling machine burns into their so-called brains. glad it stung though, thanks for the admission, you brainless, soulless leftist sack of shit

Re:Evidence that parties matter

[DCFusor]

Disagreement that ignores facts may not be trolling, but its still wrong. And provably so.

Re: Evidence that parties matter

[q4Fry]

Ah, Slashdot. Come for the clickbait, stay for the puns.

Re:Evidence that parties matter

[JoshuaZ]

What aspect of the comment is in your viewpoint "bullshit[ting]"? What specific facts are being ignored? And are you going to respond to any of the other questions asked earlier or points raised?

Re:Evidence that parties matter

[shilly]

Oh, you are too cute. "Reason is separate from desire" in the same post as "leftists... playing semantics warrior".

You seem to be unaware of the astonishing idea that words have more than one meaning. To pluck an example out of the air, "reason" may mean "a cause, explanation or justification for an event" or it may mean "the power of the mind to think, understand and form judgements logically". I'm sure there's a term for someone who uses the word "reason" in the sense of definition A in a sentence and then hides behind the sense of definition B in their follow-up defensopost. What would that term be? Oh yes, that's right: "semantics warrior".

There's another term, of course. Berk. A berk is a fabulous British term. It encompasses the silly rage, the sense of "your arse is hanging out and everyone is laughing and once you know it's happening you're going to feel humiliated, you're going to get angry and upset and have to go home for a rage-wank while your ears burn" that it is your current pleasure to experience, if you have the wit to see what's happened (yeah, right). It also encompasses that complete inability to accurately identify other people's thoughts and emotions coupled with complete assurance that you're excellent at that task which you so ably demonstrated by writing "glad it stung".

I want a bill to shove up Ajit Pai's ass

[Anonymous Coward]

With razorblades glued to it

Why is this partisan?

[Anonymous Coward]

If there are any Republican or Democrat voters here, could you explain why your party favors their position and why the other party favors the other position? (In particular, can you present that other party in the best light, even though you disagree with them?) I'm not so much asking your opinion about NN, as much as I'm wondering why Republicans are against it and why Democrats are for it.

Is it an actual policy or ideals difference, or is it just because the president (or maybe even the former president) favors a certain position so everyone has to support or oppose him based on party?

Re:Why is this partisan?

[JoshuaZ]

This wasn't a partisan issue a few years ago. To some extent, this is part of a general trend, where almost all issues get a partisan gloss whether it makes any sense or not. There's no intrinsic philosophical reason why their should be a group that's generally pro-life, pro-low taxes and against net neutrality v. a group that is pro-choice, pro-status quo taxes or higher taxes and in favor of net-neutrality. What issues end up on what sides is often (but not always) more due to historical factors than coherent political approaches. I will hasten to add that that doesn't mean that there aren't real differences between parties, but how many issues align has little to do with general patterns (although at this point, the Democrats seem to be at least minimally the party that is paying minimal attention to science and expert advice as a rough generalization).

Re:Why is this partisan?

[PopeRatzo]

explain why your party favors their position and why the other party favors the other position

Illustrate your answer with supporting evidence and show your work. Neatness, spelling and grammar will be counted toward your score.

Re:Why is this partisan?

[AHuxley]

When the federal government is allowed to set rules about one part of the internet, they can set rules about all the internet.
To tell what part of the USA gets what quality of internet, when and for how much.
To promote brands that support one side of US politics above their competition.
To make any new networking more federally regulated for brands that do not support one side of US politics.
To ensure areas that vote for one side of US politics keep getting services.
Areas that did not note vote for one side of US politics are blocked from getting much better services.
To try and push for a return of a Fairness Doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... over the federally regulated parts of the internet under new branding of social justice, political correctness.

Everyone gets to keep their telco monopoly and their paper insulated wireline for many years.
Want to build a new network? Federal NN like rules could set in and demand "poor" areas get the same network for "free" from any brand trying to build a community network.
Federal control over any community, city, state networking project that will make existing monopoly paper insisted wireline look slow.
Only a big political party and the federal government will be allowed to lift poor networking.
New brands and the private sector is not going to be allowed to get the funding and another party the votes for network innovation.
Changes to rules like the NN rules keep the internet under federal control to keep funding, party political donations and federal oversight.
No city, state is going to escape paper insulated wireline monopolies without understanding it was the federal gov and one side of US political party that approved that upgrade.
The other side of US politics is allowing local brands and communities to build out innovative new fast networking as needed will fewer federal NN rules.
Such states and cities attract new brands, innovation and grow. More jobs for people in the USA, a message of growth spreads.
The party lines are between federal NN rules and cities and states getting on with their own networks. Communities all over the USA finally escaping federally supported paper insulated wireline monopolies.

Re:Why is this partisan?

[Mr307]

This is pretty close to my understanding as well, too bad no one really wants to have an honest discussion about it, pretty much its some shrill 'they destroyed the internets', and lots of downvoting.

Re:Why is this partisan?

[_Sharp'r_]

The Republican party has "generally" been the party of smaller government, especially in terms of taxes and the regulatory burden (but not the military). The Democratic Party has
"generally" been the party of believing expert elites in government know better how things should be done and should be allowed the power to make decisions for people's own good.

This is a basic philosophical difference between the parties, of whether they defer to individual decisions as much as possible or else believe collective decision making should be the default. It doesn't impact some areas, like abortion or death penalty, to give two examples, but it impacts anything related to taxes, the economy and the overall regulatory regime. That's why some Republican Presidents appoint people to head federal agencies who want to reduce their influence, while some Democratic Presidents boast of wielding their executive pen to give government more control of various areas of life. Like most large political parties, there are exceptions and nuances and members who have different views. It's a generality, with some exceptions.

The Net Neutrality debate has self-interested parties on both sides, but in terms of the above philosophical divide between parties, it fits in with a hundred other similar issues.

Re: Why is this partisan?

[Anonymous Coward]

Regulating who puts their genitals near other consenting adults' genitals seems to be a case of elites making decisions for others to me.

Re: Why is this partisan?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shush, that's not what the progressives have been told to believe.

Re:Why is this partisan?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not that no one wants to have an honest discussion, it's that one side refuses to have an honest discussion. It's either accept their assertions or die in a fire.

Been seeing a whole lot of that argument style from these same folks over a lot of issues recently.

Re: Why is this partisan?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the Federal government sets regulations about some part of the internet, it does not mean it is regulating all of it, unless Congress votes it the power to do so. Saying otherwise is like saying that because there are regulations about the presence of mouse droppings in breakfast cereals it means the Federal government controls what you have for breakfast in a general sense.

I'm very happy with this FCC

[Anonymous Coward]

And Ajit Pei. He's getting all kinds of awards. He's keeping the internet like it always has been and I applaud him for his efforts. He's winning awards.

Re:I'm very happy with this FCC

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks Ivan. Bitcoin is on the way.

Re:I'm very happy with this FCC

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks Hillary!

As sure as the sun comes up in the east...

[bobbied]

It WILL fail the vote in the House, if not the Senate.

But it's the silly election season with the three ring circus in full swing so we will get all sorts of pointless political posturing purporting importance.

Re:As sure as the sun comes up in the east...

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct. The Republicans are too against government-control and regulations in general to pass this.

Re:As sure as the sun comes up in the east...

[bluefoxlucid]

They seem to want government control and regulations over the contract an employer can validly-make with a third party, but only for certain types of third parties.

Sure!

[SuperKendall]

Happy to help - unlike what you've been told, large mega-corporations generally support Democrats these days (see donations to Hillary, Obama, etc.). So the network neutrality rules were written pretty much by some of the larger ISP's to block pesky competitors from getting too far.

So the Republicans and Democrats both know that the regulations really do not mean much on their own, but represent a symbolic stand.

What that means in practice is that Republicans then will generally be OK with repeal, because it doesn't affect major Republican donors, and it kind of goes along with the popular message of reducing regulation.

Meanwhile the Democrats detest Trump, and as noted are backed by large corporations which is why they are fighting tooth and nail to keep every regulation possible, including especially the network neutrality legislation...

Under no circumstance should you take this as any party trying to do anything that would benefit you, it's all just a large game where we are not even the pawns, we are crumbs in the box the game came in to be emptied into the bin if we do anything to make our betters notice us.

Re:Sure!

[Anonymous Coward]

So the network neutrality rules were written pretty much by some of the larger ISP's to block pesky competitors from getting too far.

Also remember that the guy who passed the original Net Neutrality "rules" was literally a cable industry lobbyist.

Literally. That's what he did prior to being appointed FCC chair by Obama: lobby for the cable industry. The idea that he'd do anything that wasn't in the best industry of the cable lobby is ludicrous.

Meanwhile the Democrats detest Trump, and as noted are backed by large corporations which is why they are fighting tooth and nail to keep every regulation possible, including especially the network neutrality legislation...

It's important to remember that the only difference between the parties are the giant corporations that are their donors. That's it. Democrats tend to be backed by media companies (which is why the media is biased in their favor) while Republicans tend to be backed by big energy companies. But there's still a lot of overlap.

Re:Sure!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's sad to see how short right wingers' memories are. Needless to say, this is all complete cable industry bullshit, and a google search for "net neutrality" proves that. Literally ALL the results debunk this tired meme.

It's also not hard to learn that mega-corporations generally support both parties. The only divide is on things like weapons and women's healthcare.

Please, leave this issue alone

[WindBourne]

NN will not solve the real issue. The REAL issue is that the GOP continues to grant Monopolies to companies like Comcast and continue to support them. It needs to be STOPPED.
The best thing is de-monopolize all of these companies, AND require that no state law should prevent municipals from building out their own fiber based network. By doing this, it restores competition. This is the TRUE solution to the issues that non-regulated ISPs have.

Re:Please, leave this issue alone

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Just as the Republicans here in Seattle have given Comcast a government-granted monopoly and don't force Comcast to provide service in their entire monopoly area. As a liberal, I fully support the government doing this, but they should at least force Comcast to provide service.

Re:Please, leave this issue alone

[bobbied]

NN will not solve the real issue. The REAL issue is that the GOP continues to grant Monopolies to companies like Comcast and continue to support them.

Citation please? When and where did "{Republicans} grant Monopolies to {snip} Comcast"?

Re:Please, leave this issue alone

[Anonymous Coward]

>The REAL issue is that the GOP continues to grant Monopolies to companies like Comcast and continue to support them.

https://www.opensecrets.org/donor-lookup/results?name=comcast+corporation&cycle=2016&state=&zip=&employ=&cand=

COMCAST CORPORATION
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 03-10-2016 $1,205,030.00 Philadelphia 2016 Host Cmte (D)
COMCAST CORPORATION
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 09-29-2016 $30,000.00 Philadelphia 2016 Host Cmte (D)
COMCAST CORPORATION
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 03-10-2016 $1,653,495.00 Philadelphia 2016 Host Cmte (D)
COMCAST CORPORATION
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 03-10-2016 $470,451.00 Philadelphia 2016 Host Cmte (D)
COMCAST CORPORATION
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 03-10-2016 $1,303,004.00 Philadelphia 2016 Host Cmte (D)
COMCAST CORPORATION
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 03-10-2016 $484,681.00 Philadelphia 2016 Host Cmte (D)
COMCAST CORPORATION
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 07-15-2016 $500,000.00 Philadelphia 2016 Host Cmte (D)
COMCAST CORPORATION & NBCUNIVERSAL PAC
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 03-30-2016 $15,000.00 AmeriPAC: The Fund for a Greater America (D)
COMCAST CORPORATION & NBCUNIVERSAL POLIT
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 06-24-2016 $1,000.00 Zeldin, Lee (R)
COMCAST CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE- FE
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 PAC 11-18-2015 $1,000.00 Georgia Federal Elections Cmte (D)

Stupid GOP.

Re:Please, leave this issue alone

[Anonymous Coward]

That doesn't solve the fundamental problems though. We tried de-monopolizing when we broke up AT&T and at best it just delayed things a few years. By making network neutrality, law we eliminate the ability of these companies, monopoly or not, from manipulating customer data to the benefit their own services.

Re:Please, leave this issue alone

[WindBourne]

twisted pair, i.e. ma bell, was broken up, but NEVER de-monopolized. The only place that was de-monopolized to a degree was the cell industry. And you will note that cell phones are CHEAP compared to the rest of of the industry.
And which party fights against muni networks in all of the states, including mine (Colorado)?

No, we need to remove the monopolies. Then and only then, will things straighten out.
BTW, I worked for Bell Labs/USWest AT during green's break up of us.

Re:Please, leave this issue alone

[WindBourne]

OK, grants is not the right word. Basically, the GOP works to block any attempts to remove the monopolies. They likewise work to prevent any competition.

The dems have not done anything innovative, but the GOP continues to push for the current system, which is a nightmare.

Re:Please, leave this issue alone

[bobbied]

OK.. I'll take that as a, "I was incorrect" statement.

That both parties left the situation uncorrected is not a valid charge to lay at one party's feet as you did. The GOP isn't any more responsible for your perceived failings than the democrats are.

Remember the political reality here, only ONE party has had total control of both houses of congress AND the White House in the last two decades. That one party could have "fixed" anything they considered important enough to act on and the other party couldn't have stopped them if they tried. I'll leave it to you to work out which party is which here...

Re:Please, leave this issue alone

[Whorhay]

The center of the problem is that in many areas we are likely to always have a monopoly problem simply because of the physical infrastructure required. The cost of building and maintaining all of that infrastructure is not trivial. Even when municipalities own the poles there is frequently laws in place that heavily shield the incumbent from any upstarts. Ultimately the only good lasting solution I can see is to have the physical infrastructure, particularly last mile, be run as a utility. Then let any ISP that wants to service the area lease capacity.

Re:Please, leave this issue alone

[Anonymous Coward]

Marsha Blackburn (R - TN) introduced the TN state legislation that outlawed municipal networks after Chattanooga's network became the fastest, most reliable, and least expensive internet in the whole country. Comcast worked FAST on that one.

Re:Please, leave this issue alone

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not fooling anyone. We all know you're wrong, now we know you're childish as well :)

Why are right wingers so damn predictable?

States ...

[CaptainDork]

... hold my beer.

Re:Never passing the House

[bobbied]

The CRA doesn't need the approval of the House of Representatives.

Ummm... Yes, it does.

A CRA is basically a joint resolution of both houses of congress so it does have to pass both the House and Senate within 60 days of the regulation change it seeks to reverse. It must also be signed by the president or a veto overridden by a 2/3rds vote.

See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

However, It makes me wonder if the CRA law would actually apply here. The CRA law was obviously not written with the intent to stop a regulation from being withdrawn although I don't see that use being specifically excepted by the text. I'm guessing that should this CRA actually be enacted (a snowballs chance I know) it would be challenged in court to test this.

Re:Never passing the House

[Humbubba]

An A.C said

Believe it or not, I actually read the article, particularly this part:

Democrats face a tougher task in the House, where Republicans have a 238-193 majority. President Trump could veto the resolution if it passes both chambers.

It's DOA and they know it. It may not even make it past the Senate..

Showing where each representative stands on Net Neutrality just before midterms sounds like a tactical maneuver.

Not a compelling argument...

[Macdude]

The Internet is for all -- the students, teachers, innovators, hard-working families, small businesses, and activists, not just Verizon, Charter, AT&T, and Comcast and corporate interests

To a republican that's not a compelling argument...

Net Neutrality and the neutral net

[JBMcB]

Cliffs notes version:

The FCC originally tried to regulate network neutrality by declaring high speed internet to be under the same regulatory regime as cable television. This didn't work out for a variety of reasons. So the FCC switched to classify high speed internet as a phone service. This suited large ISPs well, but small ISPs find it difficult to comply with the more arcane regulations that come with, and there are some other less visible side effects as well.

So there are actually have three camps:

1. Those who don't want the government to regulate high speed internet at all
2. Those who want the government to enforce network neutrality, but don't think that classifying it as a phone service is the right way to do it
3. Those who want to regulate network neutrality as a phone service.

I find it interesting, and somewhat telling, that the Democrats are passing a law to re-instate the Title II network neutrality regulation, instead of a crafting a bill that would allow the FCC to regulate *only* high speed internet as a distinct service from telephone.

Re:Net Neutrality and the neutral net

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it interesting, and somewhat telling, that the Democrats are passing a law to re-instate the Title II network neutrality regulation, instead of a crafting a bill that would allow the FCC to regulate *only* high speed internet as a distinct service from telephone.

Not being a fan of the DNC, I show magnanimity in pointing out the above is likely convenience, or laziness, rather than tell of motive. These are congress critters. They do not care about minutiae and nuance as you have described unless it's their minutiae and nuance.

Easier to revert back to the past, patchwork solution than to fix the problem.

Re:Net Neutrality and the neutral net

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it interesting, and somewhat telling, that the Democrats are passing a law to re-instate the Title II network neutrality regulation, instead of a crafting a bill that would allow the FCC to regulate *only* high speed internet as a distinct service from telephone.

Not being a fan of the DNC, I show magnanimity in pointing out the above is likely convenience, or laziness, rather than tell of motive. These are congress critters. They do not care about minutiae and nuance as you have described unless it's their minutiae and nuance.

Easier to revert back to the past, patchwork solution than to fix the problem.

We thought Congress could not get any worse when it was the 24 hour a day repeal and replace Obamacare network, under Boehner, but now it is a bunch of old floppy faced Republicans who would be happy to get a Glenn Beck style radio show on the other side of it! The people that got elected this time around are so Jerrymandered that some people who voted in red districts in PA are probably in the same "Colon shaped" district as someone living in Alaska, because the laws need to reflect the world we live in today, not Abraham Lincoln's time. That is beside the point that we have a bunch of poorly educated voters who were thinking they were going to get better jobs than their "Greeter at walmart" job if they voted for Trump and republican down the line, and now they are pissed because.. look at this fucking mess, and all the while they still wake up at noon and say "Hi there welcome to Walmart, would you like a shopping basket?"

Re:Net Neutrality and the neutral net

[bluefoxlucid]

I find it interesting, and somewhat telling, that the Democrats are passing a law to re-instate the Title II network neutrality regulation, instead of a crafting a bill that would allow the FCC to regulate *only* high speed internet as a distinct service from telephone.

This is a good point. I've been looking at Net Neutrality as a bigger issue, and a complex one. People don't want "fast lanes" for sensible reasons; meanwhile I'm looking at services that are good for the consumer and saying, hey, I want that preserved.

Let's look at T-Mobile and AT&T. Also, we'll toss Comcast in the mix for a minute.

On T-Mobile, anyone who operates a "music streaming service" can e-mail T-Mobile with the details, and T-Mobile will identify their streaming service and not account music streaming data itself as high-speed data use for their customers. That's it. No charge to the operator, no additional charge to the customer: this is a universal part of T-Mobile service to all T-Mobile customers. It doesn't change the data at all, either; it just supports free music streaming, and does so in a way that's free and accessible to that entire industry.

T-Mobile also cuts the bitrate to HD for video and does the same, with the option to opt-out and take the regular data charges for unmodified full-rate video streams. Likewise, and similar to the music thing above, Comcast has a "Boost" feature whereby your link is throttled to e.g. 200Mbit/s on a 1,600Mbit/s DOCSIS link, but they'll accelerate large-file downloads by lifting the throttle on those TCP connections, again with no charge.

Take a close look at these features.

Now: AT&T also provides free streaming music. The content provider (Spotify, Pandora, etc.) pays AT&T a fee, and the customer doesn't get charged for the data.

See the difference?

So I'm looking at Net Neutrality thinking I want to allow any sort of "fast lane" or other modification that doesn't impact other traffic, doesn't impact other users, doesn't add an additional charge for the user, and doesn't add a charge for the content provider. If it modifies things, the user has to be able to opt-out.

All of that means your baseline service has to be baseline, and it has to be the #1 priority of your ISP: any special prioritization is sacrificed if there is contention between supplying base network service for any user or content and supplying the prioritization. As well, ISPs can't charge anyone a special additional rate for prioritization: such prioritization is a feature the ISP adds so as to improve user experience in general. Prioritization is one-way: you can eliminate usual and customary charges (data caps) or bandwidth limitations, but you can't add restrictions (throttling) to a specific service.

It's tempting to say no enhancement is "free", but that's not quite true. The rules stated here would allow ISPs to defray non-free enhancements into the cost of service for all customers, rather than charging customers who buy the "special package". They would also allow ISPs to take advantage of slack in their network--opportunities to increase service at no cost to themselves, where they're underutilizing resources for which they pay--while prohibiting them from attaching charges to the use of whatever new thing they provide in the process. If they can convince customers that their service has more value and thus command a higher price, that's fine; no charging $5/month for the "unlimited streaming video and music" package.

I'm still trying to attack this. I haven't found a way to break the Internet by abuse of these rules; that sort of worries me, although it is the end goal. I always feel like I'm missing something if I can't circumvent a complex set of rules.

Re:Net Neutrality and the neutral net

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it interesting, and somewhat telling, that the Democrats are passing a law to re-instate the Title II network neutrality regulation, instead of a crafting a bill that would allow the FCC to regulate *only* high speed internet as a distinct service from telephone.

Okay. So there is already a set of laws to regulate phone service, and classifying internet service as a kind of phone service seems to work pretty well, so wy re-write all the laws?

Re:Net Neutrality and the neutral net

[Green Mountain Bot]

1. Those who don't want the government to regulate high speed internet at all 2. Those who want the government to enforce network neutrality, but don't think that classifying it as a phone service is the right way to do it 3. Those who want to regulate network neutrality as a phone service.

I think #3 would be more accurately listed as "Those who want to government to enforce network neutrality, and think using Title II is better than doing nothing at all."

Re:Net Neutrality and the neutral net

[JBMcB]

I think #3 would be more accurately listed as "Those who want to government to enforce network neutrality, and think using Title II is better than doing nothing at all."

That would make sense when arguing against repealing the Title II network neutrality rules. Now that they have been repealed, the question would be "Why re-instate Title II when you can introduce new legislation to authorize the FCC to regulate last-mile broadband properly?"

frsit stop!!

[Anonymous Coward]

ha ha first opist! iooips naybe mot

Re:frsit stop!!

[Anonymous Coward]

With net neutrality repealed, you could pay for first post!

Not the real problem

[burtosis]

Yes net neutrality is very important but the repeal, along with the erosion of rights and the rising inequality are symptoms of a much larger problem - unlimited and often secret money in politics. Our representives don't represent anyone but thier large donors, that is why thinks like universal background checks have 97% approval rating (republican and democrat and even gun owners agree) but we get nowhere. It's why companies are allowed monopolies, like ISPs, and in the case where there are two in a city they collude to create monopolies anyway and aren't held accountable. It's why the USA pays nearly double the healthcare costs of any other nation and yet our lifespan is 31st in the world, 5 spots lower than Slovenia. It's why corporations are people with more rights than actual humans. It's why people say democrats and republicans are the same (because in this respect they now are).

We are well and truly fucked if we don't get the money out. If you take corporate dough, you gotta go.

Re:Not the real problem

[DCFusor]

You're largely right and still not complete. If we didn't allow the guys who do the pipes to also own the content creators, the whole NN thing would be moot.

Re:Not the real problem

[burtosis]

Exactly, however there was no real room to list out all the ways we are getting the short end of the stick.

Re:Not the real problem

[burtosis]

I also forgot to add that this is taxation without representation, something the founders of the country felt strongly about.

Re:Not the real problem

[bluefoxlucid]

that is why thinks like universal background checks have 97% approval rating

There are some things we need to clean up in the law.

We also ignore the fragmentation of background check data and the sheer amount of stuff that never gets forwarded to NICS. The NRA brings this up now and then to try and divert the conversation from legislative changes, so it's not a favored Democratic talking point; yet these new laws won't actually work if we don't fix the damned background check system.

We also need to deal with the criminal justice system and focus more-strongly on behavioral health services. This, of course, isn't a favored Democratic talking point either, because the Republicans keep trying to attribute every shooting to mental health (and no, these people aren't all crazy; the ones who are mostly would be tame if they had encountered proper BHS, too).

There's a lot of talk about assault weapons bans now, and I worry Democrats will pass a new ban and do nothing else. Maybe people don't need AR-15s. They certainly don't need 30-round magazines (how about a rifle revolver with 6 shots, no modification?); and bullet design has a huge impact on how deadly a shot from any given firearm really is, but where's our conversation on that? Here's the thing: the data doesn't suggest the 1994 AW ban helped.

Conservatives love that argument; they don't like the argument that we should regulate bullets or patch up a few minor problems in our existing laws, but what do you expect from the GOP and the NRA? Democrats don't like that argument because it sounds too much like agreeing with the GOP.

The problem is I can't ignore well-constructed arguments with FBI data that shows the trend in overall homicides following the same shape as the trend in firearms homicides. That's actually better data than that which raised my original concern: what in the hell is happening post-2004 that wasn't going on pre-1994, and why did approximately nothing change in the number of mass-shooting deaths during the ban in relation to the prior decade?

Of course there's a visible impact, if you look hard enough at the graph. It's there. If you cut it back to just the number of mass shootings, it's less-obvious, while this new trend is just as obvious.

There's other data that suggests the number of homicides is going up, but the homicide rate is going down, while the suicide rate and the number of homicides from mass shootings is going up (i.e. more Virginia Techs, fewer back-alley murders).

So we need:

• Legislative tweaks to eliminate e.g. straw man purchases and whatnot
• Accountability so that NICS background checks actually catch people disqualified from gun ownership instead of showing up clean for domestic violence convicts and drug traffickers
• Criminal justice reform as an ongoing effort so as to strongly focus on behavioral health and the reduction of crime in general, reducing the likelihood anyone will be in a position in which they'll likely commit a homicide
• An examination of the ballistics involved in bullets, and a discussion on what we want to do there with regard to public safety (police ammunition), hunting rifles, whatever self-defense firearms people are allowed to carry, and the intersection between these (a hunting rifle might need ammunition in excess of what we want to regulate so as to reduce the potential injury and fatality in a mass shooting)
• Limitations on loadable ammunition size (magazines, belt feeds, revolvers) and rapid-fire mechanisms (full-auto and burst-fire weapons in civilian hands, which we already regulate, although we need to ban bump stocks)

Democrats are talking about:

Re:Not the real problem

[DCFusor]

Practically, yes it is tax without representation, but I fear that legally it's just a cost, which isn't technically the same thing, even though it actually might as well be. It's maybe what we get for letting lawyers become law makers.

Re:Not the real problem

[DCFusor]

Yep.

Re:Not the real problem

[Anonymous Coward]

WOW!!!
You surely show how ignorant you really are.

Re:Democrat party working against us

[Anonymous Coward]

You are the reason we can't have nice things.

Re:Democrat party working against us

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for giving another good example of Democrat party doing the best to destroy innovation and true internet freedom.

You are the reason we can't have nice things.

No he's not, as he's obviously not a Democrat.

The US has been steadily going more Progressive for the last 100 years, and it's been downhill the entire trip as the US has steadily gotten worse and worse the more Progressive it becomes.

Time to stop digging the hole deeper. The pendulum swings both ways, and the overdue return-swing to the Right is bound to be massive and sweeping. Trump is just the harbinger for what is coming.

Re:Never passing the House

[BlueStrat]

However, It makes me wonder if the CRA law would actually apply here. The CRA law was obviously not written with the intent to stop a regulation from being withdrawn although I don't see that use being specifically excepted by the text. I'm guessing that should this CRA actually be enacted (a snowballs chance I know) it would be challenged in court to test this.

It could well be a moot point as the Democrats may not have enough butts left in the seats to "force" anything in Congress after the midterm elections.

Strat

Boy some democrat companies must be stealing

[Anonymous Coward]

to be so desperate to want to keep a rule the Obama administration passed at the last minute.

Re: Democrat party working against us

[Anonymous Coward]

We've already seen Idiocracy, it wasn't very good.

Re: Democrat party working against us

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, awful things like voting rights for women, and desegregated schools were introduced.

Re:Democrat party working against us

[Anonymous Coward]

So you want to return to a time before 1918? Before the machine age? No computers, no cars, no television, no commercial radio. I didn't know the Amish used Slashdot!

Re:Democrat party working against us

[Anonymous Coward]

Hold onto your butts for an even greater Depression. It'll be the Greatest. Depression. Ever. It'll be YUGE!

Re:Democrat party working against us

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a straight, white, male. Fuck you, got mine.

Re:Never passing the House

[bobbied]

We can hope, but conventional wisdom says they make gains in the House at least. The Senate though, I seriously doubt anything of consequence changes there given the seats coming up for relection.

Re:Democrat party working against us

[Anonymous Coward]

Return to the Gilded Age? Where armed guards would shoot child employees for slacking off?

You're right. The right wingers basically want to return to slavery, not realizing they will be slaves as well.

Re:Fake News, hardly any difference

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that they provably weren't, and we've multiple examples of the bad shit ISP's were doing before the laws were in place, and we ALREADY have ISP's prepping to do exactly what they were outlawed from doing. And now the monopoly will only get stronger.

NN is a JOKE!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

NN will bring down the Internet.