Senate Democrats Plan To Force Vote On Net Neutrality (engadget.com)

Senator Edward J. Markey tweeted earlier today that Democrats will force a floor vote to restore net neutrality rules on May 9th. "[Democrats] had the signatures in favor of restoring the rules since January, along with a companion House bill (with 80 co-sponsors)," reports Engadget. "Senator Edward J. Markey also introduced a formal Congressional Review Act 'resolution of disapproval' in February." From the report: Of course, this last-ditch attempt to save net neutrality can only help congressional supporters of as they move into mid-term elections. "We're in the homestretch in the fight to save net neutrality," Senator Chuck Schumer said in a statement. "Soon, the American people will know which side their member of Congress is on: fighting for big corporations and ISPs or defending small business owners, entrepreneurs, middle-class families and every-day consumers." Still, even if the Senate passes the Democrat's proposal, notes Politico, it's unlikely it would get through the House or avoid a Trump veto. Also taking place on May 9, net neutrality activists and websites like Etsy, Tumblr, Postmates, Foursquare and Twilio will post "red alerts" to protest the FCC's effort to roll back net neutrality protections.

Comments

LOL (democrats)

[Anonymous Coward]

until their handlers explain things to them.

Re:LOL (democrats)

[whitroth]

Dear troll,

      So, who's paying you, Russia, or the telecoms? I mean, you're not stupid enough to bite your nose to spite your face (or your wallet) for free, are you?

      Do you *really* doubt that the Republicans are a wholly-owned subsidiary of billionaires? Really? Prove they're not.

Re:LOL this is the Democrats platform

[Anonymous Coward]

The Red party is the best! Down with the Blue party!

Dear Democrats

[Anonymous Coward]

No one gives a shit about your meaningless vote in the Senate.

No one cares what you think

No one cares anything about you.

You whine, cry, bitch and moan about everything.

You offer stupid ideas like Universal Federal Employment.

You think 90% income tax rate is, "fair"...except if you live in a Blue State, then you can deduct 80% of your income.

Most people want you to die.

Re:Dear Democrats

[ShanghaiBill]

The bill will likely not pass, but it will get the opponents on record as voting against it, which can be used against them in the November mid-terms. 80% of voters support NN, so this should be a winning issue for the Democrats in an election where many Republicans incumbents are already struggling.

Re:Dear Democrats

[Train0987]

Have you read the proposed bill? Then how on earth can you be for or against it?

Re: Dear Democrats

[Anonymous Coward]

This. Neither side will read it. If they do, will they understand it? Doubtful. Both sides use lobbyists to write their bills. If an R is for it, then a D is automatically against it, and the converse is true, regardless of the content.

Re:Dear Democrats

[greenwow]

If the bill requires more regulations and laws for small ISPs to compete, then it's no better than Obama's last move in 2015 that destroyed several of them. For the big guys, hiring lawyers is a small relative cost but for the small ISPs that can be a killer.

Re:Dear Democrats

[Anonymous Coward]

These dishonest political tactics are exactly how you got Trump, by the way.

Dishonest political tactics like refusing to confirm the president's SCOTUS nominee? For the first time ever in the history of this country?

Remind me please, my memory is a little fuzzy. Which party pulled that dishonest political tactic?

Which party has been in control of the house and the senate for the last five years?

Maybe you want to try a little personal honesty? Who knows, you might like it. It actually feels good when you do.

Re:Dear Democrats

[Dutchmaan]

Right, because conservatives NEVER passed symbolic legislation under Obama...

Remind me how many times Obamacare repeal was voted on by the house under Obama with no chance of being pushed through?

Re: Dear Democrats

[Anonymous Coward]

These dishonest political tactics are exactly how you got Trump, by the way.

Sixty-plus Obamacare repeal votes?
Seventy-five million in sham investigations?
Eight lawsuits for the President's birth certificate?

Great show man, I'm glad it brought us Trump, to show how defective the GOP agenda is.

Re:Dear Democrats

[Ichijo]

Which small ISPs were destroyed by Net Neutrality? Were they smaller than 100,000 subscribers?

Re: Dear Democrats

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean implementing the Biden Rule? It wasn't the first time in history. It just happened to Democrats this time, so they raised a stink about Republicans using their own tactics against them.

Re:Dear Democrats

[ShanghaiBill]

Have you read the proposed bill?

No. Why should I? It is not going to pass, so it doesn't matter what it says.

Then how on earth can you be for or against it?

I am not for or against it.

Re: Dear Democrats

[Anonymous Coward]

You had best be ready for that bigotry to come back to bite you the next time the dems have power. If there is anything I have learned in this latest cycle of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss", its this:

1. That the voters have no shame or empathy for the loosing side after an election.

2. The voters will proceed to publicly denounce the ideas of the loosing side with insults.

3. The voters will do the above with absolutely no qualms about the shitstorm that they've decided to make being used as justification for the loosing side to do the same to them when they gain power again, but the loosing side will bitch and whine over their treatment for the duration of their loss.

The only new thing is this:

4. The insults from the voters to the loosing side keep getting worse as time goes on.

Then people want to know why politics is so partisan. Well that's why. We the people have lost respect for each other's opinions and ourselves. We the people no longer hold the virtue of " I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Nor do we hold our politicians to that virtue. On the contrary, we choose to censor and denounce each other when we disagree.

One of these days, one of those insults will be the first spark in Rome. Funny how we're so concerned with walls right now when we're so close to those sparks isn't it?

Re:Dear Democrats

[Alypius]

Do you want more Trump? Because this is how you get more Trump.

Re:Dear Democrats

[iMadeGhostzilla]

I think it rather shows Democrats are in a pinch -- what with the polls that even Millennials are dropping support -- if they are looking to scrape a few votes from an odd independent or even republican who care about NN posturing more than about everything else. My guess is this move will have a low ROI.

Re: Dear Democrats

[kenh]

Remind me how many times democrats mocked the republicans for symbolic votes...

Doing that which you used to mock doesn't inoculate you from being mocked when you do it!

Re: Dear Democrats

[kenh]

80% of voters support NN

I doubt even 20% of voters know what Net Neutrality is - they simply support it because they heard the trump administration was against it.

Re: Dear Democrats

[phantomfive]

The really funny thing is they couldn't get it repealed even after getting all of Congress and the presidency.

Re:Dear Democrats

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations on falling for the GOP's massively funded propaganda for the last 25 years, fuckstick.

Re:Dear Democrats

[AutodidactLabrat]

MOST people voted Democrat last election chump
Seems reality still hasn't sunk into the Conservative head space.

Re:Dear Democrats

[AutodidactLabrat]

No, we get more Trump by allowing liars to pretend Hillary didn't get 2.86 million MORE votes
AND the House Democrats got 8.8 million MORE votes, yet Republican Gerrymanders took that away as well.

Re: Dear Democrats

[Stomper_Stoddard]

You mean implementing the Biden Rule? It wasn't the first time in history. It just happened to Democrats this time, so they raised a stink about Republicans using their own tactics against them.

There is no such thing as the Biden Rule. Certainly Joe Biden suggested it way back in 1992, but it was never presented as a serious Senate Rule, nor was it ever ratified in anyway by the Senate and in fact there was no SCOTUS vacancy at the time.

The worst you can say is Biden was hypocritical when he spoke out about the Garland nomination, but lets be honest, back then no one took any notice of the statement, not me, not the media, not the Senate and not even the GOP at time.

The fact that you brought it up at all tells me Senate Republicans had no leg to stand on and simply highlights the fact that every time someone says "Both parties do it!", it is usually because a Republican has done something crappy.

Re:Dear Democrats

[Mashiki]

MOST people voted Democrat last election chump

Which is why the democrats continued to lose seats at every level of government. Boy oh boy, that's some brilliance.

Re:Dear Democrats

[Alypius]

You seem to be confused on basic aspects of American government, such as how the popular vote is irrelevant. This is a feature, not a bug.

Re:Dear Democrats

[MachineShedFred]

Yes, 80% support net neutrality, but is it an important enough issue for them to vote for a particular candidate on it?

I have a feeling the numbers are a lot softer on that question, which is why we never see it quoted, and there's still any form of debate whatsoever. The candidates know the answer to that one - very few of these asshats will likely lose their seat over NN alone, but it might be the icing on their goodbye cake if they are in a tight race.

Re:Dear Democrats

[Anonymous Coward]

It's also based on the plurality of votes rather than majority. Most votes in the presidential election were not for a Democrat. The 1876 election is the only time where the popular vote winner had a majority.

Re:Dear Democrats

[Anonymous Coward]

The original purpose behind the electoral college is no longer relevant in this century.

It's still relevant. The populist making promises at the expense of others and dehumanizing half the voters with Hitler rhetoric didn'g get in office. Clinton not getting in is a very good reason to keep the E.C.

Re:Dear Democrats

[Anonymous Coward]

Dishonest political tactics like refusing to confirm the president's SCOTUS nominee?

How was it dishonest? It is the explicit right of the Senate to do that and McConnell made a gamble and won. That is politics. There was nothing dishonest about it. You may not like it sure, but dishonesty? He said at the very beginning "we refuse any nomination from this president.". The Senate has that right. Presidential nomination does not mean automatic seating.

Re: Dear Democrats

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt even 20% of voters know what Net Neutrality is - they simply support it because they heard the trump administration was against it.

Polling support for Net Neutrality has remained consistent since before Trump's administration, perhaps it's simply because Americans have experience with the abusive companies in the ISP field, and know they need to be restrained like the vicious parasites they are.

That said, being opposed to the Trump administration would have better odds of being on the right side of history, just by chance. Trump's the only post-Civil War president to overtly and brazenly declare allegiance to the Confederacy after all.

Re: Dear Democrats

[Anonymous Coward]

losing

Re: Dear Democrats

[Highdude702]

every time someone says "Both parties do it!", it is usually because a Republican has done something crappy.

So, what you're saying is it's ok to do shady and dirty tricks until republicans do it.. Then it magically becomes bad and it no longer matters that your side did it first. Yep that sounds about right.

Re: Dear Democrats

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen a slightly greater disdain from voters towards the winning side this election cycle, especially if one takes into consideration the main stream media and celebrity Twitter: "Resist", "Treason", "Impeach" all based on thin, tenuous claims borne of a phony dossier. That's not to say there isn't disdain in the other direction as well, but let's not pretend the Left right now are hapless silent victims of Right wing abuse. Hardly.

BTW it's, "losing", not "loosing". I didn't make the rules, but that's English for you.

Re:Dear Democrats

[Anonymous Coward]

The populist making promises at the expense of others and dehumanizing half the voters with Hitler rhetoric didn'g get in office.

Whoa, who you talking about here? You indicated Clinton, but had you not said that it certainly sounds like someone else. Maybe this just means both parties suck.

Re:Dear Democrats

[painandgreed]

Admit it. The original purpose behind the electoral college is no longer relevant in this century. If the electoral college never existed and was ONLY NOW proposed, let's say by Democrats, they would be *ridiculed* by Republicans to no end. It's so sad everything has become this divisive between two political labels.

Nope. If you were trying to get all the states to join into a constitutional agreement today, you'd still need something like the electoral college to get the small states to join in and agree to it just like then. Doubtful the Democrats would be proposing it because they do not currently benefit from it; it would be the Republicans.

Re: Dear Democrats

[Stomper_Stoddard]

every time someone says "Both parties do it!", it is usually because a Republican has done something crappy.

So, what you're saying is it's ok to do shady and dirty tricks until republicans do it.. Then it magically becomes bad and it no longer matters that your side did it first. Yep that sounds about right.

Nope, you totally missed the point. What I said was, it is usually Republicans who are doing the crappy things.

Re: Dear Democrats

[Highdude702]

That's not at all how you made that sound. You made it sound like it's always democrats doing crappy things, and everything is good until a republican does the same crappy thing then claims the other party did it when there's outrage.

Re:Dear Democrats

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you misspelled "moronic lying narcissistic egomaniac" somehow.

Re:Dear Democrats

[AutodidactLabrat]

And tRump got even less votes, with less votes for Repubican than for DEmocrat.
Nice try.
oh, btw, Reagan AND Clinton had majorities.

Re:Dear Democrats

[AutodidactLabrat]

Not irrelevant since the 14th Amendment
One day, the SCOTUS will have to look this in the face, and the "feature" to promote slave states over the majority will be ended.
Meanwhile it remains important to remind Americans that WE are smarter than the minority rule voters.

Re:Dear Democrats

[AutodidactLabrat]

Nope.
We have the 14th Amendment where ALL states agreed ALL citizens had equal rights, and therefore the EC is unconstitutional on its face.

Re:Dear Democrats

[cold fjord]

Your post is functionally equivalent to stating that you are Constitutionally illiterate regarding how US Federal elections work.

Hey! Look!

A new Clinton wave is coming this spring

It looks like Hillary 2020 could be coming! There's your chance for a "do over."

Re: Dear Democrats

[Dutchmaan]

Oh so suddenly you have some sort of moral compass when it comes to symbolic legislation? Tell ya what sport... I'll give democrats the exact same degree of outrage you gave the GOP for Obamacare repeals.. sounds fair doesn't it?

Re:Dear Democrats

[david_thornley]

Which original purpose? The appropriate Federalist paper explained in detail why the EC would never vote for Trump, so any such purpose is no longer relevant (and hasn't been for a couple of centuries). Another original purpose, less publicized at the time, was to give slave states more say in picking the President. That's irrelevant now. Any other original purpose is speculative at best.

Re:Dear Democrats

[david_thornley]

It's a cheap way to generate issues to use against Republican Senators. Since the I is low, the ROI is likely to be reasonably high.

Re: Dear Democrats

[david_thornley]

A Democrat suggested doing a crappy thing. Democrats as a whole didn't go along. Then, Republicans decided to adopt that crappy thing.

(It isn't failure to endorse. The Senate has not confirmed all nominations. The issue is failure to even consider a nominee.)

Re:Dear Democrats

[AutodidactLabrat]

So It is now obvious that you can not or will not read Amendment 14. Well that figures.
We know "how" elections work, and we know that the Constitution, Amendment 14 forbids elections that way.

Re:Dear Democrats

[iMadeGhostzilla]

You pay for the shelf space in the mind of the voters. If you put cruddy items in there the cost goes up. When you are calling people to attention, I isn't that low at all.

Let's revisit this in 6 months. My guess is there will be energy spent over this with virtually nothing to show for it. Energy that Democrats could spend better, if they could see how.

Re:Dear Democrats

[david_thornley]

It's another available campaign tactic. It is likely to prove at least somewhat useful in a few races. It's cheap, and it's at least a slight wedge between Republican congresscritters and most of the US public.

Re: Dear Democrats

[kenh]

First you ignored my assertion that most people have no idea what NN is, then you said something that is just asinine:

Trump's the only post-Civil War president to overtly and brazenly declare allegiance to the Confederacy after all.

How did he overtly and brazenly declare allegiance to a non-existent entity?

It's hard to take you seriously when you spout such nonsense.

Re:Dear Democrats

[cold fjord]

With apologies to Inigo Montoya, . . you keep referring to that Amendment. I do not think it means what you think it means. Or is that inconceivable?

Where is the text of their bill?

[Train0987]

Just calling it "Net Neutrality" is meaningless. What is in the bill? If its true neutrality it will pass with a huge margin and Trump will sign it.

Re:Where is the text of their bill?

[Anonymous Coward]

"We have to pass the bill before you can read it"

    -- Nancy Pelosi, Democrat Representative

Re:Where is the text of their bill?

[bobbied]

Just calling it "Net Neutrality" is meaningless. What is in the bill? If its true neutrality it will pass with a huge margin and Trump will sign it.

But it's not really what the name seems to mean... Typical political ploys and silly partisan games... Call your bill or law something NOBODY can vote no on, regardless of if it actually accomplishes what the title says or not.... So you get stuff like "Aid for Starving Children" act that feeds nobody or "Don't throw Grandma off the cliff!" law that provides wheelchairs so you can roll her instead.

The Net Neutrality rules did little of what it's name implies, it just loaded up the internet with soon to be arcane rules and a pile of jobs at the FCC to enforce them.

Re:Where is the text of their bill?

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump supports fewer regulations and more competition so if it does that then he will probably sign it.

The problem is that if it is like the NN regs the FCC created in 2015, then it will make it harder for the smaller guys to compete. The Wireless Internet Service Providers Association said that over 80% of their members had to delay or reduce upgrades because of additional legal costs due to the FCC's rules. Huge monopolies like Comcast or Spectrum can more easily absorb the overhead of additional regulation.

Re:Where is the text of their bill?

[sims 2]

Come on at least quote verbatim:
"We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."

-- Nancy Pelosi, Democratic House Minority Leader

Re:Where is the text of their bill?

[greenwow]

Posted this earlier today:

"Wireless Internet Service Providers Association, which represents small fixed wireless companies that typically operate in rural America, surveyed its members and found that over 80% “incurred additional expense in complying with the Title II rules, had delayed or reduced network expansion, had delayed or reduced services and had allocated budget to comply with the rules.”

Also, the ISP we've used for over fifteen years almost went out of business after a new investor backed out because of the uncertainty of how much the new Obama rules would cost them. For one of the big ISPs, lawyers are a small cost overall, but for the small guys those costs can be crippling. For our small ISP that we rented data center space from, they were only saved because our VC agreed to pay a year upfront for us and several other start-ups they had invested in. Otherwise, they would not have been able to make payroll.

Re:Where is the text of their bill?

[Train0987]

I suspect the same. They'll call it "Net Neutrality" and then insert a dozen poison pills to guarantee that it can't pass.

All so they can have a pathetic wedge issue to run on for November.

Re:Where is the text of their bill?

[bobbied]

Um.. Yea, still got to say, Nancy was crazy back then too..

Also recall that they HAD to pass this bill NOW or it would be nothing doing in the Senate. They where just about ready to certify the election of a Republican to the vacated Ted Kennedy seat and bust the Democrats nearly 2 year strangle hold on congress and let the Republicans actually have any kind of say.

Re:Where is the text of their bill?

[MobyDisk]

I was curious why they would say that, since it should really help them. Here's what I found:

https://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/smaller-isps-ask-pai-dispel-cloud-title-ii-165261

Basically, as soon as someone said "FCC regulation" investors started to pull out. There was actually nothing specific in the regulation that was causing a problem. Investors were afraid that the FCC would apply price fixing, or use some vague clause to punish small ISPs. Now that was back in April 2017, and a few months later ISPs are suddenly switching their story, asking for the regulations to be put back in place. Interestingly, they seem to be in favor of neutrality itself, saying:

WISPA agrees that ISPs should clearly disclose their terms of service, disclose their network management practices, and protect their customers’ private information; and our members do. All of this will continue under the FCC framework adopted today,

Re:Where is the text of their bill?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're still a moron either way.

Re:Where is the text of their bill?

[MagicM]

The tweet shows that they're forcing a vote on S.J. RES. 52, and the text of that resolution is available online. It would simply nullify the FCC's "Restoring Internet Freedom" order and do nothing else.

Re:Where is the text of their bill?

[bobbied]

Well.. It's this and impeachment I guess that they can run on..

They are going to get hacked to pieces on immigration reform, DACA and the Wall right before the election, remember that temporary funding bill? That comes due just before the election. Trump tipped his hand over the weekend, he's threatening to shutdown the government over the wall thing... Not sure if that's a good idea or not.. I guess we shall see..

Re:Where is the text of their bill?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most in the House and Senate are unfit to serve, Nancy only more so.

Re:Where is the text of their bill?

[Train0987]

A big part of the problem is that the FCC should've never been involved with this in the first place. 3 out of 5 unelected bureaucrats being given the power to regulate the entire internet should scare the hell out of everyone, especially investors.

The legislature is where this has always belonged. Now we'll get to find out if they're serious or if this is just more failure theater designed to deceive people come November.

Re:Where is the text of their bill?

[Train0987]

" It would simply nullify the FCC's "Restoring Internet Freedom" order and do nothing else."

Thank you. So it does jack squat about Net Neutrality then. Funny, that.

Re:Where is the text of their bill?

[Anonymous Coward]

And how much regulation will they add? I worked for an ISP for nearly twenty years that was basically put out of business because of the new 2015 rules. We need more competition not less.

Re:Where is the text of their bill?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a bill.

You should know it's not a bill.

Re:Where is the text of their bill?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shilla-be-shillin'
Citation please!

Re:Where is the text of their bill?

[PopeRatzo]

Posted this earlier today:

"Wireless Internet Service Providers Association, which represents small fixed wireless companies that typically operate in rural America, surveyed its members and found that over 80% “incurred additional expense in complying with the Title II rules, had delayed or reduced network expansion, had delayed or reduced services and had allocated budget to comply with the rules.”

I notice you didn't attribute that quote, so let me help you: that's from a statement given by FCC Chairman Ajit Pai during the FCC's vote to repeal Net Neutrality rules. I will bet that every single person reading this is aware that Ajit Pai is just a sleazy shill for telecoms, and seeks only to strengthen those monopolies. He's a piece of shit.

In case you don't know who I'm talking about, here's a photo of Ajit Pai:

https://www.google.com/search?...:

Re:Where is the text of their bill?

[greenwow]

It sucks to lose your job due to new regulations, and I have twice before, but you must understand that it's for the greater good.

Re:Where is the text of their bill?

[Anonymous Coward]

If a business "can't afford" to tell me how much it plans to charge my credit card each month, they not only do not deserve to remain in business, but deserve to be behind bars.

If you can afford to type a number into a program that does monthly billing, you can sure as fuck afford to tell me what that number is.

How about you take the money you paid that guy to type the wrong dollar amount per month into the current website, and instead use it to pay another guy that will type the correct number there instead?

Any business that wants excluded from being legally required to charge their customers the same amount they advertise their services as absolutely should fail.

Re:Where is the text of their bill?

[Darinbob]

It's called the RIGHTEOUS. act at the moment, and senators are struggling to come up with the exact words that the acronym stands for.

Re:Where is the text of their bill?

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot the GOP pulled the same trick JUST A FEW MONTHS AGO with their tax scam?

Re:Where is the text of their bill?

[AHuxley]

Restoring the paper insulated wireline monopoly act did not sound as trendy.

Re:Where is the text of their bill?

[Anonymous Coward]

Soros would be proud you're doing his work.

You're a good little nazi.

But you forgot to link to the website.

Re: Where is the text of their bill?

[Anonymous Coward]

RIGHTEOUS Act:

Restore Individual Governmental Happiness Terms Elect Our Undeserving Shit Act.

An act, you elect us despite all of our bullshit we've pulled and will continue to pull. You accept said shit up the ass without lube and beg for more from us constantly. You won't get what you've asked for, but will get the smug feeling of righteousness for being against our, (not your), opposition.

Re: Where is the text of their bill?

[kenh]

Nancy Pelosi was speaker of the house, third in line to the President, when she burped out that little pearl of wisdom.

Then, after we passed the bill, we found out what was in it and Democrats lost the House in the very next mid-term, and Nancy found herself the Minority Leader.

Re: Where is the text of their bill?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, what happened was that Americans still didn't know what was in ObamaCare, they still didn't even know the Affordable Care Act was the same thing, and in 2012, the Democrats still had more votes, but rampant GOP gerrymandering and voter suppression stole the wins.

http://www.aei.org/publication/obamacare-vs-affordable-care-act/
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/10/some-americans-say-they-support-the-affordable-care-act-but-not-obamacare/280165/
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/11/republicans-gerrymandering-house-representatives-election-chart/

Sorry, but Nancy Pelosi was right about the fog, you need to cut through it to get the truth.

And the truth is, the GOP is morally and intellectually bankrupt.

Re:Where is the text of their bill?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called the RIGHTEOUS. act at the moment, and senators are struggling to come up with the exact words that the acronym stands for.

Really Insightful Good Heroic Totally-Excellent Organizational Usage Synergizing

Re:Where is the text of their bill?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not much better is it?

Re:Where is the text of their bill?

[Anonymous Coward]

My understanding is that it was simply blocking the repeal, but knowing congress it also includes something about preventing the purchase of Magic cards on Sunday.

Re:Where is the text of their bill?

[david_thornley]

Why would Trump shutting the government down reflect badly on the Democrats? The Republicans have both houses and the Presidency, and some Rs still have some faint sense of personal responsibility.

Re:Where is the text of their bill?

[bobbied]

Trump clearly is saying he's not going to accept anything short of full funding for his wall and a fix for DACA. Short of that, he's not signing anything. So no new funding bills like the last one. By Trump's rhetoric, he's saying he'd rather do a shutdown, just before the election, than kick the can down the road again on these issues. How will this go? How will this play out?

I guess we shall see... The last government shutdown didn't go well for the Democrats who caved in less than 24 hours. I think they saw how the press and the republicans (with Trump) where going to play it, didn't like the risks so they backed down. Maybe they figured that having the fight just before the election was preferred over solving the issues then. I don't know what they where thinking, but I think they are playing a dangerous game of chicken with Trump and he's showing a willingness to call their bluff and shut down.

But, let's be honest, it's really about who get's blamed for it anyway. The issue is who the public ends up blaming the most, which is somewhat driven by how the press cover things and that's driven by who says what and what sound bites sell the most ads. So... It could go either way.

Dammit Let the market work.

[zippo01]

The problem with all this is the government. More government isn't going to fix it. Only distort it more. Open the polls, remove anit-competition laws many cities and states have. This will allow more companies into the market and the problem will be fixed in the long term. The way it is now, only a select few are capable of entering the market and maintains the status quo. More GOOD will come from opening up the infrastructure, the giant companies have lawyers and will simply find work around to what they want.

Re:Dammit Let the market work.

[Rick Schumann]

No, it won't, none of that will work. Shit companies like Comcast and AT&T will just use a Starbucks-like strategy, saturate the market, offer loss-leader deals people won't turn down, and raise lease rates on the physical lines they own that the smaller companies have to use to provide their service. They drive the small guys out of business, buy them out for pennies on the dollar, sell everything off for scrap, and dominate the market. Rinse repeat. Has been happening for years. Why do you think there's only a few major ISPs and whoever is left has to lease lines from Comcast or AT&T?

Re:Dammit Let the market work.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopelessly naive

Re:Dammit Let the market work.

[Anonymous Coward]

Monopolies aren’t markets. The cost of entry prevents that. Letting monopolies gouge their customers arent going to open up anything.

Re:Dammit Let the market work.

[omnichad]

remove anit-competition laws many cities and states have

The free market lobbied for those laws. You really can't trust these companies. If they don't use the rule of law, they'll just use the next link down the chain. Internet service is a natural monopoly like electric and water and the barrier to entry is natural due to the infrastructure required.

Re:Dammit Let the market work.

[Anonymous Coward]

Dammit Let the market work

The 'market' doesn't work.

The 'market' is a bunch of greedy assholes trying to game the system for their own interests.

The 'market' will lie, cheat, and steal every chance it gets.

Stop believing the 'market' is capable of achieving optimal outcomes and fixing problems. The only thing the 'market' solves for is corporate greed.

It's a fucking bed time story, stop acting like it's anything other than what it is. It's not magical, and doesn't achieve good outcomes for anybody but those at the top of the chain.

Re:Dammit Let the market work.

[Anonymous Coward]

But at least during that time, we get fast Internet access. Just sucks living in Seattle a couple of blocks from Amazon's new HQ in South Lake Union and having only dial-up. Comcast has the city-granted monopoly on my street (Dexter), but isn't forced to offer service. Forcing Comcast to provide service at the expense of giving them a monopoly is less worse than just giving them a monopoly.

Re:Dammit Let the market work.

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in The Neptune on Dexter, and I can't get Comcast since they're at capacity in our building and the city won't allow upgrades due to the Director's Rules. Past two times my lease was up, I looked into moving into a building with Wave, but the rent in those buildings was $500 to a full thousand more due to demand and the fact that Wave only offers service into newer and nicer buildings I guess because of more of the residents are willing to pay more for Internet access.

Re:Dammit Let the market work.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Here little boy, have this Shiny Penny! Don't worry about what I want from you, just enjoy your Shiny Penny today! I'll let you know what I want from you some time."

*time passes*

"Okay brat, drop your drawers and bend over, it's payback time!"
*fucks you in the ass until you bleed*

Yeah sure enjoy your high speed internet, fool.

Re:Dammit Let the market work.

[zippo01]

Look at companies with large capital that have tried to enter the market. IE google, cities, private co-ops. If the infrastructure was open, you don't think Google, Amazon, etc wouldn't start getting into the market? Oh wait, they can't, because of government. I would rather the market force competition, then try and regulate and be ok with the monopoly.

Re:Dammit Let the market work.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it won't, none of that will work. Shit companies like Comcast and AT&T will just use a Starbucks-like strategy, saturate the market, offer loss-leader deals people won't turn down, and raise lease rates on the physical lines they own that the smaller companies have to use to provide their service. They drive the small guys out of business, buy them out for pennies on the dollar, sell everything off for scrap, and dominate the market. Rinse repeat. Has been happening for years. Why do you think there's only a few major ISPs and whoever is left has to lease lines from Comcast or AT&T?

Right.

Because small companies like Microsoft will never rise up to slay the evil behemoths such as IBM.

And those podunk Japanese radio makers and the toy crap they sell will never unseat RCA.

We need to regulate them! So we can replicate the POTS systems, which in 100 years managed to get all the way to touch-tone dialing! Imagine that - you just have to push buttons to dial a phone call, and not wait for the rotary dial to return to it's normal position!

Break up the government-regulated phone system and let the market take over? Geez, you've been watching too much science fiction, thinking people would be able to carry around pocket-sized computers with cameras and screens and the ability to send messages instantly to your friend's machine on the other side of town. That's never going to happen - or if it does, it's centuries away.

Re:Dammit Let the market work.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm paying $3,500 a month for a one bedroom apartment where CondoInternet offers gigabit Internet access for $80 per month. Just sucks that we have to pay so much more to live in a building with decent Internet access.

Re:Dammit Let the market work.

[Gravis Zero]

It's beyond naive, it's full-on delusional.

Re:Dammit Let the market work.

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who believes in the free market, allow me to point out that a free market system only works in a system where the rule of law exists. Laws exist to create a level playing field for all transactions in this free market. A free market cannot work in anarchy.

Net neutrality as we techies understand it (not blocking/throttling packing based on destination), is the ideal level playing the internet needs. No one gets preferential treatment, and all providers of web services and all web users are happy.

Net neutrality as defined by Title 2 of the Federal Communication Act is a whole different kettle of fish though as it appears to give government the right to do as they please with the internet.

A law on net neutrality is needed. But, I for one, don't think the reasonable choices here are binary between letting the telcos screw people over, and government run internet. Sadly however, that seems to be the only thing that the politicians are interested in delivering.

Re:Dammit Let the market work.

[Rick Schumann]

Monopolies are never good for anyone except The Rich, who own the companies with monopolies. Everyone else gets ass-raped.

Re:Dammit Let the market work.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a choice of exactly One ISP Sure the Market is working. Your Capitalism will fix everything attitude is the Problem. Capitalism solves many problems. SO does Nuclear Power. But no one says we need less shielding for it. Capitalism left alone will cheat monopolies. and will corrupt the government with its Money.

Re:Dammit Let the market work.

[Anonymous Coward]

Google wanted to expand into numerous markets but could not do this because of entrenched monopolies that bribed the local government. If a company wants to invest into a market but is blocked by government, I would call that government interference.

The only reason Internet is truly a monopoly in so many areas is because it is government granted.

That's not the market deciding, that's government saying one company gets to control everything.

Re:Dammit Let the market work.

[AHuxley]

If the federal laws protecting monopoly telcos get replaced by the free market?
Think of the competition in what was once consumers kept on paper isolated wireline networks.
With federal rules lifted communities around the US have a chance to build their own new innovative networks finally free of federal rules.

Re:Dammit Let the market work.

[Actually, I do RTFA]

More GOOD will come from opening up the infrastructure,

So your fix for "too much government" is to confiscate the infrastructure (maybe only the last mile of infrastructure) from Comcast, AT&T, etc and lease it to their competitors.

Re:Dammit Let the market work.

[fafalone]

The last mile is a natural monopoly, whether or not there's actual laws preventing other companies from putting up poles and wires. There's just no way there's ever going to be a free market on that. The only way you'd get good ISP competition is if the last mile was a public utility where any company could run service over the wires. And I say public utility, because even if we forced the current owners to open their lines, they'd find a way to keep competition down financially and degraded service if they still retained ownership.

Re:Dammit Let the market work.

[Mashiki]

Both Bell and Rogers here in Canada discovered that even when you have a monopoly the mouse biting your ankle can still hit an artery.

Re:Dammit Let the market work.

[Highdude702]

Yes do you not think they deserve that? It's their fault were contemplating that. But the anti-capitalists say that's a bad idea.. Something smells fishy.

Re:Dammit Let the market work.

[JackieBrown]

Stop believing that government isn't worse and realize it is also the instrument of a lot of the corporate abuse you complain about

Re:Dammit Let the market work.

[Actually, I do RTFA]

I think the government should either highly regulate ISPs or run them, like other utilities - at the very least on the last mile. But I'm not saying it's a bad idea. I'm saying your position sounds very much like regulation/government control. Which is ironic.

I think most people you think are "saying it's a bad idea... something smells fishy" are actually calling out your hypocrisy. Also, I'll note, "anti-capitalist" is a weird phrase. It's likely to be wrong (pro-regulation != anti-capitalism) and comes across as pretty antagonistic.

Re:Dammit Let the market work.

[Highdude702]

I'm normally for free market, what we have now is not that. Granting a company a monopoly and then wondering why they're abusive to customers.. I'm for either killing the government granted monopolys or having the last mile operated by the local government allowing leasing those same lines to any company that is willing to pay for it. People are claiming the free market isn't working because Comcast is the only cable/internet provider they have, yet the free market hasn't had a chance to work for the Internet since dialup days. I miss the days of being able to change your ISP with a phone call.

Re:Dammit Let the market work.

[Trogre]

You mean DSL, right? Nobody in any first-world country should still be on actual dial-up in 2018.

Re:LOL this is the Democrats platform

[Anonymous Coward]

They're too deep in their bubble to be able to see out of it.

Title II != Net Neutrality

[jimmifett]

It is so sad watching ppl freak out over revoking of Title II status. Title II is the absolute WRONG way to address net neutrality. It simply doesn't need it. It can be done entirely without it. Title II is nothing more than a power grab by the government, those that don't see this are either on board with this, or intentionally ignorant. It wasn't needed for most of the existence of the internet. It isn't needed now. Probably never will be needed.

Re:Title II != Net Neutrality

[king neckbeard]

Yeah, it would be really scary if Ma Bell were to be regulated under the laws that used to regulate Ma Bell.

Re:Title II != Net Neutrality

[Train0987]

I agree it would make more sense to regulate your internet connection as a utility. That seems to be the best neutral way forward.

Want to see all the major ISP's screaming for "Net Neutrality" freak the F out? Suggest regulating them as a utility.

Why is that?

Re:Title II != Net Neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

The ISP I worked for basically decided to go out of business and let CenturyLink buy us for pennies on the dollar since even defining what was required by Title II by our lawyers was estimated to cost more than we made profit in the previous decade. Obama put us out of business.

Re:Title II != Net Neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it would be really scary if Ma Bell were to be regulated under the laws that used to regulate Ma Bell.

Enjoy that touch-tone dialing! Woo Hoo!

You're adorbs.

Re:Title II != Net Neutrality

[Gravis Zero]

Title II is the absolute WRONG way to address net neutrality.

Why is it wrong? What ill effects would we see from Title II designation? People want ISPs to work like a utility, so why shouldn't ISPs be regulated like a utility?

Title II is nothing more than a power grab by the government, those that don't see this are either on board with this, or intentionally ignorant.

How is it a power grab? I see it as making ISPs neutral by removing their ability to interfere with the internet connection that I've paid to have.

Re:Title II != Net Neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

Since you asked...
Title II means the internet would be regulated the same way as the radio. Let's look at how that worked out. "The fairness doctrine" was a rule established by the FCC from 1949-1987. With the purpose of creating political balance on the airwaves, the rule mandated that anyone giving a controversial opinion must be followed by equal time of the opposite opinion. This kept the Limbaugh off the airwaves which some people would cheer for, but resulted groans of exasperation from those same people when scientists were followed by "climate denier", "flat earthers", and "intelligent design types". All in all, it all made radio terrible, and radio self censored itself and lived in constant fear of raising the ire of FCC who held their broadcast license in one hand and scissors in the other. That's just one example of title 2.

The text of the bill, would give the FCC power to set up router filtering if they wanted to similar to the great firewall of China.
The text of the bill even prohibits of anyone offending anyone else on the internet.

I'm all for THE FREE FLOW OF PACKETS, but title 2 is not that. It's a giant legal monstrosity which gives the government WAY too much power to do things we wont like later (while claiming we gave them the right to do it by supporting title 2). Just because they haven't given any indication that they'd misuse the authority yet in these particular ways is not a reason to give such authority to them in the first place. We need laws which address our problems - not which create tribunals and grant management of the entire field to them.

Pass a "free flow of packets bill" and I'm all for it - most people are, including some of those "evil republicans". Title 2 though is a bad thing for the internet.

Re:Title II != Net Neutrality

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Title II means the internet would be regulated the same way as the radio.

Or, more accurately the phone. The only reason the fairness doctrine existed was a limited number of content providers. That is not true of the phone or the Internet.

Your "text of the bill" stuff is nonsense. It's simply overturns the FCC decision.

You're right that the FCC would be bad if it did that. But there's no reason to think that's going to happen.

Re:Title II != Net Neutrality

[Mashiki]

A step in the right direction for the US would require the owner of the "last mile" to lease it to 3rd parties. That's what happens up here in Canada. Unless the incumbent can show that their investment needs time to recover the costs of said investment, then they must allow other companies to lease them. In general that works out between 30-41% of the cost of a normal connection to a home. Even at that, TPIA's up here make money hand over fist and undercut the incumbents by 20% while offering superior service.

Re:Title II != Net Neutrality

[jimmifett]

You're right that the FCC would be bad if it did that. But there's no reason to think that's going to happen.

I'll just get godwin's law out of the way early.
No one in germany thought giving up firearms would lead to bad things happening either.
Or China.
Or Venezuela.
Or Russia.

No one thought giving full control of an industry to government would be a bad thing, such as the NHS.
Until rationing boards.
Until 6mo waiting periods for cancer exames.
Until death panels.
Until Charlie Gard,
Until Alfie.

Internet taxation, speech control, being permanently barred from accessing the internet by court rulings, blocking adult material from adults. The government already seizes domains because they have the ability to do so.

Title II is bad for everyone. As mentioned earlier, I, an "EVIL republican conservative", would fully be behind a Free Flow of Packets Bill.
Don't tell private industry how to build their networks, don't make them jump through hoops to expand. I'm not a fan of having neglected "slow lanes", but I also don't mind having priority traffic as an optional service across one's network provided it's optional and not a strong arm tactic. I see those as areas where congressional legislation can have a light hand to keep things balanced out, rather than a mostly unaccountable group dictating commandments like the FCC.

Re:Title II != Net Neutrality

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Title II regulated the phone company. Please base any analysis on, historical Title II in the US, phone or otherwise.

Re:LOL this is the Democrats platform

[Anonymous Coward]

You are going to go after everyone you view as, "Other"?

You do remember that you stupid cunts gave up your guns, right?

You neomarxists and neobigots will be in for a big surprise when you walk into your average middle class neighborhood looking for, "other". Because you pricks that view yourselves as smarter than everyone are actually in the minority and also shitty shots.

Since there is a word "restore" there

[Anonymous Coward]

What do YOU think the bill means? Restore the original net neutrality laws? Yes? Now do you think that means the net neutrality laws that were there before will be the content of "net neutrality law" that will be restored? Yes? Now, if you need to know what net neutrality this restore bill will implement if it passes, do you think reading the rules it restores will answer your question far better than going "Where's the text of their bill"? No? Why not?

Re:Since there is a word "restore" there

[Train0987]

It doesn't matter what I think - I just want to read the bill instead of just jumping on board the meme train to false narrative-ville.

You know, like how the "Affordable Care Act" turned out to be anything but affordable and the "Patriot Act" was about the most unpatriotic thing ever.

Partisan hacks gonna partisan hack I suppose.

Re:Since there is a word "restore" there

[Darinbob]

It's just politics. They know they will lose since every vote these days is about doing what their party bosses tell them to do, not what they think is best fo the country. They want the vote because then they can point fingers at their opponents in the upcoming elections. I'm all for net neutrality, but it's going to eventually die from extreme swamp exposure.

Re:Since there is a word "restore" there

[UnknownSoldier]

"Restore" means jack shit:

* Restore prohibition? (bad)
* Restore an antique? (good)

Likewise, WTF is "neutrality " ? It raises these questions:

* WHAT _isn't_ neutral?
* HOW did it end up not being neutral?
* WHY should it be?

A more descriptive title would go a LONG ways.

Re: Since there is a word "restore" there

[Bing Tsher E]

Actually, unless you are very, very careful, if you 'restore' an antique you destroy it's value entirely. The original varnish on an antique chair is very important. There is a 'patina' that is a big part of what matters to people who care about antiques. Usually all you can do is apply furniture polish, and it had better be a type of the period of the antique.

Re: Since there is a word "restore" there

[UnknownSoldier]

Yeah, its not the best example.

Maybe restore a retro console to be working again, would have been a better example.

Re:Since there is a word "restore" there

[Talderas]

You only get long bill titles when it can be tweaked into a cute acronym, like "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001" or as we know it, the "USA PATRIOT Act".

Re:Since there is a word "restore" there

[david_thornley]

The Affordable Care act provided health insurance that tens of millions of people could afford. My best guess is that it had to do with the state governments, so governments that worked with the ACA got reasonably good results while governments that didn't got bad results, just as they wanted. I'm not saying it's a good system, because it isn't, but it helped lots of people.

As far as the Net Neutrality bill goes, it's going nowhere and so it doesn't really matter what it says. The purpose is to get names of people who are for or against NN and use that as a campaign issue.

Re:LOL this is the Democrats platform

[Anonymous Coward]

Surprise! I'm registered as Democrat but don't believe in taking away anyones' guns, because banning guns clearly and objectively won't help, criminals and crazies who want to kill people and commit crimes will get weapons regardless of any laws you pass, banning guns just takes them away from law-abiding peaceable citizens who don't deserve to be treated that way.

Just because someone is one party or the other doesn't mean they swallow the Party Line on every goddamned thing, Champ; it doesn't speak well of your intelligence if that's what you actually believe; maybe you'd better prove you're smarter than you seem to be by re-assessing your comment on that.

Pointless grandstanding

[SuperKendall]

I say that not because the vote going one way or the other is essentially meaningless, but even the posturing itself is meaningless.

No-one outside of a few tech nerds really care about Net Neutrality at all, not even as an abstract concept.

If anyone did care, Facebook would not even be a thing. But just as people do not really care about online privacy, they also do not actually care about Network Neutrality - and here's the funny thing (to me), they don't even care IF THEY UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE. Tech people keep thinking if they explain it right people will magically care. WRONG, they mostly understand just fine - but they still do not care. And that is what freaks out tech busybodies the most...

Re:Pointless grandstanding

[Gravis Zero]

I say that not because the vote going one way or the other is essentially meaningless, but even the posturing itself is meaningless.

No-one outside of a few tech nerds really care about Net Neutrality at all, not even as an abstract concept.

a) Hahaha!
b) If it really was meaningless then ISPs wouldn't be fighting it tooth and nail.
c) People care, some just don't know that they care about things until they are gone.
d) Ha HA HA!

Re:Pointless grandstanding

[SuperKendall]

If it really was meaningless then ISPs wouldn't be fighting it tooth and nail.

What does this proposed vote actually do? Nothing the the ISP's were fighting over.

People care, some just don't know that they care about things until they are gone.

May I refer you to your own points *a* and *d* here. And re-reference my point about tech nerds thinking if they just explained it right people would care... nope.

You can't comprehend what to them would really be gone, vs. better in their eyes (all example of supposed scary scenarios have been things customers would generally enjoy).

Re:Pointless grandstanding

[Gravis Zero]

What does this proposed vote actually do?

It will expose who represents the voter interests and who represents business interests.

And re-reference my point about tech nerds thinking if they just explained it right people would care... nope.

Actually, NN already has the support of 80% of the people, so there's nothing that needs to be explained to them.

Re:Pointless grandstanding

[Anonymous Coward]

Quick dulling his fedora wearing edge....

Re:Pointless grandstanding

[Anonymous Coward]

Believe me, people will know, and they will care, when their bills start creeping up to about $200.00/mo.

Mark these words.

Re:Pointless grandstanding

[swillden]

But just as people do not really care about online privacy, they also do not actually care about Network Neutrality

I don't care much about online privacy (at least, not in the way you do), but I care a lot about net neutrality.

Re:LOL this is the Democrats platform

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL oh look the crybaby Trump supporters have mod points today! And they're using them to throw a temper tantrum at me! THANK YOU, you're validating everything I'm saying, how nice of you! LOL xD xD xD

Big corporations

[Anonymous Coward]

Senator Schumer, perhaps you should review who is contributing to you and the campaigns of other Democrats in Congress.

I think you will find many big corporations have.

So in other words, you are not fighting for the people, or the little guy, you are a bought and paid for corporate troll.

Fuck. You. And anyone who votes for Democrats and Republicans. You are a hypocrite if you do.

Re:Big corporations

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong there are Big Companies on both sides of this issue. The Question is where does the Peoples intrest lie?

Same scam, different day

[Anonymous Coward]

You will not that they are still not going to apply all this "neutrality" stuff to the service providers like Google, Facebook, and YouTube. they're all big Democrat supporters who want the ISPs to be forced to carry their stuff, but do not want the government forcing THEM to host anything they don't like.

If you are an average person, or a small business, or a political activist, then the neutrality of the service providers (and even the cloud providers like Amazon and Apple) is at least as important as the neutrality of the ISPs. What does it matter if the ISPs transport all data in a neutral way but the people with the servers are full-on censors???

The form of "net neutrality" pushed through under Obama, repealed by Ajit Pai, and now being pushed by Democrat governors and Democrat senators is the scam version their powerful silicon valley supporters want. Make it apply to the service providers too, and many Republicans would supprot it, but then many Democrats would listen to Apple/Google/Facebook/Youtube and suddenly turn on it. Remember: Google's Schmidt was a visitor in the White House on average once-a-week for the 8 years of Obama - more often than many senate-confirmed cabinet members.

Re:Same scam, different day

[Anonymous Coward]

SO you have No Idea what Net Nutrality is? Just that if the Democrats are for it You must be against it?

Re: Same scam, different day

[Bing Tsher E]

You have a terrible reading comprehension problem.

Hell, I'm probably just responding to a crapflooder.

Which side their member of Congress is on?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people don't know who their member of Congress is. Why should they? it's not as if they can do anything about it.

Besides, we know what side the members of Congress are on. They're on the side of the political class, of the parasitism, of big government, of authoritarianism.
  Once it's made clear that Net Neutrality is about the government having more power and control they'll vote for it in their droves.

CAPTCHA: civics

Never heard of/visited these sites

[kenh]

Also taking place on May 9, net neutrality activists and websites like Etsy, Tumblr, Postmates, Foursquare and Twilio will post "red alerts" to protest the FCC's effort to roll back net neutrality protections.

Those "red alerts" will really make a difference!

Re:Never heard of/visited these sites

[Mashiki]

It's virtue signalling, what do you expect? I mean even during the heavy hockey season here in Canada, 5k people showed up to protest at parliament hill when the CRTC was going to let Bell charge a lease $80/mo for GAS(last mile), before 3rd parties could offer dsl. They were selling 5/1 dsl for $49/mo at the same time, so a 3rd party would at a minimum would have had to charge $120+/mo to make up the cost at the same level of service.

Re: LOL this is the Democrats platform

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like parading around with women genatalia on our heads? Good one lmao.

It's not symbolic anyway

[rsilvergun]

the point is to get the votes on record. The Obamacare repeals were genuine symbolism. Everybody knew where everybody else stood on Obamacare. But with NN lots of folks have said they support it without doing anything to support it. This will at least put them on record as a 'nay' when it came time to save it.

Re: LOL this is the Democrats platform

[Anonymous Coward]

Excuse me sir, your bad think is not welcome in the Democratic Party (tm). You are clearly a racist bigot science denier.

Re: LOL this is the Democrats platform

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a registered Democrat who owns guns. How bout you come to my property and say your retard babble to my face. Don't blame me for what happens, though

I know exactly what it is, but you

[Anonymous Coward]

apparently lack reading comprehension or are so pro-anything-Democrat that you do not bother to read details, only headlines and slogans.

The disgustingly dishonest "net neutrality" Obama and his party pushed requires the internet's data transporters (the ISPs/TELCOs) to treat all packets the same, but as I pointed out explicitly and your thick skull apparently failed to absorb, This is a big boon to Democrat supporters at companies like Google and Facebook and Netflix and YouTube etc who were worried they might face higher costs BUT it matters a lot less to the "little people" of the internet as long as it does not cover all the megacorps who store data and serve data many of whom are wildly disciminatory already. If you are a little business getting money off of YouTube videos and YouTube decides to descriminate against you, you're just hosed under this phony form of "Net Newutrality" - but YouTube is sure happy with it.

Stop being such an easy stooge for a handful of silicon valley billionaires and start looking at the BIGGER picture.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:LOL this is the Democrats platform

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you're seriously whining about getting modded down for your trollish nonsense? Now who's the crybaby?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Douche Comment

[Anonymous Coward]

"These dishonest political tactics are exactly how you got Trump, by the way."

Sure. No voter actually voted for Big Giant Orange Head, and if they did you can't prove it, and if you can prove it you can't hold them responsible! You know how the Republicans used to be the party of personal responsibility? Whatever happened to those days?

Sure. This tactic is dishonest. It gives the bill a meaningful name and not a bizarre opposite name. It seeks to clearly identify who supports and who opposes. It is being openly discussed as a "for the record only" bill with little or no possibility of passing or signing into law. Dishonest?

Train0987's comment is dishonest.

Now start regaling us with fanciful stories of how you were actually a Sanders supporter, or a Warren supporter, and only because they didn't get nominated, someone forced you to vote for the BGOH. Literally, someone twisted your arm, and it really, really hurt!

Sad.