Slashdot Mirror
Bill To Save Net Neutrality Is 46 Votes Short In US House (arstechnica.com)
Congressional Democrats seeking to reinstate net neutrality rules are still 46 votes short of getting the measure through the House of Representatives. Ars Technica reports: The U.S. Senate voted last month to reverse the Federal Communications Commission's repeal of net neutrality rules, with all members of the Democratic caucus and three Republicans voting in favor of net neutrality. A discharge petition needs 218 signatures to force a House vote on the same net neutrality bill, and 218 votes would also be enough to pass the measure. So far, the petition has signatures from 172 representatives, all Democrats. That number hasn't changed in two weeks. The outlook looks grim as Republicans have a 235-193 majority in the House. If you're curious to see which representatives haven't signed the petition, you can view this page maintained by net neutrality group Fight for the Future.
Let the people decide. I doubt they'll believe Trump promises again.
Defend it or loose it. That's the game.
When the vote for Net Neutrality comes get ready for the sock puppet silly flying monkey circus. The game will play out like this:
1. Create a compelling distraction a week or two before the NN vote
2. Ensure it is big news
3. make the news even bigger
4. sell the drama
5. make the disaster or kim kardashian's ass an imminent national security threat
6. whip the electorate into a frenzy, a snowstorm of outraged snowflakes looking to feel powerless, morally superior and useless
7. When everyone looks at the shiny ass, quietly defeat NN
8. Examine Kim's ass more closely
9. Politician on both sides high five each other at fucking over the electorate....again
Unless this issue is focused on until the vote your NN is fucked.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Why the rush to save the federal wireline monopoly telco networks?
The same federal rules that protected paper insulated wireline monopoly networks?
Think of the innovative new networks that could be used in cities and states with less federal NN rules.
What is this? I know slashdot has slipped, but this is crazy. You and others posting in this thread are ill-informed as to the purpose of net neutrality. I can only assume that you are paid to post this incorrect garbage.
Slashdot is dead. I'm out.
AC imagine a city with the ability to pay for their own networks without having to consider federal NN monopoly telco rules.
New gigabit services to the innovative and the nice parts of a city who can pay for such services?
Communities investing in good quality, new networks to make their part of the USA stand out.
No waiting for federal NN rules to approve a new network that has to offer equal speed to "everyone".
With less federal NN complexity, states and networks all over the USA can invest in their own new networks again.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
According to this, the average telecom bribe (or campaign contribution or lobby gift or whatever you want to call it) was about $145,000 for members of the House, slightly more on average for the Republicans who are the party opposing net neutrality. That means the conversion of votes to dollars is 46 votes = $6.8 million. That's how much we're short. I like when votes are listed both number and dollars.
Gerrymandering has just been legalized. The SCOTUS is about to shift even further to the right and for a longer time frame. The only way net neutrality will happen for anyone who currently lives in the US is if they either move to another country or if their state leaves the country. The bill might as well be shredded tonight.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Can someone tell me how many dollars 46 votes converts to? I can't work with these the American Imperial units.
If you count those as successes, you're profoundly retarded and there's nothing that can be done for you anymore. You're too detached from reality. Sorry!
Trump's overall approval rating has been consistently low compared to other recent presidents. But among Republicans, his approval rating is at 90%.
The Republican party is Trump's bitch.
Trump's approval rating is the same as Obama at the same point in his presidency.
I didn't know Obama also had consistently low approval ratings compared to other recent presidents - thanks for the info!
AC imagine a city with the ability to pay for their own networks without having to consider federal NN monopoly telco rules.
Now imagine an already successful campaign by ALEC and other GOP types to create state-level laws that prevent cities from creating their own networks at all, for the benefit of monopoly telcos.
Man, are you gullible.
It's obvious to anyone with half a brain that Trump is being played like a fiddle by Xi and Putin by way of their North Korean proxy.
Do you seriously think that this is somehow going to end up with NK just giving up its nukes right after all the decades of effort and pain they went through to obtain them?
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. The general populace overwhelmingly supports Net Neutrality -- it has tremendous bipartisan support. What we don't want is them pushing it back.
is not relevant, they pass hundreds of bills. Most all die in the US Senate. In the US Senate it takes 60 votes to decide to talk about a bill from the house. Most all bills from the house are never brought to the floor. The 100 senators agree on almost nothing. Heck I can not even recall the last time America even had a budget.
;)
Gotta love it, no budget the government just goes and spends what ever they want. Bad karma for the young, the gravy train will come to an end some time.
Just my 2 cents
Dunno, just a comment about politicians in general and how they fuck the electorate over. insert any policy issue.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
You're stupid enough to see as a win because fox says so, yes. He got him to sign the 19th useless denuclearization treaty, and he's currently upgrading his facilities. Trump got played like the idiot he is. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me 19 times, shame on...?
You're also stupid enough to believe his economic claims too, like every brainwashed fox-watching idiot. You people are so damn gullible.
If it's good for Google, do you really think you're not getting scroogled?
Wapo election prognostication... You people really never learn do you?
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
That's great; now imagine what will really happen ...
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Wapo election prognostication... You people really never learn do you?
Well, in this case, the Wapo election prognostication is from 2007, and they were talking about the 2006 election, when Republicans were swept out of power. So I suppose you can say that it was prognostication in reverse, or maybe, just pointing out what had already happened.
You're going to have to understand how time works. See, 2007 will almost always come after 2006 and before 2008. And in case you have learned history from Breitbart, you may not know that the 2006 election resulted in a sweeping victory for the Democratic Party which captured control of the House of Representatives, the Senate, and won a majority of governorships and state legislatures from the Republican Party. And 2008 just added to those majorities, and included the election of a black president with the middle-name "Hussein". See, that's how far the pendulum swings, and it's already swinging back again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
#TICKTOCK
You are welcome on my lawn.
The federal courts don't usually weigh in on federal regulations unless there is a direct constitutional question, and I mean *direct*
The idea being it's an area for experts to hash out minutiae, and judges aren't the people who should be deciding acceptable limits for trans fats, or what salmon fishing quotas should be, or how internet traffic should be managed.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
The red wave in November is going to flush driftwood like you out to sea. Better take some swimming lessons this summer!
we all know Trump didn't *win* the Presidency; what he did was take it.
The Trump campaign ran an old-school campaign, campaigning everywhere while the HRC campaign tried to run a "smart" campaign, not wasting resources on regions where HRC's victory was "a given", until it wasn't.
If 5,919 Trump voters [switched their votes] in Michigan, 13,629 in Wisconsin, and 34,119 in Pennsylvania, Clinton would have won each of those states by the slimmest of margins (a vote or two).
Source
Trump didn't "take" the Presidency, HRC gave it to him, trying out her new, un-proven "smart" campaign that cost her MI, WI, and PA in the general election - states she should have easily won, had she even bothered to campaign there during the General Election.
Ken
Nextdoor is a great tool for informing your neighbors that the local US House Rep (in my case, Johnson) is taking $200k+ in 'donations' from the providers to keep their shitty internet connections on. My area has had frequent disconnects and outages...so now Johnson is going to get all the blame for it because he supports a shitty internet.
Just add {In Space!} to anything.
Have just the location for you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
Just because you don't like - or maybe simply don't understand - the legal justification doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It was based on the Telecommunications Act of 1934, which gives the FCC the authority to regulate interstate and international communications, and the 1996 revision thereof.
For those who lack imagination:
Tennessee is one example.
Michigan Republicans are trying something similar.
It's part of a push by the Koch brothers.
And their effort has been quite successful.
Or they could push back against Trump and align themselves with the majority and have a better chance of winning.
This couldn't be more wrong. The only people who would vote for Republican senators are Republicans, and the amongst Republican voters Trump enjoys 80% - 90% support. Opposing Trump is a path to election loss as you will lose the support of their voters - And they know it.
HRC didn't give him the election by running a pathetic campaign, the Democrats did, by running their least liked candidate in forever as if she were a shoe-in. Thanks Democrats for giving us the choice between a Republican (HRC) and a Republicrackpot (DJT)... my guess is that any other Democrat could have run the same "smart" strategy and won. But after how the party treated Sanders and the way they abused their own base, they lost to Trump on pure apathy and despair. For all we know, if HRC had shown her smug mug in MI, WI, and PA she would've lost those states by even larger margins.
I do not have a signature
How is the FTC failing to maintain a competitive environment and user-protections in the market-place, exactly?
Internet service - particularly the upper tier networks where the Net Neutrality rubber meets the road - is a natural monopoly. The is no competitive environment to maintain.
Why is the FCC better position to 'own' the Internet for all intents and purposes?
Because the internet is a communications network, and the FCC is tasked with regulating interstate and internation communications networks. The FTC is a consumer protection agency, tasked with protecting consumers
What exactly would be wrong with an Internet Rights amendment to the US Constitution? Or at least clarifying language on the 1st, 4th (and other) amendments, that says you don't become a non-citizen just because you go online.
Nothing, other than the fact that it's not going to happen any time soon.
It's not at all unique to Slashdot. In case you've not noticed, over the last year or two, there's been a concerted effort by the telcos and their lackeys to poison the well by claiming that Net Neutrality is something that it's not, pure and simple.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
If you were really in favour of freedom, you'd be in favour of Net Neutrality. All your talk of "federal NN monopoly telco rules" makes it plain that you're nothing more than a sycophant, and anyone with a speck of intelligence ought to be able to see right through you.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
By your reasoning, the Senate is also irrelevant. Or did you forget that *both* houses must pass a bill in order for it to become law?
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
in the hopes that the people in those Gerrymandered districts come to their senses and vote the bums out.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
with a challenger. Figure $1-$2 million each, or around $80 million total. If you were't competing with AT&T & Comcast in a bidding war it's cheap as heck. You can buy off a a House rep for $50k and a Senator for under $200k. It's actually one of the best investments in America, as far as return on investment goes.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
without legal justification
You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
If you count those as successes, you're profoundly retarded and there's nothing that can be done for you anymore. You're too detached from reality. Sorry!
Yes, I count Trump meeting with Kim Jong-un a success, as does most non-retarded people.
(The excellent economic results didn't hurt, either - something else non-retarded people can appreciate.)
And you call Democrats naive.
when they controlled the House and Senate, and even then it was a tenuous grasp. During that 2 years they passed Obamacare. They needed every ounce of political capital they had to get pre-existing coverage through.
The problem we have is that Rural voters are disproportionately powerful thanks to our Senate. 1 voter in Montana has 42 times as much representation as a voter in California. This is by design. The people who wrote our constitution were wealthy landowners living in rural areas. They wanted more power for themselves. Later as voting rights expanded those same people leveraged the differences between rural and city voters to maintain their grip on power.
This is how American politics works. Nobody talks about it because everytime you do somebody says "Why should rural voters get told what to do by city folk". Hillary took a lot of flak for saying out loud that the majority of economic activity originates from cities and also suggesting that we should have a proper democracy with even representation. Folks like to point out the rural voters grow our food and ignore the fact that it's the chemists in the cities that make it so that we can actually grow all that food and the business folks who maintain the logistical infrastructure that gets it to market.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
It depends on the individual races. Some of the democrats that are winning their primaries are farther to the left then they previously have been. This is scary for Republicans and they are pushing farther to the right. Republicans supporting Republicans will continue to happen just as Democrats will continue to support Democrats.
The ever increasing independent voter pool is the real thing to reach for, but only if your district has a large portion of them. All politics is local politics because if you keep your fan base set, it doesn't matter how your opposition feels.
I'm fairly middle of the road and I tend to jump between the parties so I can vote in the primaries that I care most about. When Ron Paul ran, I was a Republican and when Bernie ran I was a Democrat. Still a Democrat because the next presidential will have an important Democrat primary where I will be more interested in getting someone tolerable.
Unless of course Trump gets removed from office, then all bets are off. Ironic since I usually vote the Libertarian candidate in the general, but California isn't a swing state, so it doesn't matter anyway.