Senate Votes To Save Net Neutrality (gizmodo.com)

In a monumental decision that will resonate through election season, the U.S. Senate on Wednesday voted to reinstate the net neutrality protections the Federal Communications Commission decided to repeal late last year. From a report: For months, procedural red tape has delayed the full implementation of the FCC's decision to drop Title II protections that prevent internet service providers from blocking or throttling online content. Last week, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai confirmed that the repeal of the 2015 Open Internet Order would go into effect on June 11. But Democrats put forth a resolution to use its power under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to review new regulations by federal agencies through an expedited legislative process. All 49 Democrats in the Senate supported the effort to undo the FCC's vote. Republicans, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, John Kennedy of Louisiana and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska crossed party lines to support the measure. Further reading: ArsTechnica.

Comments

Not Save... Authorize...

[Tulsa_Time]

The FCC was never authorized.

Re:Not Save... Authorize...

[Anonymous Coward]

The FCC was never authorized.

Of course they were and the court agree.

Re:Not Save... Authorize...

[Anubis IV]

How do you figure? The FCC's congressional charter and subsequent amendments specifically authorize them to classify services under Title I and Title II and then regulate them accordingly, and the courts specifically upheld the FCC's authority to either enforce (or not enforce) Net Neutrality via Title II regulation. While I stridently disagree with what the FCC has done under Pai with regards to Net Neutrality, it's still well within their authority (though perhaps contrary to their purpose and mandate) to have done it, just as Wheeler's FCC was well within its authority to have classified the ISPs in a different manner.

Re:Not Save... Authorize...

[sexconker]

The FCC literally exists to exert such authority.

Re:Not Save... Authorize...

[Tulsa_Time]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Let a few states pass laws that say they will not do business with ISPs that are not Neutral and problem solved...

10th Amendment - Underrated and under appreciated.

Re:Not Save... Authorize...

[Green Mountain Bot]

That's ... not how courts work. At all.

Re:Not Save... Authorize...

[Anonymous Coward]

The same document denies a permanent standing army, yet here we are.

Re: Not Save... Authorize...

[Anonymous Coward]

Williams opinion is so partisan it stinks from the high heavens and Boehner and McConnell refusing to pass any form of law is even more odious bullshit, however as we know from the EPA, HUD, DOD, DOJ, DHS, and HHS, laws don't matter to the Trump administration.

Remember, Trump only cares about posturing and bluster, his image and his profits are what matters.

And there's a lot of money in the hands of Comcast and AT&T.

Re:Not Save... Authorize...

[omnichad]

It's sort of how district representation works these days, though...as evidenced partly by this whole thing.

Re: Not Save... Authorize...

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh, a +5 Insightful for demonstrating an utter lack of knowledge about Constitutional Law.

Re:Not Save... Authorize...

[Anonymous Coward]

10th Amendment - Underrated and under appreciated.

And consistently ignored by Congress. And SCOTUS, even. The entire federal government pretends it simply doesn't exist and I've never heard of any of them even giving it lip service.

Re:Not Save... Authorize...

[Baloroth]

Wrong. It says that any standing army raised (which it gives Congress the explicit power to do) must have it's appropriations approved by Congress at least every 2 years (this is to help prevent the President from having exclusive long-term control over the army, even though he/she is the commander-in-chief). Nothing says that it can't approve the same funding year after year to create a permanent standing army. In fact, a standing army was approved by the first Congress.

Re:Not Save... Authorize...

[sexconker]

The FCC exists to allocate radio spectrum, full stop.

Read the charter.

Re: Not Save... Authorize...

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama's initial net neutrality was perfect- but Verizon bought a lawsuit and destroyed it.

To fix it, the FCC had to classify ISPs as common carriers, allowing the government to censor them in the process. Want to bitch about $PROTECTED_THING? Now the government can stop you.

The correct solution was Obama's solution. Trump's rolls back too much. Congress needs to authroize net neutrality without censorship possibilities, not try to roll back the FCC correctly classifying ISPs in a way that they cannot censor them.

Re:Not Save... Authorize...

[Anonymous Coward]

And the interstate commerce clause voids the 10th amendment wholly. In a connected world, every action is associated with impacting commerce via money transferring or not transferring when it otherwise might over state lines.

Re: Not Save... Authorize...

[thegreatbob]

Not saying you're wrong, but it's best to give a little bit more qualification than just slapping ex-pres names onto a concept. Unless your point is to not be taken seriously. IIRC his original suggestion was that there should simply be no blocking/throttling/"fast lanes", and a requirement for much greater transparency on the part of involved parties. I'm open to debate about whether or not Title II was a misstep, as I can see some merit for making some adjustments to that definition as an alternative to the others.

Re: Not Save... Authorize...

[thegreatbob]

I hereby declare you to be wrong, good sir, and will stubbornly refuse to provide any additional details which might aid others in understanding precisely why that is.

Re:Not Save... Authorize...

[PopeRatzo]

Let a few states pass laws that say they will not do business with ISPs that are not Neutral and problem solved...

In other words, you're expecting California to save your asses. Again.

Re:Not Save... Authorize...

[pots]

The FCC very obviously falls under the interstate commerce clause. Are you seriously trying to claim that a simplistic reading of the constitution is enough to invalidate their authority? An argument that eighty years of extremely litigious broadcasters and telcos and ISPs have never been able to sell in a courtroom, with judges who actually know something about constitutional law?

Where does this constitution-thumping bullshit come from anyway? This stuff is complicated, and thoroughly examined. Is some laymen really going to come along and say, "Hey, I read the constitution once. Did you know that everything I don't like is illegal?"

Re:Not Save... Authorize...

[Tulsa_Time]

Not generally... but in this case... sure... go ahead...

Re:Not Save... Authorize...

[lessthan]

This could be a deep rabbit hole. As it is read, "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years," Article I, Section 8, Clause 12, really appears to mean that the standing army shouldn't last for longer than 2 years. Now, I know that smarter minds than mine have wrangled out a different meaning, but just look at it. As to states rights:

"Then leaf subsides to leaf.

So Eden sank to grief,

So dawn goes down to day.

Nothing gold can stay.

Re:Not Save... Authorize...

[lessthan]

Years of a media diet where the underdog saves the day produces them. It is a fundamental human glitch related to our desire to be special. Our "fresh and unique" perspective sees what others, blinded by their own mundanity, cannot. Part of growing up, that many never do, is accepting that we aren't that special. Before the Pollyannas jump on me, yes, we are special to the people who care about us and those connections are why "we are here," but that doesn't grant us special insight into fields that experts have been arguing about for years.

I would also like to rag on a particular type of religous nut who has the gall to claim god speaks to them, except god seems to only say things that let them do whatever their id wants. Similar issue, pisses me off more.

Re:Not Save... Authorize...

[Talderas]

The fact that commerce that resides solely within a state and does not cross borders qualifies as interstate commerce is one of the stupid court cases the Supreme Court has made. It makes the inclusion of interstate in the commerce clause entirely pointless. Why specify interstate trade when you mean trade within a state?

But good luck getting Wickard v. Filburn overturned. That would just remove a core foundation for the modern US government's existence.

Re:Not Save... Authorize...

[Talderas]

They ignore it because they just point at Wickard v. Filburn and go "Nuh uh, the Supreme Court said we could."

Re:Not Save... Authorize...

[atrex]

I think Washington was actually the first to pass it's own Net Neutrality law in response to Pai's bs move. However, IIRC part of Pai's bs was also some garbage that was intended to preempt and prevent states from enacting their own Net Neutrality laws, so it's going to come down to the courts either way.

Re:Not Save... Authorize...

[Anonymous Coward]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Let a few states pass laws that say they will not do business with ISPs that are not Neutral and problem solved...

10th Amendment - Underrated and under appreciated.

Yeah... That logic worked GREAT for the slavery issue too...

Re:Not Save... Authorize...

[Green Mountain Bot]

And they were not successful, because the courts don't work like that. It was only after they reclassified ISPs from Information Services (which the courts consistently ruled are not subject to FCC regulation) to Common Carriers that the outcome changed. They didn't wear down the courts, they read the courts' rulings and changed their approach to fit.

Re:Not Save... Authorize...

[stinkyjak]

10th Amendment - Underrated and under appreciated.

they fought a war for it.

Re:Not Save... Authorize...

[Anonymous Coward]

The FCC very obviously falls under the interstate commerce clause. Are you seriously trying to claim that a simplistic reading of the constitution is enough to invalidate their authority? An argument that eighty years of extremely litigious broadcasters and telcos and ISPs have never been able to sell in a courtroom, with judges who actually know something about constitutional law?

Where does this constitution-thumping bullshit come from anyway? This stuff is complicated, and thoroughly examined. Is some laymen really going to come along and say, "Hey, I read the constitution once. Did you know that everything I don't like is illegal?"

We've heard this kind of argument before. Everything the priests say is correct, and anything else is heresy, because ordinary people can't possibly know better than the priesthood.

Once you study US legal history in depth you'll realize that violations of the constitution - especially the Bill of Rights, which supersedes everything else in the Constitution - are status quo.

Contradictions in law create a demand for the services of legal professionals, which in turn leads to a lot of bad law. Economists call this "rent-seeking" behaviour, and estimate that half the income of the US legal profession is associated with it. Lawyers in the USA simply make too much money relative to their counterparts in other countries with similar economic characteristics.

No conspiracy is required for bad law to exist, it's just the result of a lot of amoral decision making by many people looking out for their own interests. It's the same mechanism that allowed slavery to exist in a nation dedicated to protecting the rights of man. It's the same mechanism that creates so many laws that serve the interests of special interest groups (other than the lawyers, who have already been discussed) at the expense of society.

Making matters worse, politicians - many of whom are corrupt - select the judges who judge their actions. Thus the "judges who actually know something about constitutional law" are often part of the corruption - or at least have demonstrated throughout their careers that they are willing to turn a blind eye to it for the status, pay, and security of higher office.

The two factors described above combine to turn the US legal system into a major disaster from a social and economic perspective. Constitutional violations have become routine - and more and more people are starting to point that out. It's certainly appropriate to consider whether this is one of those situations - and there's no reason for you to be insulting people who do that.

Re:Not Save... Authorize...

[diamondmagic]

Read the Constitution.

Re:Not Save... Authorize...

[Tulsa_Time]

Don't discount the source.... read the article... 5 min read.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...

Re:Not Save... Authorize...

[Anubis IV]

If you’re going to take the argument back to the idea that the authority wasn’t Congress’ to delegate in the first place (which is a good topic to explore, I think), the response I typically hear is that they have the authority under the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution. While I personally believe that the ICC is frequently applied too broadly, I don’t think it’s an unreasonable application when it comes to interstate communications for business purposes, such as ISPs.

That said—and as your link accurately suggests—that doesn’t mean that the FCC has the authority to limit the laws that states pass, nor to limit the ability of states to control how ISPs operate within their borders. As such, while I do believe the FCC has the authority to classify ISPs under Title I or Title II and then regulate them accordingly (which is what I was addressing in my last comment), I’ll heartily agree with you that they do NOT have the authority to limit states as Pai’s FCC did when it—in the same act that repealed the Obama-era Title II classification—stipulated that states were disallowed from making laws contrary or in addition to what the FCC had done.

That was certainly a step beyond their authority, and I am very eager to see various states sue the asses off the FCC for trying it.

MAGA

[Anonymous Coward]

or at least as good as it was.

Re:MAGA

[DickBreath]

It won't ever be as good as it was. Nobody who could enact sane policies is in power. Those in power are paided to ensure things only work in favor of a few at the expense of everyone else. It's sad. But it's true.

Gesture is great but toothless, at this point

[garcia]

From the article:

Still, todayâ(TM)s vote means the proposal will have to go the House where Democrats will need to convince 25 Republicans to support net neutrality in order for the measure to passâ"and they have until January of next year to do it.

So, as of right now, this is largely a gesture but still a good first step.

Re:Gesture is great but toothless, at this point

[barc0001]

Yes, but all the House seats are up for re-election in November. It could very well be by January they no longer need any Republican support if the Dems take the House.

Re:Gesture is great but toothless, at this point

[olsmeister]

bah, you left out the good part that came right after that!

The viper pit of morons in that chamber will likely get distracted by Diamond and Silk or some shit before they ever get close to a positive vote.

Re:Gesture is great but toothless, at this point

[thevirtualcat]

True, but by then the window to invoke the Congressional Review Act will be closed.

Re:Gesture is great but toothless, at this point

[GregMmm]

Not true. Everyone could vote for it in the House, and then it will go to the president...

Veto. Dead and done.

One the other hand, how about those same people in the Senate and the House stop wasting time with this stupid gesture and make a law. Eh that would take real work... Lets just play the politics game.

Re:Gesture is great but toothless, at this point

[Actually, I do RTFA]

This isn't a law, it's an Act of Congress (enabled by an existing law). The President has as much legal right to veto it as you or I do.

Re:Gesture is great but toothless, at this point

[Anonymous Coward]

Dems take the House.

Dream on. I know that inside your echo chamber you see only "resistance" and Republicans will be outlawed by December, but it's fantasy. There is no enthusiasm gap, the "young" aren't going to "change politics in America." None of it is true.

But keep believing your media's narratives. Don't let me interfere with your delusions.

Re:Gesture is great but toothless, at this point

[Anonymous Coward]

Spoken like a true trumptard.

Re:Gesture is great but toothless, at this point

[JackieBrown]

Yes, but all the House seats are up for re-election in November. It could very well be by January they no longer need any Republican support if the Dems take the House.

They'd lose interest in this bill if they took over the house.

If the democrats were interested in this, they'd have passed this as a law when they controlled both the house and the Senate and the presidency.

Re:Gesture is great but toothless, at this point

[jellomizer]

Don't count your chickens until they hatch.
In politics there can be any little spark that can change the polling.
There are a good number of people who will always vote for their Party no mater what they do, Many of the state are gerrymandered in a way to keep people who trend toward a different political party separated enough to prevent a majority vote, or concentrate them so they get only one seat.
The economy is still strong.
If the democrats just run on an Anti-Trump speaking points, they may not spark enough interest in people actually voting for them, and during off year democrats tend to get lower turnout.

While there is a low approval rating for the GOP, many people dislike the Democrats more.

There is a lot of work that needs to be done for the house seats to switch, and all the hardwork in the world can be counteracted by a small piece of bad news. Because the opposition will escalate it twist it to make them pure evil.

Re:Gesture is great but toothless, at this point

[squiggleslash]

It's worse than that, due to the Hastert rule the bill will never even be allowed a vote unless a majority of Republicans support it. So it's essentially dead in the water.

Re: Gesture is great but toothless, at this point

[Anonymous Coward]

If yesterday's primaries are any indication, Democrats are fucked.

Re:Gesture is great but toothless, at this point

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck off Ivan

Re:Gesture is great but toothless, at this point

[mysidia]

"Act of congress" or not, Acts under the Congressional review act have been made invalid by a presidential veto 12 times --- every time it was Obama.

There's no real provision in the constitution for an act of congress that can't be veto'd, aside from setting house rules, impeachment proceedings, or constitutional amendments.

Re:Gesture is great but toothless, at this point

[Anonymous Coward]

You are absolutely correct. There is no need for you to worry. In fact, it is so in the bag, your vote isn't even necessary... I'd recommend staying home, relaxing, and have a homebrew when voting time comes around. Remember, Trumpkins, it's in the bag. Save your money and time. Relax and enjoy!!
.

Re:Gesture is great but toothless, at this point

[suutar]

if they made a law, that would be subject to veto.

Re:Gesture is great but toothless, at this point

[Anonymous Coward]

Not that I'm on his team, but the part about the young hits home.

I live in a large city, and worked the polls yesterday. Not a single voter under 30 the entire day. All those kids marching for gun violence? I think they just wanted to get on TV and get some social media dopamine. Apparently you get none for actually casting your votes.

Re:Gesture is great but toothless, at this point

[Rick Schumann]

Fine. If it comes to that, then it's one more nail in Trump's political coffin, proving yet again that he doesn't give a rats' ass about common everyday citizens, is in the pocket of corporations (and who knows who else), and needs to go.

Re:Gesture is great but toothless, at this point

[Anonymous Coward]

Not that I'm on his team, but the part about the young hits home.

I live in a large city, and worked the polls yesterday. Not a single voter under 30 the entire day. All those kids marching for gun violence? I think they just wanted to get on TV and get some social media dopamine. Apparently you get none for actually casting your votes.

Agreed, I'm in my mid-30's now but even years ago I was always the youngest person at the polls whenever I go to vote.

Re: Gesture is great but toothless, at this point

[sjames]

How would a PRIMARY tell you that?

Re:Gesture is great but toothless, at this point

[barc0001]

> There's no real provision in the constitution for an act of congress that can't be veto'd,

Actually, there is:

"Congress can override a veto by passing the act by a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate. (Usually an act is passed with a simple majority.)"

https://www.archives.gov/files/legislative/resources/education/veto/background.pdf

Re: Gesture is great but toothless, at this point

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe because they feel disenfranchised and that their votes don't matter. We never listen to the young, we can't them aside as young and reckless with no experience. No wonder they don't go out and vote. And I don't blame em. Our voices are never heard. It's all about big business these days. The days of the common man seeing justice are long and gone. Corporations are people remember? LUL.

Re: Gesture is great but toothless, at this point

[Anonymous Coward]

When was this? Because if I remember correctly, everything Obama wanted the republicans did everything in their power to not let him have. Even going as far as not doing their job.

Re:Gesture is great but toothless, at this point

[magarity]

I live in a large city, and worked the polls yesterday. Not a single voter under 30 the entire day.

I can't remember the last election where I actually went to a polling place but I've voted in them all. Perhaps all these missing under-30's have discovered mail in ballots?

Re:Gesture is great but toothless, at this point

[Anonymous Coward]

So you are saying that "they have until January of next year to do it" is not true? I mean, I suppose it is possible that the newly elected representatives will not actually take office until after January, but it is not clear if that is what you mean.

Re: Gesture is great but toothless, at this point

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be 12 and not remember that the first quarter of his presidency when he had control of all branches

Re:Gesture is great but toothless, at this point

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't remember the last election where I actually went to a polling place but I've voted in them all. Perhaps all these missing under-30's have discovered mail in ballots?

u mean insta, rite? like i insta myself looking cute and put a filter on of my fav cantitate ?
ew, is it snap? im not voting if its snap

Re:Gesture is great but toothless, at this point

[Skuld-Chan]

According to wikipedia - it's only been used to veto 5 times.

Re: Gesture is great but toothless, at this point

[Train0987]

Turnout.

Re:Gesture is great but toothless, at this point

[Anonymous Coward]

Want to mod-up, but neither of you presented a link. The first one to do so gets the moderation. *hint hint*

Re:Gesture is great but toothless, at this point

[Anonymous Coward]

One the other hand, how about those same people in the Senate and the House stop wasting time with this stupid gesture and make a law.

Isn't that what they did in 1996? There's already a law. My understanding is that (in 2005?) someone at FCC just sort of decided they could pretend the words in the law mean whatever the FCC wants the words to mean.

So while "telecommunications service" and "information service" have implications to lay people, they're mere meaningless (perhaps "late-bound") symbols to government.

Re:Gesture is great but toothless, at this point

[Tough Love]

Everyone could vote for it in the House, and then it will go to the president. Veto. Dead and done.

I'd love to see Drumpf veto it. Last nail in his coffin, dead indeed.

Re:Gesture is great but toothless, at this point

[Tough Love]

Russians can't vote here anyway.

Re: Gesture is great but toothless, at this point

[Anonymous Coward]

www.cutekittens.com

Re: Gesture is great but toothless, at this point

[Anonymous Coward]

Congressional Review takes a "Joint Resolution". Which means that BOTH houses of congress, AND THE PRESIDENT, must agree.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_resolution

"... no legal dofference between $THIS and a bill..."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Review_Act

So ceasie your gibbering : Trump can veto this just as easily as he grabs your wife by the pussy (she'll let him do it!)

Re:Gesture is great but toothless, at this point

[HeckRuler]

The cynic in me assumes that'll be just long enough for them to stop caring about it.

You ever see those videos of dogs barking at each other behind gates. Only to stop the moment that the gate opens?

Re:Gesture is great but toothless, at this point

[Anubis IV]

This isn't a law, it's an Act of Congress (enabled by an existing law). The President has as much legal right to veto it as you or I do.

Aside from the parenthetical statement, pretty much everything you said is factually incorrect.

TL;DR: Yes, it is a law; no, it is not an Act of Congress; no, being an Act of Congress isn't to the exclusion of being a law; and yes, the President can veto it.

Getting into the specifics...
1) The House hasn't voted on it yet, so it's not a law yet if we want to get technical, but it will be if it successfully goes through the rest of the political process, the same as any other law that began in Congress. As such, it's fair to colloquially refer to it as a "law" (e.g. "The Senate passed a law"), just as you might with a bill or whatnot (more on the "whatnot" in a minute), even though those aren't technically laws yet either.

2) By that same token, it's not an Act of Congress yet either, since it needs to pass both chambers of Congress to be an Act of Congress.

3) Of note, laws are Acts of Congress, so saying, "This isn't a law, it's an Act of Congress" makes about as much sense as saying that an orange isn't an orange because it's a fruit. The one isn't to the exclusion of the other.

4) What passed today was technically an accelerated joint resolution per the Congressional Review Act (the "existing law" you referred to). Joint resolutions are basically just bills by another name, so far as you and I are concerned. Both are used to pass laws using virtually identical procedures. They get used in different situations, but otherwise the only everyday difference is that bills create laws known as Acts (e.g. Congressional Review Act), whereas joint resolutions create laws known as Resolutions (e.g. Iraq Resolution). Again, both of them create laws.

5) As with bills, the President absolutely can veto this, since joint resolutions cross his desk the same as bills do after they pass both chambers of Congress with a simple majority (with one notable exception: a joint resolution to amend the US Constitution does not cross the President's desk). Should he veto it, Congress can override him with a 2/3 supermajority of both chambers, again, the same as with bills.

Re: Gesture is great but toothless, at this point

[sjames]

In other words, it tells you very little. Perhaps the Ds are pretty happy with any of the candidates but the Rs will be disgusted and stay home if the wrong R wins the primary.

Re: Gesture is great but toothless, at this point

[barc0001]

You must be 12 and not remember that 8 years ago the idea of screwing with Net Neutrality wasn't even on anyone's radar as it was considered by the FCC to be settled. So are you saying it's important to now pass additional laws to protect supposedly closed policy by government agencies on everything? Cool. I think Weyerhauser just had an orgasm from the thought of all the cubic miles of paper Washington will be running through over the next decade to accomplish that.

Re:Gesture is great but toothless, at this point

[Anonymous Coward]

Something like chickenpox, if you just wait it out, it'll go away eventually. A four year long stint of chickenpox. Little itchy pustules, and every time you scratch them, it just makes it worse. And if you do this enough, you'll wind up getting a President Pence, so mind your manners, sir.

Re:Gesture is great but toothless, at this point

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, it's also possible that one or both of these twats could wind up serving another term, which I'll liken to shingles.

Re:Gesture is great but toothless, at this point

[thegreatbob]

Regarding the kids, not being of legal voting age is actually a pretty decent reason not to vote. Regarding the 20-somethings, I'd love to hear their excuses. Actually I wouldn't. I didn't vote in the presidential election, though I live in a red state in which a few hundred thousand votes wouldn't have made a lick of difference. I suspect their logic will be equally flawed. I fucked up, and so did anyone else who thought the same thing; you can bet your ass I won't not vote again, especially in the primaries (which are apparently OPEN in Texas, which came as something of a surprise to me).

Re:Gesture is great but toothless, at this point

[PopeRatzo]

Not true. Everyone could vote for it in the House, and then it will go to the president...

Veto. Dead and done.

I think Trump is closer to gone than many people are willing to admit. When Mueller gets around to indicting Princess Ivanka, Trump will fold faster than a cheap suit.

Re:Gesture is great but toothless, at this point

[sysrammer]

You've been watching too much interpretive news, apparently, and not enough studying in civics class.

Re: Gesture is great but toothless, at this point

[Anonymous Coward]

That is the case though. The newly elected representatives don't start until the new Congress is gaveled into session after the new year.

Re:Gesture is great but toothless, at this point

[DamnOregonian]

Untrue. This requires a joint resolution from congress, signed by the president. It wouldn't hurt you to research it before you present your incorrect assumptions as fact, would it?

Re:Gesture is great but toothless, at this point

[DamnOregonian]

I hope you're right. I think Trump has the uhhh... let's just call it "what it takes"... to cause a full-blown constitutional crisis and refuse to acknowledge the authority of anyone who tries to remove him. It's not like there's a fucking enforcement mechanism outside of coup.

Re: Gesture is great but toothless, at this point

[Anonymous Coward]

You really know nothing about this. I would say I'm going to laugh when Trump vetoes it, but it will never even pass the House so I'll have to settle for laughing at the concept.

Re: Gesture is great but toothless, at this point

[Anonymous Coward]

No, actually he was right. Turnout tells you a lot. Assuming that people studied up and are happy with their candidates indicates that you have never worked in politics and don't get how this goes. There is no "blue wave" coming in 2018.

Re: Gesture is great but toothless, at this point

[sjames]

Not in evidence. Primary turnout doesn't really tell you much.

Re: Gesture is great but toothless, at this point

[Anonymous Coward]

Zero people in politics including the DNC think the Democrats will take the house in 2018.

Re:Gesture is great but toothless, at this point

[Anonymous Coward]

Nyet! *cough* I mean No!

Re: Gesture is great but toothless, at this point

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be older and unable to look at a calendar to understand the FCC came up with the rules after the time period that Obama controlled both chambers of congress.

Re:Gesture is great but toothless, at this point

[atrex]

Not true. Everyone could vote for it in the House, and then it will go to the president...

Veto. Dead and done.

One the other hand, how about those same people in the Senate and the House stop wasting time with this stupid gesture and make a law. Eh that would take real work... Lets just play the politics game.

There are some interpretations of the CRA that argue that if the bill passes then the FCC won't be able to reclassify broadband service ever again, effectively making the Title II classification permanent.

I don't think I'd trust congress to actually write a new law involving Net Neutrality. We've already seen some attempts at this after the original FCC vote was in the news and they contained some pretty big loop holes. The Title II classification is probably the best and safest way to ensure Net Neutrality continues to exist in a way that benefits the average consumer.

It's always a politics game. According to polls some exceedingly high percentage of Americans favor Net Neutrality (somewhere around 85% iirc), and yet the bill just barely passed the senate on a nearly complete party line vote. If that kind of partisanship continues to show itself in the house then the bill is already dead since the Republicans have a 43 seat majority. And Trump is never going to reenact anything that had Obama's name even remotely attached to it. So yeah, in the end it's just a ploy for votes come November.

Re:Gesture is great but toothless, at this point

[Anonymous Coward]

Veto. Dead and done.

One the other hand, how about those same people in the Senate and the House stop wasting time with this stupid gesture and make a law. Eh that would take real work... Lets just play the politics game.

Serious question - how would a law be any different in the sense of getting it passed? You would still have the president's veto to contend with.

Re:Gesture is great but toothless, at this point

[houghi]

Not sure why you name Obama. As far as I know he is not a president anymore (but you still need to call him that). Does that mean to say that because Obama did it, it is a good thing or a bad thing?

Re:Gesture is great but toothless, at this point

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Ah, I thought the CRA required a concurrent resolution, not a joint resolution (the only difference is concurrent resolutions avoid the president's desk). Damn, that was a stupid way to write the law.

As for it not being an Act of Congress yet, I wasn't talking about in it current state, I was talking about after the House gets around to it. Disjointed replies may have obscured that.

Re:Gesture is great but toothless, at this point

[Anubis IV]

As for it not being an Act of Congress yet, I wasn't talking about in it current state, I was talking about after the House gets around to it. Disjointed replies may have obscured that.

No, that's on me. I was being an argumentative, hypocritical ass (e.g. I gave you a hard time for calling it an Act of Congress when it wasn't yet, but then proceeded to give myself a pass by referring to it as a law when it isn't yet). Thanks for assuming better of me, but I knew what you meant, so I apologize for railing against you as I did.

"Saved" here means nothing, right?

[junk]

And then it goes to the house and then the potato-in-chief and we're hoping it makes it all the way to the end, right? I wouldn't bet on success here.

Re:"Saved" here means nothing, right?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

And then it goes to the house and then the potato-in-chief

Half true. It goes to the House. It's not a law, so no POTUS involvement.

Importantly, because it's not a law, it can go to the House after the next election. Your vote matters.

Re:"Saved" here means nothing, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Congress can tell the executive what to do without a law. Amazing.

I wonder how this will backfire.

Re:"Saved" here means nothing, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

The law exists. It's called the Congressional Review Act, and it is how this vote ever came to the floor.

The CRA was already voted on, and signed by a president making it law. The CRA is part of the egal framework by which the FCC gets to regulate anything at all. This vote is applying that law to counter and regulations made by the executive with no meaningful public process.

Re:"Saved" here means nothing, right?

[krlynch]

No, the CRA requires rulemaking decisions by Executive Agencies to be submitted to Congress for review, and it provides for expedited congressional action to override that rulemaking that bypasses the normal rules of the House and Senate. Overriding the rule is done by passage of an act, and that needs a presidential signature, or a veto override by the normal means:

For a regulation to be invalidated under the CRA, the Congressional resolution of disapproval must be either signed by the President or passed over the President's veto by two thirds of both Houses of Congress. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:"Saved" here means nothing, right?

[_Sharp'r_]

For supposedly someone who RTFA, you don't have many facts at your command.

Here are the details. It's a joint resolution of Congress, AKA a proposed law. The CRA process requires it to be passed within 60 legislative days, so no waiting until after the next election. Also, anything passed by this Congress (including this) in the Senate would have to start completely over during the next Congress in January. Nothing is held over.

Plus, the House is very unlikely to even bring it up for a vote and the President isn't going to sign it. So it's already dead and this vote is merely symbolic.

Thank goodness

[Mark4ST]

Thank goodness! Now I can get back to using the internet for what it was invented for: pornography.

Re:Thank goodness

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, hopefully, if this makes it all the way through the system the only thing being throttled will be your dick, by your hands, for your own personal enjoyment...

Re:Thank goodness

[barrygrommit]

Thank goodness! Now I can get back to using the internet for what it was invented for: pornography.

...and cat videos, email, and Calvin comics

Everything that's wrong with U.S. politics

[nwaack]

This should not have been a vote across party lines! This vote, and others like it, just prove that congress-critters couldn't give a flying f#ck about the people they're mean to represent.

Re:Everything that's wrong with U.S. politics

[Actually, I do RTFA]

This vote, and others like it, just prove that congress-critters couldn't give a flying f#ck about the people they're mean to represent.

Actually, it proves that 52 of them do

Re:Everything that's wrong with U.S. politics

[chispito]

This should not have been a vote across party lines! This vote, and others like it, just prove that congress-critters couldn't give a flying f#ck about the people they're mean to represent.

If Net Neutrality is a measure of how much Congress cares about its constituents, then perhaps Congress should have actually passed a Net Neutrality bill, rather than leaving it up to the whims of the current administration.

Re:Everything that's wrong with U.S. politics

[suutar]

a bill... which can be vetoed by the current administration?

Re:Everything that's wrong with U.S. politics

[Anonymous Coward]

"... about the people they're mean to represent."

Excellent wording. Hadn't quite thought of them being mean to those they represent, but certainly that's been the case.

Re:Everything that's wrong with U.S. politics

[Anonymous Coward]

This vote, and others like it, just prove that congress-critters couldn't give a flying f#ck about the people they're mean to represent.

Actually, it proves that 52 of them do

Do they? Or are they just voting this way because they're facing a re-election campaign soon. Everyone is on 'the side of the people" when they need their votes.

Re:Everything that's wrong with U.S. politics

[Gavagai80]

It proves that 52 senators are funded by the companies that have a vested interest in net neutrality. The three republicans who broke ranks... well, they took an actual risk of alienating a major source of party funding and of facing a future primary challenge, so I'll give them credit. But I'm not giving credit to democrats who voted party line when google et all will reward them for it.

Re:Everything that's wrong with U.S. politics

[Dragonslicer]

The three republicans who broke ranks... well, they took an actual risk of alienating a major source of party funding and of facing a future primary challenge, so I'll give them credit.

Kennedy, maybe, but Collins and Murkowski have already recently voted against the rest of the Republican party on issues that were more important to most voters.

Re:Everything that's wrong with U.S. politics

[psmoot]

Sure. That's why they should have tried to pass a bill under the previous President. Oh wait, that would have been DOA in Congress too.

This, and things like the Iran Nuke deal, underscore how shaky it is to bypass Congress and administer "with a pen and a phone". Anything done unilaterally by one administration can just as quickly be undone by the next, as we're now seeing. If a President wants to accomplish something lasting, he or she needs to get Congress to go along with it and pass some legislation. Otherwise, your legacy is built on a foundation of sand.

Yay Founding Fathers for making it harder to implement controversial policies without getting broad support. That's not sarcasm, this is why we have separate branches.

In this case, I'm happy with current outcome. The Net Neutrality regulations were a bad solution to a non-problem. I'm sure there are other cases where I'll be less glad policy is flip-flopping every four to eight years.

Re:Everything that's wrong with U.S. politics

[Anonymous Coward]

a bill... which can be vetoed by the current administration?

It's not a bill. Won't be a law. The law was already passed, the Congressional Review Act as mentioned in the summary. There is no veto involved here.

Re:Everything that's wrong with U.S. politics

[Actually, I do RTFA]

But I'm not giving credit to democrats who voted party line when google et all will reward them for it.

So they should have voted against this bill because in your judgement they're not pure-minded enough? I'll take my wins any way I can get them.

Re:Everything that's wrong with U.S. politics

[HeckRuler]

Well... no. The party lines are pretty obvious here. The Republicans like big business, and business in general. They don't like regulation and have that laisee-fare "let the market decide" attitude. Democrats also like big business, and business in general, but they like to have the government regulate them into playing nice and fair.

And let me be REAL CLEAR about this: Prior to the FCC's ruling about common carriers, the Internet WAS AND IS (mostly) network neutral. There are some exceptions, but the the concept that any ISP would break network neutrality was enough that customers would balk and go to the competition. The free market kept American ISPs supporting network neutrality. By and far, they depended upon it. Before the market consolidated into a handful of cable companies that carved up the US into territories they refuse to compete for.

The republicans want to go back to the old ways of that new frontier level of lawlessness because those were good times. But they fail to see how times have changed. When even Mr. moneybags Google can't make a buck and expand their fiber services, the barrier to entry is HELLA high. And that's through artificial market manipulation in the form of suing anyone that tries to touch telecom poles and selectively dropping prices wherever fiber comes to town.

I have zero confidence in Congress's ability to craft viable Network Neutrality legislation. Oh dear god we don't want that. They'll just take whatever ComCast hands them and put that to vote. No, reclassifying them as common carriers with the nice broad language of that old bill that goes along the lines of "don't fuck with the pipes" was the absolute best we could ever hope for. And I would really like it to come back.

Least we have:

• Regular lanes and peasant lanes
• ESPN360.com making deals with ISPs direct and turning the Internet into package deals like cable TV
• ISPs deciding which protocols are valid, tyrants bribing or forcing corporations to selectively censor traffic
• Screwing with competitors services

Re:Everything that's wrong with U.S. politics

[Rick Schumann]

What this does, successful or not, is show everyone in the country who gives a damn about the Internet and who doesn't, and more to the point, who gives a damn if the Internet is fair, free, and open for every citizen, or if it's just going to continue to be leveraged, monetized, and milked by corporations. Congresscritters will have to declare which side of the line they're on, no escaping it.

Re:Everything that's wrong with U.S. politics

[synaptik]

The Net Neutrality regulations were a bad solution to a non-problem.

Cable internet companies throttling people's Netflix streams because they want those people to get frustrated w/ Netflix and switch to their cable TV packages, is a non-problem?

Re:Everything that's wrong with U.S. politics

[synaptik]

That is a moot point. The racial demographics of the nation are rapidly shifting to majority minority. The Democrats will have an overwhelming majority by 2020 or 2024, at the latest, after which there will never be another Republican U.S. President.

Sounds great, except that the Quiverfull movement is explicitly attempting to outbreed secularists / liberals. They might meet stiff competition among predominantly-Catholic Hispanics, but I can't imagine secularists deciding to engage in reproductive warfare, even if they do realize that's what the Fundies are up to. Overbreeding is kind of anathema to secularism.

Re:Everything that's wrong with U.S. politics

[Anonymous Coward]

The Net Neutrality regulations were a bad solution to a non-problem.

Actually they were a bad solution to a tremendously mischaracterized and deceptively spun set of problems. The internet can and should provide a basic infrastructure for Free Speech in the modern age. That is something worth doing. You probably think laws mandating restaurants serve water for free upon request are a bad idea. Some of us disagree.

Re:Everything that's wrong with U.S. politics

[dog77]

Or maybe Republicans (wrongly or rightly) are just convinced that net neutrality equals more government regulation.

Re:Everything that's wrong with U.S. politics

[psmoot]

Cable internet companies throttling people's Netflix streams because they want those people to get frustrated w/ Netflix and switch to their cable TV packages, is a non-problem?

Correct because this has never happened, or at least not to any significant extent.

If you think that's a problem needing regulation, we also need to regulate attacks by hippogriffs.

Re:Everything that's wrong with U.S. politics

[synaptik]

There are no hippogriffs, thus the probability of hippogriff attacks remains firmly at p=0.

In contrast, the probability of what I described is approximately the same as the probability that you would pick up a stray $100 bill you spotted in a parking lot. Because, why wouldn't you?

Profit motive is rather predicable, that way.

Re:Everything that's wrong with U.S. politics

[_Sharp'r_]

they like to have the government regulate them into playing nice and fair.

A more cynical version would be:

they like to have the government regulate them into paying them off with support to avoid anything which actually harms them.

Re:Everything that's wrong with U.S. politics

[thegarbz]

Actually, it proves that 52 of them do

Actually it proves 3 do. Some of the 49 democrats may do, but then they could just be voting along party lines. Actually caring about people involves more than deciding which colour of tie you are wearing.

Re:Everything that's wrong with U.S. politics

[Anonymous Coward]

https://consumerist.com/2014/02/23/netflix-agrees-to-pay-comcast-to-end-slowdown/
https://www.theverge.com/2014/5/6/5686780/major-isps-accused-of-deliberately-throttling-traffic
https://www.digitaltrends.com/web/verizon-wireless-throttling-video-traffic/
https://www.extremetech.com/computing/186576-verizon-caught-throttling-netflix-traffic-even-after-its-pays-for-more-bandwidth

Re:Everything that's wrong with U.S. politics

[atrex]

Net Neutrality is a separate issue from the regional monopoly BS that most ISPs enjoy. That doesn't make it unimportant after we've already had blatant examples of both Verizon https://www.theverge.com/2017/... and Comcast https://consumerist.com/2014/0... throttling streaming video services like Netflix to try and get customers to subscribe to their services instead or to extort money from streaming video providers.

You're not wrong about how congress is supposed to work and how fragile policy put in place solely by the executive branch is. Unfortunately, our congress is almost completely broken, and has been for years, decades even. https://www.realclearscience.c... Maybe if we can accomplish goals like getting money out of politics, implement systems like ranked choice voting, stop voter suppression, make voting easier with early voting/no excuse needed absentee ballots or some other fix, and get a healthy five or six active political parties going we can have a truly representative democracy again. But that's a very big, and very long if.

Re:Everything that's wrong with U.S. politics

[Anonymous Coward]

In this case, I'm happy with current outcome. The Net Neutrality regulations were a bad solution to a non-problem.

Yeah, it's weird how when you're not allowed to abuse people because it's expressly prohibited by government involvement it stops being a problem.

I have an idea. Let's abolish the 13th amendment. It's trying to solve something that's a non-problem since nobody's been asking to enslave other people any more.

Re:Everything that's wrong with U.S. politics

[Anonymous Coward]

Blatant lie. The net neutrality regulations were ALREADY implemented by the FCC. There are numerous times the FCC stepped in and asserted its capability to prevent internet actors from violating net neutrality. The Trump revoked provisions were just a formal cementing of the already existing policy. FAR FAR FAR from a non problem. The regulations already saved some notion of free information on the internet.

On the plus side, the young will be served even by the corporatists so maybe the current twitter nonsense will be censored into oblivion and replaced with MBLA propaganda 24 hours a day. Without net neutrality provisions IT COULD HAPPEN you foul lying twit.

Re:Everything that's wrong with U.S. politics

[psmoot]

There are no hippogriffs, thus the probability of hippogriff attacks remains firmly at p=0. In contrast, the probability of what I described is approximately the same as the probability that you would pick up a stray $100 bill you spotted in a parking lot. Because, why wouldn't you? Profit motive is rather predicable, that way.

My point exactly. How many $100 bills have you picked up? Personally, I'm at zero. My chance of picking up a stray $100 is approximately 0 plus epsilon. Not exactly zero but so close I don't dream about it.

How about we worry about real problems instead of hypothetical ones? Like how to open up more spectrum and increase the amount of service available?

Re:Everything that's wrong with U.S. politics

[psmoot]

Net Neutrality is a separate issue from the regional monopoly BS that most ISPs enjoy. That doesn't make it unimportant after we've already had blatant examples of both Verizon https://www.theverge.com/2017/... and Comcast https://consumerist.com/2014/0... throttling streaming video services like Netflix to try and get customers to subscribe to their services instead or to extort money from streaming video providers.

And that's where I think things get murky fast. I'll be the first to admit I don't understand the details of what happened between Verizon, Comcast, and Netflix. In general terms, I think it was basically a contract dispute about who was going to pay whom for what. I guarantee armies of lawyers and CxOs were involved in the negotiations and I'm not going to try to outguess them. I'm pretty sure Comcast and Verizon would find it a Pyrrhic victory if they really reduced the quality of Netfilx streams for no good reason other than to make their service look better. Anyway, we have ways to resolve contract disputes, they slug it out in courts and the court of public opinion and eventually settle. I, personally, am more comfortable depending on that process than FCC regulation.

You're not wrong about how congress is supposed to work and how fragile policy put in place solely by the executive branch is.

Wow, someone on Slashdot admitting another poster has a point! Thank you!

Maybe if we can accomplish goals like getting money out of politics, implement systems like ranked choice voting, stop voter suppression, make voting easier with early voting/no excuse needed absentee ballots or some other fix, and get a healthy five or six active political parties going we can have a truly representative democracy again. But that's a very big, and very long if.

Amen brother. I doubt you'll ever get money out of politics. At best, you and I can tell our representatives that we don't want them to "bring home the bacon", we want them to vote in the best interest of the city/state/country as a whole. And we can vote that way (which doesn't make much difference, not one vote, but get a million like thinking voters and now it's interesting).

OK, really off topic here. There's some actual science in Political Science. They can show how having winner-take-all, first-to-the-finish voting systems, like we tend to have in the US, basically guarantees we'll have two dominant and largely stable parties. So I can't agree more that we need to get rid of our intuitively obvious but flawed system of "one person, one vote, most votes wins, winner takes all". You think about it a bit and only something like a third of American voted for our current President, which means that minority gets a lot of power over the majority. How busted is that?

I live in California, a reliable Democratic state for the last 20 years. My vote in 2016 made absolutely no difference. No matter what I did, all our Electoral votes were going to Clinton. As a result, neither Trump nor Clinton had to give a rat's a** about anything Californians cared about, other than how it affected fund raising. I think it would be better for all Californians to divide our Electoral votes proportionally somehow (county by county, district by district, proportional to the popular vote state wide, there are many ways). That would be good for all Californians, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green, Pirate, whatever. The Democratic leadership, however, will never go for this, they'd be crucified by the national party. The Republicans could get behind this but they have no say in how the state is run. I don't know how to break the logjam.

I'd also love to have a system other than plurality voting. Instant runoffs, approval votin

Re:Everything that's wrong with U.S. politics

[Anonymous Coward]

This, and other forms of abuse covered by NN, have happened. If you haven't heard of the instances, that's OK, but your knowledge isn't very deep.

Re:Everything that's wrong with U.S. politics

[Anonymous Coward]

Sense, it's here.

Sense and Reality, with a 4 rating, here on Slashdot. Honestly I can't believe it.

Thank you Pete Smoot. Thank you for brightening my day.

Are you a liberalist? You should be.

www.usaliberalists.org or on Facebook.

Re:Everything that's wrong with U.S. politics

[Anonymous Coward]

Cable internet companies throttling people's Netflix streams because they want those people to get frustrated w/ Netflix and switch to their cable TV packages, is a non-problem?

Correct because this has never happened, or at least not to any significant extent.

If you think that's a problem needing regulation, we also need to regulate attacks by hippogriffs.

I can't tell if you're a troll or just stupid but it DEFINITELY happened back in 2014 and was even tested by Verizon again last year. There are many, many, many articles about it. Many first-hand reports. I personally experienced it with Comcast. People like you are exactly why we need Net Neutrality as a law. So deep in denial that you just make shit up. This is honestly the stupidest thing I've read this week, which is AMAZING considering what's going on.

Re:Everything that's wrong with U.S. politics

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe Republicans (wrongly or rightly) are just convinced that net neutrality equals more government regulation.

This is what gets me so riled up. I swear its like the word regulation has become a 4 letter word. Net neutrality is to prevent ISP's from regulating the internet. Its like wanting to repeal the Emancipation Proclamation because "government shouldn't be regulating who gets to be free". NN is a protectionary action not an infringement of internet freedom. Every time I hear some R. claiming that the government is trying to control the internet because they put up a rule that said everyone had to be treated the same it makes my blood boil! The hypocrisy and lack of ability to comprehend the things that they are attacking disgusts me. Removing consumer protections does not free any of us.

Re:Everything that's wrong with U.S. politics

[atrex]

Net Neutrality is a separate issue from the regional monopoly BS that most ISPs enjoy. That doesn't make it unimportant after we've already had blatant examples of both Verizon https://www.theverge.com/2017/... and Comcast https://consumerist.com/2014/0... throttling streaming video services like Netflix to try and get customers to subscribe to their services instead or to extort money from streaming video providers.

And that's where I think things get murky fast. I'll be the first to admit I don't understand the details of what happened between Verizon, Comcast, and Netflix. In general terms, I think it was basically a contract dispute about who was going to pay whom for what. I guarantee armies of lawyers and CxOs were involved in the negotiations and I'm not going to try to outguess them. I'm pretty sure Comcast and Verizon would find it a Pyrrhic victory if they really reduced the quality of Netfilx streams for no good reason other than to make their service look better. Anyway, we have ways to resolve contract disputes, they slug it out in courts and the court of public opinion and eventually settle. I, personally, am more comfortable depending on that process than FCC regulation.

Just a few things to add re: Net Neutrality: The Netflix and ISPs throttling streaming video was just one example (the most prominent). In 2007 the FCC took Comcast to court over throttling P2P traffic and forced them to knock it off. Unfortunately, the courts overturned this ruling in 2010 because they ruled that the FCC did not have the authority to issue commands regarding Comcast's shaping practices. But, the courts gave the FCC another option: reclassification. That's why the FCC reclassified broadband services under Title II common carrier protections in 2015. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Other services that have previously been (and are sometimes still) affected by ISPs throttling/shaping traffic are VoIP services (ex Skype and others) as well as VPN use. VoIP services (particularly free ones like Discord) don't have the money to fight ISPs in the courts, but worse is VPN service. VPNs are used by any number of small businesses and individuals and to this day Comcast is still presumably guilty of throttling users' VPN traffic (a quick google search will return dozens of user complaints re: Comcast vs VPN). Short of a class action lawsuit, small businesses and individuals are never going to get Comcast to stop messing with VPN traffic, especially without a solid foundation like them being in violation of Net Neutrality rules to take them to court over.

Re:Everything that's wrong with U.S. politics

[Anonymous Coward]

What about the people that stand very much against the idea of Net Neutrality such as myself.

All you can really say is that 3 congressmen are willing to vote differently to the way their party would want them to vote. There's no evidence that the views of ordinary people are being taken into account.

Re:Everything that's wrong with U.S. politics

[synaptik]

My point was P(pickup), not P(found). But you knew that.

If you really want to challenge my argument, instead of a strawman you should challenge me to provide citations of this (and similar) douchey behavior happening prior to the FCC's 2015 Open Internet Order. If you did that, I would list:

* Major ISPs throttling Netflix, et al.
* Verizon stating on-record that they would like to charge services for better access to their subscribers
* Madison River (ISP) blocking vonage
* Comcast (ISP) blocking P2P applications
* Telus (ISP) blocking access to a website critical of them
* Shaw (ISP) charging a 'QoS fee' to subscribers using competing VoIP solutions
* AT&T blocking VoIP apps on the iPhone
* AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon blocking Google Wallet
* Verizon blocking tethering apps
* AT&T charging extra if iPhone users want to use facetime, instead of AT&T's competing product

No one would put up with a power company that charged more for electricity to power appliances that weren't also bought from them. And yet, when a company that is a combination of ISP and content provider decides to trollishly increase the cost of competitive content streaming, somehow that's OK? SMH.

You ended with a point about opening up more spectrum & increasing service (which I take to mean that the former would cause the latter.) I can't personally speak to the matter of opening up more spectrum, because I don't know how much spectrum sits fallow. I would be surprised if much did.

I'm angry

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a card-carrying republican, and I'm pissed about how my party is letting the local ISP screw me over. I hate it.

I'm pro net-neutrality. Stop f*ing with me.

I am a person, not a commodity. Stop buying me, selling me, and otherwise treating me like cattle, or I can find another party to work with.

Re:I'm angry

[ColdWetDog]

I am a person, not a commodity. Stop buying me, selling me, and otherwise treating me like cattle, or I can find another party to work with.

And this party would be exactly whom?

The Democrats? Who brought you Queen Hillary? Who, arguably would have been a better choice than Stud Muffin but not someone I could tolerate without a hefty dose of anti nausea medication and / or psychedelics.

The Libertarians? Greenies?

Lisa Murkowski would actually be a pretty good presidential candidate. Female, reasonably intelligent, basically reasonable. Not obviously beholden to too many different things (other than oil companies but nothing new here). Someone who could actually behave as a progressive Republican.

But not a snowball's chance in Hell, especially with all of this climate change stuff.

Re:I'm angry

[magarity]

I'm a card-carrying republican, and I'm pissed about how my party is letting the local ISP screw me over. I hate it.

I'm pro net-neutrality. Stop f*ing with me.

I am a person, not a commodity. Stop buying me, selling me, and otherwise treating me like cattle, or I can find another party to work with.

If you were then you'd be happy the legislature has taken this up instead of a regulatory agency.

Re:I'm angry

[JackieBrown]

She is a republican woman. She wouldn't have a chance. The liberals would call her stupid, ugly, unqualified, and any other misogynistic name they could come up with.

Re:I'm angry

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, classic example of falsely accusing the opposition of doing what Republicans have been doing to Hillary for years. Gross that you got upvoted, but it sounds like you at least realize that Hillary would have had a better chance of winning if she weren't female.

Re:I'm angry

[Dragonslicer]

She is a republican woman. She wouldn't have a chance. The liberals would call her stupid, ugly, unqualified, and any other misogynistic name they could come up with.

Do you have any evidence to support this prediction, or is it just blind hatred?

Also, "stupid" and "unqualified" are not misogynistic terms. Carly Fiorina wasn't called unqualified because she's a woman, it was because she campaigned based on her experience as a corporate executive, when her only such experience was nearly destroying HP. Sarah Palin wasn't called stupid because she's a woman, it was because, well, she just isn't very smart; after all, she claimed diplomatic skill based on being able to see Russia from her home.

Re: I'm angry

[Anonymous Coward]

So the same shit repubtards do with Hillary? Got it.

Re:I'm angry

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, classic example of falsely accusing the opposition of doing what Republicans have been doing to Hillary for years. Gross that you got upvoted, but it sounds like you at least realize that Hillary would have had a better chance of winning if she weren't female.

I agree with this. If she were a man she wouldn't be constantly trying to leverage her gender with glass ceiling bullshit to get people to vote for her and thus would have been slightly less annoying a candidate.

Re:I'm angry

[omnichad]

The last person was elected because "black guy." It's the only thing that would have worked, because she's offensive even to a large number of democrats. And let's not forget the support of the TPP.

Re:I'm angry

[JackieBrown]

Besides the people you mentioned, Nikki Haley, Mia Love, Bachmann, etc.

And yes, I'm sure you honestly think they are all stupid

Re:I'm angry

[Dragonslicer]

Besides the people you mentioned, Nikki Haley, Mia Love, Bachmann, etc.

And yes, I'm sure you honestly think they are all stupid

I don't know who Mia Love is. Michelle Bachmann is disliked because she's an ultra-religious bigot. I'm sure there are plenty of issues on which I disagree with Nikki Haley, but none of them are because she's a woman.

Re:I'm angry

[Anonymous Coward]

sarah palin

Re:I'm angry

[Anonymous Coward]

And other republicans would rape her. Especialy if they were related to her.

Re:I'm angry

[Train0987]

And the Dems have lost 10-20% of the black vote since Trump was sworn in, depending which poll you want to believe.

Re:I'm angry

[psmoot]

I'm a little puzzled. How exactly is your local ISP screwing you over?

They offer you a service, you willingly buy it. No one put a gun to your head. Contrary to popular belief, you can live without internet access at home. If you don't like their service, why are you paying for it?

It is possible you live somewhere where there aren't any competing ISPs. That's probably a gripe you have with your local mayor or city council. Go tell them to make it easier for AT&T/Verizon/T-Mobile to set up cell towers so you have good cell coverage. Tell them to make it easier for AT&T/Comcast/Cox to dig up the streets to lay cable. Tell them to not sign contracts giving one ISP or the other exclusive access to your neighborhood.

Once you have options, then you can tell your ISP to go f*** themselves if you don't like how you're being treated. That's something the ISP will listen to.

Re:I'm angry

[Anonymous Coward]

You named names.. That's not evidence. Give evidence.

"And yes, I'm sure you honestly think they are all stupid"

Regardless, thinking someone is stupid is not "any other misogynistic name they could come up with." Are you sure you know the definition of misogyny?
[ https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misogyny ]

Re:I'm angry

[h33t l4x0r]

She is a woman. She wouldn't have a chance. (FTFY) - DEMs please put up a moderate white guy next time. Even a narcoleptic plantation-owner like Al Gore would be fine.

Re:I'm angry

[HeckRuler]

awwww, but you should notice that your card reads "Fuck regulation, let the market decide".

Big daddy republicans are keeping you from getting screwed by the government while they hold you down over the barrel. They spend big bucks bribing their way to meetings with Ajit Pai. Surely they deserve a little barrel time for all that hard work of opening up markets?

Don't you believe in the free market? Don't you expect some young entrepreneur to start their own ISP to meet your needs?

Re:I'm angry

[HeckRuler]

Without network neutrality, they're free to regulate him to a peasant lane unless he pays more. They can package portions of the Internet into different tiers and bundles like they sell their cable TV. Buying unlimited platinum level Internet (like you have now) will of course cost extra. They'll throttle protocols and services they don't like, as they been caught red-handed fucking with torrents. They could simply torpedo or creatively fuck with any of the Internet Services that compete's with their own brand. They could force Netflixs to pay them extra (if they could hope to have any customers if they didn't support Netflix, who is simply too big to bully these days).

These are the ways that the top US telecoms: Comcast, Charter, AT&T, Verison, CenturyLink, and Mediacom have screwed people over. In the past, when they've attempted to tear down network neutrality, public outcry and bad PR kept them in check. Market consolidation.

If you don't like the fact that this is a democracy and most people WANT network neutrality, then YOU can choose to go live where that isn't an issue for you. And no, when mayors and goveners try to encourage competition or start a municipal service, they get sued into oblivion. The "contracts" you're talking about are unspoken collusion between AT&T and Comcast. I ain't got jack SHIT I can say about that.

I wholly agree that if we could get the major US telecoms to compete with each other and stop respecting each other's established territory so we could actually HAVE some choices and could make the market more free, then none of this would be such a big deal. So what do you say? Shall we whip out Uncle Sherman's hammer and go to town on these guys and bust them up like we busted up Bell? Because it's that or regulating them like common carriers that shouldn't fuck with the pipes.

Re:I'm angry

[Anonymous Coward]

It's usually the state that has negotiated an exclusive contract with the ISP, and the state typically does so because there's no other way to ensure broadband access across the entire state. Left to their own devices, ISPs focus their efforts on the big cities where their infrastructure investment pays off the most. The only time they're willing to spend money on smaller cities and towns is when they can negotiate massive guaranteed profits through an exclusivity contract.

Re:I'm angry

[dryeo]

And let's not forget the support of the TPP.

Which Trump now wishes he'd supported and is using NAFTA to implement all the horrible bits of.

Re:I'm angry

[Anonymous Coward]

Y'all are crazy if you think black folks are going to vote Trump in 2020

Re: I'm angry

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you realize the seeing Russia from her home thing didn't come from her, but from an SNL skit?

Re:I'm angry

[Gilgaron]

Bachmann has certainly been pilloried for being a loon, but I've never seen Haley treated any worse than being disagreed with. I think she's been one of this administrations appointments that was reacted to most positively.

Re: I'm angry

[Dragonslicer]

Do you realize the seeing Russia from her home thing didn't come from her, but from an SNL skit?

True, the "from my home" part was from SNL. Her actual quote was just that you can see Russia from Alaska.

Re: I'm angry

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you realize the seeing Russia from her home thing didn't come from her, but from an SNL skit?

About as technically true and valid as her actual quote. No, she did not say see she could see Russia from her house. She said you can see Russia from Alaska, which she used as a response to the question of how her state's geographical location gives insight into Russian political affairs. Yes, technically on a sparsely populated remote island that is a part of Alaska (a remote area of the US) you can see another sparsely populated remote island that is a part of Russia (in one of their remote areas of their country). That would give you exactly zero insight into Russian politics and was just about the dumbest answer you could give to that question.

Don't try to skate by on a technicality. It was very clearly a dumb thing to say by someone who did not have a better answer to an easy question.

As Brad Pitt so famously said,

[weedjams]

FUCK YEAH!

"...that will resonate through election season..."

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there any evidence to support the idea that this senate vote will resonate at all?

Good

[Jarwulf]

Now that we've saved the internet from maybe possibly theoretically be censored by relatively less political ISPs for monetary reasons we can go back to cheering uberpolitical Google/Facebook/Twitter etc for continuing and ramping up their internet censorship for political reasons.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Use of past tense implies that you forgot about the upcoming House vote, and about Trump's veto if it passes the House.

All this does it put a bunch of US Senators on record as voting against their constituents.

Huge middle finger to you, Ajit

[OneHundredAndTen]

Enjoy.

Re:Huge middle finger to you, Ajit

[ColdWetDog]

Digital Rectal Examinations (get it?) have been deprecated. They don't help. I'd suggest just tar and feathers and riding him out on a rail.

Re:Huge middle finger to you, Ajit

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you mean tarring, feathering and a keelhauling. With a break for the sailors and a few toddies of rum half way along the keel. Got to keep the well-being of the haulers in mind, no?

Not Anything Actually

[Anonymous Coward]

Since the House has to pass and then the WH sign.

Symbolic bullshit.

Re:Not Anything Actually

[Austerity Empowers]

Symbolic bullshit.

Yes, but as a Texan I note Senator Ted Cruz voted on behalf of the mafia, so I will support Beto in November. Plus the very insincere form letter I received full of republican chicken speak helped me understand he doesn't even know what he's talking about. It would be nice to see a vote in the house to figure out which representatives also need to be replaced.

Of course, Cruz will probably win anyway because Texas. Yee haw.

Re:Not Anything Actually

[youngone]

It seems a shame that if you don't like the Republican on offer your only realistic option to replace him is a Democrat.
Some of us live in democracies. We might even have the option of 5 or 6 different parties.
Some of those parties may not even sell us out for corporate money.

It's nice.

Re:Not Anything Actually

[Tough Love]

Stay and help retire the rednecks.

Re:Not Anything Actually

[thegreatbob]

Take a chill pill and have a laugh, buddy. https://www.tedcruzforhumanpre... As a Texan who straddles many political fences, it's debatable whether or not I'd vote for him, or at all; but, unlike so many I encounter that seem to put forth a sentiment similar to your own, I will need to do significantly more research on the matter before polluting the system with my vote. It is, however, okay to disagree with folks, and actually a very good thing when civil discourse can arise from said disagreements; sadly, I don't see this as a likely prospect for this AC.

Re: Not Anything Actually

[Anonymous Coward]

Watch The Orville: Majority Rule (Season 1, Episode 7)

While a fictional satirical show, it pretty much explains why a true democracy is actually bad and evil.

Re:Not Anything Actually

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, well the real problem here is your too ignorant to know you've been sold out, probably long before the USA was born.
Enjoy your mob rule.

Re:Not Anything Actually

[iMadeGhostzilla]

It matters less than you think. Unlike in European parliaments where members need to vote along the party line or they'll be kicked out and replaced, the US congressmen have primarily their constituency to please. So a Democrat in a very conservative area may be pro life and a Republican in a very liberal area may be pro choice.

Re:Not Anything Actually

[youngone]

I'm not sure about Europe, because i don't live there, but the electorate MP's in my country are elected as individuals (although they have a party affiliation) and the party cannot replace them without a by-election.

I note that in this particular vote the Democrats voted 100% along party lines and the Republicans voted 98.5% along party lines, so I guess the theory is nice, but when push comes to shove they do what they're told.

Re:Not Anything Actually

[Darinbob]

Why? Opposition to a disliked candidate makes one unsuitable for Texas? So all right thinking Texans vote the way they are told to vote and don't waste energy trying to think about it? There are plenty of armadillos to vote for instead of Ted Cruz.

Re: Not Anything Actually

[Anonymous Coward]

What a coincidence! I too get all my philosophical wisdom from TV shows.

Re: Not Anything Actually

[Anonymous Coward]

At least it isn't zkcd.....

Re:Not Anything Actually

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems a shame that if you don't like the Republican on offer your only realistic option to replace him is a Democrat.

That can be (partly) fixed by:
1. Having government stop listing party affiliation on ballots or allowing any sign or visible listing near the polling place. Additionally you can't leave any information in the polling booth. Nothing stops you from bringing in notes, and many will, but we don't have to facilitate it.

2. Putting names on ballots in random order, with the scanner knowing, or alphabetical order (simpler, but easier to give out a sequence.)

3. If a majority cannot be achieved in an election. Revote with the two in the lead, or do instant run off, or some other variation.

4. Ban redistricting that has, or effectively has political inputs. Come up with a simple algorithm to draw them. I suggest keeping the ratio of circumference to area small being one criteria.

5. Require all laws and amendments to have every change in source control, with each change signed off for by an elected representative, and any vote for or against it affirms that they read it. This also works great to point out differences in versions. Links can be included with it to include every major comment made about the legislation and the time it was made, so people can look at things in context.

6. In order to be elected to any public office you have to make a legal commitment to take the job if elected. If you haven't made that commitment early enough, you lose, even if everyone writes in your name. Once you have made that commitment all existing non disclosure agreements involving you become permanently null and void and your taxes and public records are automatically released.

I'm probably missing some, but the point being, that while the system sucks, it doesn't always have to. Nothing will fix everything. Fox news zombies are likely to always be fox news zombies, but there are things that can be done..

Re:Not Anything Actually

[iMadeGhostzilla]

This isn't really a good time to judge by because not only the politicians but people too have never been so polarized. They congressmen are less doing what they are told and more genuinely believing the other side are such idiots if they are pushing for something then it must be a terrible idea (or are doing it just for cheap points with their base, which is kinda what I think about this particular vote).

Re: Not Anything Actually

[Anonymous Coward]

So instead of the candidate representing the people, the people should move to the district's of favored candidates?

You are an idiot.

Re: Not Anything Actually

[Anonymous Coward]

The issue is that with this vote, everyone cares a little, but doesn't care enough to change who they will vote for in the next election.

Only in a very close election will an issue like this matter. There are more issues than this one, and they are cared about far deeper - abortion rights, 2nd amendment stance, health care policy, tax policy, etc.

I doubt NN makes the top 10 with most voters.

Re:Not Anything Actually

[spongman]

who's the snowflake? the guy who can't bare to think that one of his neighbors has a different opinion than him? poor guy...

Re:Not Anything Actually

[Anonymous Coward]

"Some of those parties may not even sell us out for corporate money. "

That's because it's a lot more expensive to buy off 5-6 different party representatives compared to only having to worry about 2.

Re: Not Anything Actually

[Anonymous Coward]

I prefer to use Switzerland's well-liked direct democracy as an example over some TV show.

Is that impure? Maybe, although it gave people the right to expand their powers and they actually chose to leave the main day to day business delegated. More to the point, you can go at least that far and be okay.

Re:Not Anything Actually

[Anonymous Coward]

I am so happy to read the polling data every election season as big cities like Houston, Dallas, and Austin take more of the influence in elections. Texas is turning purple soon enough, and likely blue within a generation.

Take your outdated, racist, bible-quoting-but-totally-ignoring 90%-of-it, ignorant views and keep doing your thing. I hope you die slow enough to watch the entire world turn against you so you end up hated, alone, and cursing the rest of the country that realizes "hey it's ok that other people are happy too". It's happening no matter how much you watch FoxNews and think Alex Jones is an actual news source.

Go march with some alt-right nazis, you piece of shit.

Re:Not Anything Actually

[barbariccow]

The problem with hiding party affiliation is local elections. If you go to the ballet to specifically vote for one represenative, say the house, which you've thouroughly researched, there's likely to be 10 other positions on the voting card. For example, last presidental election when I voted I also voted for 12 people whom I had no clue their positions on anything. Should I vote for whose name I like best? My SO at the time voted for all the women. At least voting along party lines you get somewhat of a "basis of understanding" towards their general positions. Is this a good thing? Certainly not, but I don't think the problem is parties in general, it's that we are in a two party system. If there were maybe 6 parties that varied all along the spectrum, I could vote the Whoozwits for one office and the Whatchyacallits for another. Parties have the funds to advertise their positions, local candidates you're lucky to read a few key words on a sign in someone's yard unless you invest a ton of time in researching every single sheriff and city councilman.

Re:Not Anything Actually

[Anonymous Coward]

For example, last presidental election when I voted I also voted for 12 people whom I had no clue their positions on anything. Should I vote for whose name I like best? My SO at the time voted for all the women. At least voting along party lines you get somewhat of a "basis of understanding" towards their general positions.

You have to have priorities. Weakening the two party system is a noble enough goal, and I think it is worth some expense. Also, you could just bring in a page of notes. Had you done so it would mean you took the time to likely give a bit more thought to your choices. That is the outcome I'd like to see.

If people haven't even done that much, then they should probably leave those fields blank, since just having a D or an R is probably not enough reason to vote for them, though I do understand your point.

Re:Not Anything Actually

[Anonymous Coward]

Situation in Germany:

They can't be replaced by the party, and there is no formal requirement for elected party members to vote along party lines. However, if you are seeking another term in parliament and you want to vote differently, your only option is to find another party that will put you on a list for the next election. Otherwise bye-bye parliament. At least if it is an important decision and the parliament group ("Fraktion") hasn't opened up the vote such as they might do where ethics decisions are involved.

Note that is only true where an open (non-secret) vote is involved.

Re:Not Anything Actually

[barbariccow]

The trouble is many of these positions had no campaign. The mayor, councilpeople, etc. didn't have a website, no flyers, just signs in peoples yards. In the mayor of the small town I was living in, the incumbant had signs "Re-elect BLAH" and the opposition had green sign with 4 leaf clover which read "Elect O'WHO. Fight of the irish!" so my choice there was either:

• Vote for the same
• Vote for someone because they were Irish
• Not vote.
• Vote for their party

No campaign (that reached me at least), no website (facebook group, but I don't have facebook). Only way to know their positions were assuming based on party. So I agree, we should research whom we vote for, but I don't know about where you are, but over here most local candidates don't have a campaign other than "Democrat" or "Republican" and yard signs. So I could vote for which party I maybe agree with 70%ish, or the party I agree with 30%ish, or not vote and let other people make that determination for me. This is exactly why (Alexander Hamilton I think it was? Or maybe Franklin?) warned strongly against a two party system, especially in that time without internet or telephones or anything. And why we ended up with a two party system anyway -- it's a mix of a lot of candidates without means or oppertunity to express positions and people's lack of ability to be reached. So instead of voting for independent or third-party whom they knew nothing about, they voted for the big party which advertised what they were about -- and people voted along their 70/30 lines.

Re:Not Anything Actually

[ne7minder]

spoken like a true Putin troll, undermine the process for the benefit of the oligarchs.

Re:Not Anything Actually

[atrex]

It's worse when you realize that both options are probably bought and paid for by big money interests.

Re:Not Anything Actually

[Anonymous Coward]

members are voted into parliament as individuals. They might get kicked out of the party, but they keep their seats at least until the next election.

Re:Not Anything Actually

[pastafazou]

...bear to think, not bare to think...

Re:Not Anything Actually

[pastafazou]

You're delusional. All of those parties will sell you out for corporate money.

Re:Not Anything Actually

[houghi]

Not only that. Even when they are in power, there will be multiple parties in power and that means they need to negotiate to get to a common goal.
This means that in general more people will get closer to what they want. Saying it with numbers.
Say that you have a general public that wants something to be 72.7 on a scale to 0 to 100. In a bi-party system you would get 0 or 100. Making almost everybody unhappy.
If both parties work together for some reason, this will end in it being 50. Still not very good, but a bit better. With three parties you would get to 66. Much better already. (no, not 33 as that would mean at least one party would do the opposite of what their voters want and this is a theoretical example). With 4 yu would get to 75%
That is pretty damn close.

This would mean a lot of work for the politicians. A lot of negotiating and keeing friends at the other side. Well: good. That is what a representative politician should do, The goal of politics is to represent all the people, not only those who voted for the winner and limit the choice of those voters.

Re:Not Anything Actually

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah! You're ruining our echo bubble!

Re:Not Anything Actually

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh wow. What a great choice! It's like Christmas or something. So corporate shill no 1 or no 2 can call their "constituency" (guy who bought them) and take part in a struggle that the rest of the civilized world has already settled in favor of human decency and respect for women vs pseudo-religious pomposity. Aren't we just blessed?

WTF

Re:Not Anything Actually

[youngone]

They can't. We have proper controls on corporate finance to political parties.

Just because the US won't do it doesn't mean it can't be done.

Re:Not Anything Actually

[Ol Olsoc]

This. There are plenty of blue states where pansies with snowflake dispositions do not feel like outcasts...

And plenaty of Southern States for Gawd to unleash his wrath upon for the sins of the Nawthners. I mean, seems backwards, but he's your Gawd, and you like him doing that...

Re:Not Anything Actually

[Ol Olsoc]

who's the snowflake? the guy who can't bare to think that one of his neighbors has a different opinion than him? poor guy...

Far Right and Far Left each have snowflakes. Fortunately the far left isn't running the party like the far right snowflakes are.

Re:Not Anything Actually

[Ol Olsoc]

Take a chill pill and have a laugh, buddy. https://www.tedcruzforhumanpre... As a Texan who straddles many political fences, it's debatable whether or not I'd vote for him, or at all; but, unlike so many I encounter that seem to put forth a sentiment similar to your own, .

But Ted's father was part of the Kennedy assasination! I've seen the photo, and that is the proof.

Okay - I'm just funnin' ya.

Re:Not Anything Actually

[AutodidactLabrat]

It seems a shame that Republicans in Texas got 52% of the vote...and hold 68% of the seats.

Re:Not Anything Actually

[youngone]

Where I live we have had national governments ruling with 38% of the vote, largely due to rural support.

Now we have proportional voting, and parliament more-or-less represents the country.

Not really

[Train0987]

As was discussed here a few weeks ago this bill does not reinstate Net Neutrality, that's just the name they gave it for publicity purposes. Stop being played for fools by these people.

Re:Not really

[Train0987]

Here's the summary: https://www.congress.gov/bill/...

Summary: S.J.Res.52 — 115th Congress (2017-2018)

This joint resolution nullifies the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission entitled "Restoring Internet Freedom." The rule published on February 22, 2018: (1) restores the classification of broadband Internet access service as a lightly-regulated "information service"; (2) reinstates private mobile service classification of mobile broadband Internet access service; (3) requires Internet service providers to disclose information about their network management practices, performance characteristics, and commercial terms of service; and (4) eliminates the Internet Conduct Standard and the bright-line rules.

Re:Not really

[Anonymous Coward]

so this keeps what what was in effect before Ajit started messing with things?

Re:Not really

[Train0987]

Ajit didn't repeal it on his own, nor should this have been in the FCC's call in the first place. Not only that but Trump would likely sign it if this was an actual bill that could make it to his desk.

Instead, once again, the Democrats lie about these things.

Re: Not really

[Anonymous Coward]

What? You are so fucking brainwashed it's pitiful. For fuck sakes man. Grow up and learn to think for yourselves and instead of blaming the big bad liberal. Christ, you play the same song every day on every thread. Don't you get tired of looking like a partisan cocksucker?

Re:Not really

[Dragonslicer]

nor should this have been in the FCC's call in the first place.

Why not? Part of the FCC's job is to regulate interstate communication.

Re:Not really

[HeckRuler]

this bill does not reinstate Net Neutrality

What else would you call it?

The FCC's classification of ISPs under title ii of the Communications Act of 1934 means that they can get fined for fucking with the pipes. It was a fantastic and perfect way to force the major telecoms into maintaining network neutrality. It fullfilled the FCC's goal of promoting unfettered communication and trade. And it didn't let clueless congressmen pass along legislation written by the very companies they're trying to regulate.

This most CERTAINLY reinstates the FCC's threat of fines for any bastard trying to tear down the principles upon which the Internet operates and was founded under.

Either you're ignorant of the situation or you're a lying partisan sack of shit.

It won't matter

[Defcon79]

This is just a minor bump, if that. The Republican party is determined to overthrow any and all measures that might actually people vs corporations. Its quite ridiculous that things have come to this. But the people are to blame, we are the ones who elected Trump, and polls show that if the elections were held today, he'd win again. After all the lies and hypocrisy. America is stupid.

Re:It won't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. Those mean old Republicans are spoiling everybody's fun. Taking away our Net Neutrality and beating up on those poor, defenseless Democrats. This meaningless gesture will show them! The Democrats won't take this kind of act laying down!

Oh wait. They will take it laying down, because that's the part they play in this little charade. They are The Party Not Currently In Power (tm) and so they must shake their fists at The Party Currently In Power (tm) and tell the Unwashed Masses (tm) (that's you and me, buddy) how bad the other side is and how they just can't do anything.

Meanwhile nothing gets down FOR the people, but a lot gets done TOO the people -- just like it always has. Just like it does with the Democrats are in power.

Face it: this is all just an act. There is no Democracy. There are the Rich and the rest of us and the Rich are using this sham government to strip every last penny they can from us.

Re:It won't matter

[Snotnose]

Yeah, we'll forget the fact that the Dems, specifically the DNC and Wasserman-Shit, did everything in their power to ensure their candidate would be the only person Trump could beat in an election.

fuckwits. Brainless fuckwits.

Re:It won't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

"There is no Democracy. There are the Rich and the rest of us and the Rich are using this sham government to strip every last penny they can from us.,,"

Well, enough of us DID vote for the current slate that wants government made subservient to businesses. Although the campaign PR was that citizens should be in charge, but that seems to have been a false promise.

Re:It won't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

They were more optimistic about the character judgement capabilities of the US electorate than was warranted. That may be naive, but as far as I am concerned a good kind of naive. Despite the years of pain that were the consequence.

Re:It won't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, we'll forget the fact that the Dems, specifically the DNC and Wasserman-Shit, did everything in their power to ensure their candidate would be the only person Trump could beat in an election.

fuckwits. Brainless fuckwits.

Hashtag Home Email Servers Matter. "Wipe? Like with a cloth?". Who needs a cybersecurity czar?

Three Senators, not two

[jbmartin6]

Three Republican senators voted in favor: Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)

Re:Three Senators, not two

[Skuld-Chan]

To be clear too - every single republican except those 3 voted against, every single Democrat voted for.

For those who spout "both parties are the same!" ;).

Re:Three Senators, not two

[Anonymous Coward]

They show the same behavior, statistically. You don't care about the reality in your little no-true-scotsman identity politics anyway.

Re:Three Senators, not two

[Anonymous Coward]

Democrats = favor personal freedom over economic freedom (read: pro-individual)
Republicans = favor economic freedom over personal freedom (read: pro-corporation)

This is definitely a partisan issue. Republicans want corporations to be allowed to rape individuals, while Democrats want to limit the raping.

Re:Three Senators, not two

[thegarbz]

Both parties are the same. Most don't even know what this is about and just look left and right to those people wearing the same colour tie and then copy their vote.

Only 3 people have proven themselves to care about the issue at all. Some others may, but there's little proof of that.

Re:Three Senators, not two

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, technically McCain abstained due to health issues. Though given his past stance on the issue, he likely would have been a vote against.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

What does this mean?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is Title II back for ISPs or just net neutrality?

I want NN as much as everyone else but Title II is whacked. All of the forbearances granted to ISPs can be undone at the whim of FCC technocrats at any time.

Fuck democrat party

[Anonymous Coward]

I am american and many people are talking about how this is step backwards. The corrupt Clinton party of big goverment strikes again. Now you can expect higher costed internet and way worse service.

Re: Fuck democrat party

[Anonymous Coward]

So same as always? The king is dead, long live the king.

Nothing will change. Probably the worst strawman I've ever seen.

Re:Fuck democrat party

[Anonymous Coward]

This guy is hilarious.

Are you legally a corporation?

Re:Fuck democrat party

[Anonymous Coward]

A: You're not an American, your omission of "a" before "step backwards" and the construction of your title indicate that you are Russian
B: Many people are wrong
C: You can't expect those things

that is all

Re: Fuck democrat party

[Anonymous Coward]

Found the Democrat, always questioning loyalty of true Americans instead of dealing with issuesm. You then wonder why shillary lost and people are screaming to support amazing president trump.

Re: Fuck democrat party

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck clinton and fuck trump and fuck you if you voted for either one.

I know it's not popular to say this

[rsilvergun]

but I don't think the Republican party is redeemable. The Democrats at least have the Bernie wing and Liz Warren. I can't name one person on the Republican side that seems to have American interests at heart unless you count some of the warhawks push for US Hegemony at all costs (John Bolton I'm looking at you). The Republicans have gone too far down the rabbit hole of accepting corporate cash.

I think the defining moment for me was when those Parkland shooting victims called Mark Rubio out on the NRA donations and he counted it by saying anyone should be able to "Buy Into" him; not realizing (caring?) that if I'm "buying in" to a politician then he's not really serving me...

Re:I know it's not popular to say this

[diamondmagic]

You complain about politicians being redeemable and then you list two of the three most toxic and hateful officials in all of DC?

Re:I know it's not popular to say this

[atrex]

If it wasn't next to impossible to get a third party on the general election ballot, I'd say that progressives should split from the democrats and form their own progressive party. "The US Progressive Party - Moving the country forward."

Re:I know it's not popular to say this

[Anonymous Coward]

You complain about politicians being redeemable and then you list two of the three most toxic and hateful officials in all of DC?

What are you talking about? I didn't see Donald Trump, Nancy Pelosi, or Orrin Hatch anywhere in that message.

"a monumental decision that will resonate"

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe to nerds and people who get all their "news" from HuffPo...

Re:"a monumental decision that will resonate"

[Tough Love]

Maybe to nerds and people who get all their "news" from HuffPo...

Maybe to millennials and kids who are well aware of these shenanigans through Buzzfeed and such. Guessing you don't keep in touch much?

Re:"a monumental decision that will resonate"

[Anonymous Coward]

Make a mountain out of a molehill if it makes you and your leftist friends happy. In the grand scheme of things, it's a popcorn fart at best.

Things will be done in order

[Anonymous Coward]

The president has nothing to veto or approve yet. Once both houses act, then Trump's position will matter.

Raspberries to the other repugs

[Tough Love]

WTF happened to good government in the USA? Sense of decency in 96% of republicans?

Re:Raspberries to the other repugs

[psmoot]

WTF happened to good government in the USA?

A few things come to mind, in reverse chronological order. Most recent, the Obama administration passing the ACA without any Republican support using a legal but marginally ethical procedure. IMHO, that burned any remaining bridges between the two parties and they haven't cooperated ever since.

Before that, the chaos after the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. The invasions pretty broad support at the start but the blood bath afterwards (and the slow reveal that the invasions were based on false pretenses) really soured a lot of people on the GOP.

Before that, the 2000 election results. The SCOTUS decision to cut off the recounts also soured many Democrats from ever wanting to work with Republicans, no matter what. That's the converse of the ACA procedure.

And the first major blow came with the Clinton impeachment process. Many viewed that as a purely political attack and again, soured many Democrats from ever being willing to work with Republicans.

Add it all up and everyone has an axe to grind and a reason to want to grind their opponents into the mud. Neither party seems at all willing to debate issues on their merits. It's all about denying their opponents a victory at all costs.

The closeness of US elections doesn't help. I'm sure the political scientists can explain why having a closely divided electorate enhances partisanship. California is under complete Democratic control right now and Sacramento is pretty calm. There's no reason to have a noisy battle and every reason to cooperate. Not being a Democrat, I'm not sure I'm entirely happy with that situation but it is peaceful.

Re:Raspberries to the other repugs

[Anonymous Coward]

repugs

Look Mom I typed it again!!! XD XD XD XD XD

You and your demonrat friends should all be gassed.

Re:Raspberries to the other repugs

[Tough Love]

the Obama administration passing the ACA without any Republican support using a legal but marginally ethical procedure. IMHO, that burned any remaining bridges between the two parties and they haven't cooperated ever since.

The republicans were completely uncooperative, and arguably completely dysfunctional long before that.

So I Have To Break Federal Law

[DakotaSmith]

I wish someone would tell these imbeciles that net neutrality breaks the Internet.

Now those of us on the Infrastructure and Networking side will be forced to break the law en masse in order to keep the Internet functioning.

Re:So I Have To Break Federal Law

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're actually working for infrastructure and you believe this, you're a moron. Net Neutrality doesn't force networks or infrastructure to ignore QoS etc and never has.

Re:So I Have To Break Federal Law

[DakotaSmith]

And of course the name-calling. What else would one expect on a public forum from an anonymous coward?

Please cease using your fingers until such time as you actually understand the issues. It's not QOS. Learn the TCP/IP stack and in particular the physical layer.

Lack of "neutrality" is built into the system itself, all the way down the stack to the hardware layer.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

thinking ahead

[Jodka]

So what are the Democrats going to do if they fail to preserve net neutrality and then the internet apocalypse which they forecast fails to materialize?

Re:thinking ahead

[Anonymous Coward]

So what are the Democrats going to do if they fail to preserve net neutrality and then the internet apocalypse which they forecast fails to materialize?

They'll present isolated instances of bittorrent pirates being throttled by att as a much more disasterous issue than it was, while ignoring the fact that ISP terms of service block at the paper legal business contract level all sorts of things creating exactly the kind of non-level-playing-field they claim to be fighting against.

Same old BS basically.

Hopefully they will eventually be inspired to read The Prince and realize that they totally oversold this Russian election interference narrative to the point of diminishing their own credibility in the long term. I mean, when you've got evidence that Russians sunk half a billion or more USD into manipulating the election, by all means, wake me up.

Re: thinking ahead

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of them are too incompetent to understand Machiavelli. He was evil but he was at least good at it. The DNC is both evil and dumb.

Re:thinking ahead

[Gilgaron]

Attribute that it passed the senate and would likely be able to pass if the dems grab the house as scaring the ISPs out of changing any policies and contracts they're likely to have to revert?

Re:thinking ahead

[Anonymous Coward]

So what are the Democrats going to do if they fail to preserve net neutrality and then the internet apocalypse which they forecast fails to materialize?

It will be a slow death of the open internet. Only the most radical and least reliable people are predicting that ISPs will suddenly flip a switch and turn the internet into package deals over night. Its a foot in the door technique. Get you to accept one act of throttling as acceptable and reasonable then build off of that justifying each new step of anti-consumerism with it being an extension of existing practices until anyone that still speaks out against it is buried in precedent of established practice. If ISPs really didn't intend to commit any of the sins blocked by net neutrality why would they spend millions to repeal it? They are investing that money in politics because they believe that the ability to throttle, block and prioritize will lead to more profit than the cost of lobbying for the repeal.

Suck it!

[DaMattster]

Suck it Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, and Charter! This is what happens when democracy works. It's rare but it works.

All the folks who voted against this

[ZipprHead]

Alabama: Richard Shelby
Alaska: Dan Sullivan
Arizona: Jeff Flake
Arkansas: John Boozman
Arkansas: Tom Cotton
Colorado: Cory Gardner
Florida: Marco Rubio
Georgia: David Perdue
Georgia: Johnny Isakson
Idaho: James E. Risch
Idaho: Mike Crapo
Indiana: Todd Young
Iowa: Chuck Grassley
Iowa: Joni Ernst
Kansas: Jerry Moran
Kansas: Pat Roberts
Kentucky: Mitch McConnell
Kentucky: Rand Paul
Louisiana: Bill Cassidy
Mississippi: Cindy Hyde-Smith
Mississippi: Roger Wicker
Missouri: Roy Blunt
Montana: Steve Daines
Nebraska: Ben Sasse
Nebraska: Deb Fischer
Nevada: Dean Heller
North Carolina: Richard Burr
North Carolina: Thom Tillis
North Dakota: John Hoeven
Ohio: Rob Portman
Oklahoma: James Lankford
Oklahoma: Jim Inhofe
Pennsylvania: Pat Toomey
South Carolina: Lindsey Graham
South Carolina: Tim Scott
South Dakota: John Thune
South Dakota: Mike Rounds
Tennessee: Bob Corker
Tennessee: Lamar Alexander
Texas: John Cornyn
Texas: Ted Cruz
Utah: Mike Lee
Utah: Orrin Hatch
West Virginia: Shelley Moore Capito
Wisconsin: Ron Johnson
Wyoming: John Barrasso
Wyoming: Mike Enzi

A guesture.. My a##..

[Anonymous Coward]

What you've done is pissed away money that isn't yours. It's what politicians do.

Seriously, after months of lobbying, stories for the news, meetings in the senate, and all the other BS - this thing wont fly 10ft in the House and they knew it when they started.

Save

[AHuxley]

your monopoly ISP and its paper insulated wireline.
Welcome back to federal rules and a telco monopoly.

I miss the non neutral internet...

[Shiptar]

Does anyone remember paying Prodigy or GEnie a few bucks an hour for pseudo-internet time?

Going back to that model would likely improve things...

Strowger and Step-by-Step telephone switching

[LaughingRadish]

In the early days of telephones, you had to turn a crank and tell the operator which line you wanted to connect to. An undertaker by the name of Almon Brown Strowger was an undertaker who noticed that one of the operators was married to one of his competitors. That operator was connecting people who wanted to talk to Strowger to her husband. Strowger was thus motivated to create his Step-by-Step automatic switching equipment and the rotary dial. What Strowger's competitor's wife did is no different than what ISPs today want to do, but net neutrality stands in the way.

Yeah but will this change how anyone votes

[rsilvergun]

in Red States? This was almost completely along party lines. So unless a lot of Republican seats flip (and those seats don't give filled with "Blue Dog" Corporate Dems who sell us out for campaign cash) we're right back where we started. The question is will the Bernie wing of the Democratic party get anywhere this election. Yeah, the Corportists supported NN in the Senate, but they did that knowing full well it would get shot down in the House. Will they keep doing that when there's a chance of it actually passing?

Re:Yeah but will this change how anyone votes

[jbengt]

The question is will the Bernie wing of the Democratic party get anywhere this election.

Bernie is not even a member of the Democratic Party, he's an Independent.

Internet's National

[rsilvergun]

it's not even a stretch to put it under the commerce clause. How do you think Title II got created in the first place. Commerce Clause was created for _precisely_ these situtaions (e.g. having a level playing field among states for things that impact the business between states).

Also, if you'll allow me to go off the rails a bit and vent: I'm getting a tad tired of folks hoping NY and CA will pull their fat out of the fire everytime the red states do something boneheaded (and yes, killing NN happened by a Republican and the vote that kills it in the House in a week or two will be along party lines, so let's stop kidding ourselves about which party is killing NN). I swear, I wish we'd have just let the bloody South go.

Re:Internet's National

[DamnOregonian]

I swear, I wish we'd have just let the bloody South go.

Unfortunately, those really bright boys down in the great state of South Carolina had to go and fuck up a so-far-so-good secession by opening fire on a fucking federal fort and prompting the greatest ass kicking in American history.
You're right though. Shoulda swallowed the ol' pride and let em keep the fort.

Re:Internet's National

[Anonymous Coward]

I swear, I wish we'd have just let the bloody South go

While I understand the sentiment, I'm not sure that would have resulted in a utopia for either side. There are millions of Democrats in red states, and millions of Republicans in blue states. The U.S. is more purple than one color or the other. I doubt that that became a thing only after 1866.

Re:Internet's National

[DamnOregonian]

The US as a whole is purple. Zoom in that map, and it's not homogeneous.
Fuck the parties, at any time, either one of them has catered to the southern vote. The real culture war here is North vs. South.
It's the boneheaded racists living in third-word shitholes against the tree hugging hippies and their open society.
Republicans are quite sane when you get rid of the southern aspect, as are Democrats once the non-Dixiecrat influence in the party became larger.
Parent is right. We should have let the fucking south go. Mexico would have taken annexed the place after a bloody war, and then they'd have to deal with the pissed off rednecks in perpetuity.

Someone should "save" Ars

[Anonymous Coward]

Since it's parent company, Condé Nast, is on the verge of tots financial collapse. Hmm, maybe posting BS about politics that Ars writers know nothing about WASN'T a great business model after all!

You're in for a sad 2020

[Anonymous Coward]

Most Americans don't give a crap about "net neutrality." It's a bogus crony control concept dreamed up by Silicon Valley loonies at Google, Facebook and Amazon to corner the market by dominating the regulatory process. The telcos are terrible, but Big Tech is even worse.

Americans also don't give a crap about the BS Russia fantasies the DNC dreamed up. Just look at the polls. NO ONE CARES. Recently, the bankrupt DNC realized this and Tom Perez has started to back away from the Russia line since its not playing well with voters.

Here's what people actually care about: jobs and the economy. If anything does Trump in, it will be his big spending on military adventures and his dumb trade war with China.

Re:You're in for a sad 2020

[TimothyHollins]

Would you like some more tinfoil with that?

You are living in liberal fairy land

[Anonymous Coward]

The only people who believe this are the Democrat fanboys in LA, the Bay Area, Manhattan and the D.C. suburbs. The polls demonstrate that few Americans give a crap about the bogus Russia story. This is going nowhere and I'm laughing hysterically that the corrupt DNC sunk the last of its money into this stupid PR campaign and is about to "lose bigly." The only thing better than the DNC going bankrupt would be if the RNC went bankrupt simultaneously.

You are civically incompetent

[Anonymous Coward]

You have posted very confident pronouncements on this thread at least twice with 100% wrong information. You're going to be disappointed when you watch this bill fail.

Your delusion is remarkable

[Anonymous Coward]

Democrats are pro-individual? You mean the party that comes from the same ideological wing (the left) that murdered over 100 million people in the 20th century, suppresses speech they don't like in the name of "tolerance," and wants dissenters tossed in the gulags?

Do you remember that the Patriot Act and NDAA passed with broad Democrat support, and that the Manning and Snowden revelations both happened under Obama?

How much of a deluded partisan hack to someone have to be to say what you said and actually believe it?

There is no such thing as individual v economic freedom; they are inherently intertwined. True freedom necessitates freedom of person AND property. The Republicans and the Democrats are two wings of the same bird of prey, and the hapless taxpayers are on the menu.

Ars is going bankrupt

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why they're cranking out as much steamy crap as they can before their electricity gets shut off.

"Democracy" = rule by Silicon Valley

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you realize that you were effectively used as a tool by Big Tech? Ask yourself why Facebook, Google, et al all want net neutrality; it benefits THEIR business and THEY control the regulations. Out of the frying pan (telcos) and into the fryer (Big Tech).

But no matter; this will never pass the House and it certainly won't pass Trump.

Ajit Pai is a great American hero for slaying this monstrosity.

Good luck with that

[sjbe]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Which is relevant exactly how? Several parts of the Constitution including the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause apply. Also there are numerous federal laws governing telecommunications which are not in dispute. If telecom isn't the very definition of interstate commerce I'm not sure what is.

Let a few states pass laws that say they will not do business with ISPs that are not Neutral and problem solved...

They can try but since the telecoms are monopolies thanks to those same governments I don't think they will get very far with such tactics even if they aren't struck down in court. State governments don't amount to but a tiny percentage of the business of these companies and it's not like the governments have a lot of alternative options thanks to the fact that the big telecoms are de-facto government granted monopolies. This is a federal problem whether we like it or not.

Rather than a third party

[rsilvergun]

and throwing away the brand and connections the Dems have I think the progressives should take the party over from within. Progressive policies are overwhelmingly popular. They take a hit from time to time because of billion dollar ad blitzes like what the Health Insurance industry did during the lead up to Obamacare but when you're not running propaganda campaigns to counter them they've got numbers in the high 60s at the low end and mid 80s at the high end.

Re:Rather than a third party

[atrex]

I don't know that throwing away the Democratic brand would necessarily be a negative, it's gotten fairly tarnished. Connections depend on which connections you're talking about. Connections to big business and industry? Lobbyists? Overpriced consulting firms? Law firms? Civil rights organizations? Seems to me that the Dems have as many if not more negative connections as positive ones.

But, yes, given the current state of affairs (and going along with my original statement regarding the impossibility of getting a third party on the ballot), it is far more effective and productive in the short term to try and take over the Democratic Party than to form a new party. I think long term remains to be seen and probably depends on the outcome of the short term.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion