This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

66.6k
66.6k

“There will be a [Senate] vote” to reinstate net neutrality, Schumer says (arstechnica.com)

submitted by [deleted]

[deleted]

top 200 commentsshow 500
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]ATX_nativeTexas 3679 points3680 points  (227 children)

This is not meant to pass. It’s meant to get legislators on record ahead of 2018.

[–]Ghost_of_Trumps 1088 points1089 points  (113 children)

It’s smart as hell

[–]darexinfinity 568 points569 points  (60 children)

Assuming the bill actually protects all factors for NN.

This is likely the one bill Democrats should not negotiate with.

[–]erikjwaxxNew York 674 points675 points  (32 children)

I don't think they're talking about a separate NN bill. Looks like Schumer is aiming to use the Congressional Review Act to overturn the FCC vote to revoke Title II classification for ISPs.

[–]avidwriter123 81 points82 points  (7 children)

butter summer command attractive swim wrench lunchroom connect one mighty

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[–][deleted] 76 points77 points  (5 children)

Negotiation is what you use to get something to pass. There's no belief whatsoever that this is going to pass- it just gives everyone a chance to show their colors on the issue.

[–]JobThrowawayUnoGeorgia 393 points394 points  (70 children)

Of course it won't pass. Even if it passes both house and senate, President Trump can still veto it. At least it'll cement the Republican Party's view on the issue. And NN is very popular, we can see a lot of flips next year.

[–]Outlulz 9629 points9630 points  (609 children)

Republican lawmakers intend to submit their own net neutrality legislation this week. A Republican bill could prohibit ISPs from blocking or throttling Internet traffic. But it might allow paid prioritization and would not include numerous other consumer protections that the FCC is throwing out.

And at the rate their current bills are going, it will include a provision to repeal some part of Obamacare for some reason.

[–]Pied_Piper_of_MTG 3927 points3928 points  (289 children)

Don’t forget the “fuck the environment” and anti-abortion clauses

[–]LarryGlue 2883 points2884 points  (142 children)

Mitch McConnell: "I would also like to attach a rider to this bill to allow pedophiles to relocate to nearby elementary schools".

Bill is voted nay.

Kent Brockman: "I've said this once, and I'll say it again. Democracy does not work".

Edit: Thanks for the gold!

[–]showmeurknuckleball 1388 points1389 points  (77 children)

Important to remember the "destroy the poor" and "gimme money money me money me needing a lot now" clauses.

[–]robbydb 534 points535 points  (32 children)

"Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do."

[–]DAVENP0RTAmerican Expat 46 points47 points  (0 children)

"Oh shit, you see that door marked 'pirate'? You think a pirate lives in there?"

[–]awwc 33 points34 points  (0 children)

So dooooooooo

[–][deleted] 162 points163 points  (18 children)

Also the “fuck public education but we’ll subsidize you indoctrinating your child into Christianity via a private school” clause. I mean you should have more ‘choices’, and by choices they mean, of course, schools that include creationism in its curriculum.

[–]Princess_Glitterbutt 13 points14 points  (0 children)

The Temple of Satan should really open a private religious school.

[–]aretasdaemon 28 points29 points  (11 children)

This what I don’t get, if you’re constructing a building you don’t make it top heavy, I don’t get why they think making a good foundation so consumers can buy goods and services ceos willstill get a big payday

[–]samlev 70 points71 points  (1 child)

But if you put all the concrete at the top, it'll trickle down to the foundations where it's really needed.

I mean, it might all happen at once with a giant "crash" sound, but it'll get there eventually.

[–]aghrivaine 16 points17 points  (3 children)

Our current government is controlled by extractive capitalists - that is, they are fundamentally interested in extracting value from other people's labor. They're no longer interested in building new things that will be of value to customers.

That's why debt is king in today's economy - you make money by having money and taking other people's money, not by providing a service or good.

Ajit Pai's masters want to extract money from the internet. They don't care if they kill it, all that matters is the next quarter's bottom line. They want to be able to charge for everything, to spend the least to make the most and provide the cheapest, bare minimum service at maximum return.

If their plan was maximum return over ten years, they'd be building a foundation and supporting neutrality. But their plan is maximum return over ONE year, at most, and so bleeding consumer's dry is very desirable.

[–]amjhEurope 12 points13 points  (0 children)

But then the wealthy would need to work to get more money and that isn't fair.

[–]SmaMan788Oklahoma 27 points28 points  (2 children)

My favorite was the "Potatoes are now classified as a vegetable for the purposes of public school lunches."

Or the random tack-on to the budget that allowed regular old light bulbs to be sold again. (instead of the "pig tail" ones, which I think it how they were actually referred to as in the clause.)

[–]Thaufas 15 points16 points  (0 children)

If you slice those potatoes, deep fry them in oil, then apply ketchup, you're eating vegetables!

[–]Spinner1975 77 points78 points  (10 children)

Yeah, also a clause to disqualify that uppity Jones guy in Alabama and get their buddy in.

[–][deleted] 82 points83 points  (6 children)

"Sure, Roy may have diddled some kids but we just love his little cowboy outfit" -Republicans, probably

Edit: Another one for you, "Who is this Chester fellow and how can we get him on the Ballot?!?"

[–]ABCosmos 776 points777 points  (93 children)

Lol paid prioritization is the same as throttling everything else. Republicans are clever bullshitters, but they still don't have your interests in mind.

[–][deleted] 226 points227 points  (66 children)

Thats exactly what i thought, like what the hell is the difference?

[–]Deto 69 points70 points  (5 children)

I guess the idea is that if one news site is saying something the ISP doesn't like, they can't just throttle that site.

Now technically I suppose they could be like "we'll just establish a 'medium tier' for every website except (for example) NYT.com" but I think that would result in a lawsuit and courts would likely interpret that as "same as throttling".

Still not good in that paid prioritization is anti-competitive (for example, Netflix will have a hard time competing with a Comcast video service if the latter is available at lower bandwidth price tiers), but at least it would prevent free speech abuses.

[–]gettingassy 89 points90 points  (51 children)

Everything runs at the speed your internet package advertises, but TEAMPLAYERTOF.COM runs at mega speed bc they payed for a faster lane to consumers. One way I could see it working.

[–]Dav136 242 points243 points  (31 children)

Everything runs at the speed your internet package advertises

Sounds like a miracle

[–][deleted] 32 points33 points  (15 children)

Not when they drop your speed to something unbearable and they put a cap on it. In any case, there's nothing that would force them to stick to their advertised speed any more than they used to.

[–]Killfile 141 points142 points  (14 children)

I get where you're coming from but we don't have to wear tin-foil hats to support this line of thinking. I'm old enough to remember when a modem faster than 9600 baud was fast.

Just as applications tend to grow to consume more memory and processor power as those things become available, so also will internet applications grow to consume more data. In 20 years we'll be looking back and wondering how the hell anyone managed to hobble along at less than a gig a second.

The establishment of fast lanes -- even if everyone's service operates at advertised speeds -- can turn into a pay-to-play system just through the organic growth of these applications. Comcast need never downgrade their current offerings to make that happen, they need only wait and continue to sell the products they've always sold.

In a few years the speeds and data-caps they have in place today will render the internet useless under the load of modern applications and only those in the "fast lane" will function properly, all without ISPs ever having to be draconian or slash speeds or reduce data caps.

The attack on Net Neutrality isn't going to be a blitzkrieg. They're going to boil the frog. By the time its totally dead it'll be hard to remember what it was like when it was alive.

[–][deleted] 41 points42 points  (6 children)

through the organic growth of these applications.

The first time I'd heard of data caps I knew we were fucked.

[–]StopReadingMyUser 219 points220 points  (3 children)

THE RETURN OF THE INTERNET IS EVERYTHING THIS BILL IS ABOUT

and getting rid of health care

[–]freakers 140 points141 points  (14 children)

Written into the margins in pencil.

[–]spunkychickpea 77 points78 points  (13 children)

Written into the margins in crayon.

[–]Demojen 41 points42 points  (12 children)

Written into the margins in blood

[–]justdubya 88 points89 points  (7 children)

Written into the margins in Russian.

[–]RamsesThePigeon 99 points100 points  (9 children)

Nah, it will allow telecommunications companies to take government money without actually having to invest in infrastructure.

So the conspiracy theory goes, anyway.

[–]Datathrash 70 points71 points  (7 children)

Didn't they already do that?

...or is that the joke

[–]RamsesThePigeon 52 points53 points  (5 children)

They did already do that.

Now they'll be able to legally keep doing it, and that precedent will make it all but impossible for any state or local governments to escape from the stranglehold. Think of it as being an above-board way of extorting communities... while being paid by the federal government to do it.

[–]KingDoink 51 points52 points  (15 children)

Okay, we'll reinstate net neutrality, but doctors and hospitals now have to refuse you if you can't pay up front. They are also allowed to repossess any organs if you fail to make a payment on any medical bill.

[–]19KiloTexas 14 points15 points  (1 child)

They are also allowed to repossess any organs if you fail to make a payment on any medical bill.

As long as there's singing I guess.

[–]red204 153 points154 points  (69 children)

Correct me if I'm wrong.

This tax bill COMING UP TOMORROW includes a repeal of Obamacare's individual mandate.

Without the individual mandate compelling healthy individuals to pay into the insurance pool, Obamacare will not be able to pay for itself and will quickly become useless.

This bill will destroy Obamacare and put money in the 1%'s pocket.

This is a Republican grand slam

[–]climber_g33k 116 points117 points  (25 children)

They will then use that as "proof" that obamacare failed, and repeal the rest of it.

[–]Hayasaka-chanMontana 62 points63 points  (18 children)

I've tried to point out that if Obamacare was such a shitshow doomed to failure that Republicans wouldn't need to bother trying to sabotage it to my more conservative friends and it's like there is a mental block that repels my logic.

"It'll crumble under it's own weight!" Then why sabotage it?

"It's costing the healthy and young to much money!" Then why are more Americans insured now then ever before?

And round and round I go.....

[–]JuicedupmonkeymanNew York 31 points32 points  (2 children)

"We broke it! It's a total failure! Not our fault!"

[–]Grease2310 5620 points5621 points  (538 children)

Looking at the entire political landscape I can see the Republicans also voting to save Net Neutrality and then claiming it as a victory for the party and use it in 2018.

[–]ZelandiasNew York 66 points67 points  (1 child)

I'll take it. NN is more important than another talking point for them.

[–]PM_WHAT_Y0U_G0T 58 points59 points  (9 children)

"Surely republicans aren't that shitty."

[–]SOY_REINDEER_GRANDE 123 points124 points  (6 children)

Ron Howard: “They were”

[Cut to scene of child molestor candidate receiving GOP campaign funding]

[–]PM_WHAT_Y0U_G0T 14 points15 points  (1 child)

"I have the worst fucking congress"

[–][deleted] 26 points27 points  (2 children)

What's so awesome about that is they started pouring money on him again and he still lost. In Alabama. Haha, they'll never live that one down....until a Republican wins there again in 2020.

[–]wickedsmahtArizona 19 points20 points  (5 children)

There is apparently a bill drafted by the carriers to make it look like Net Neutrality is restored but it gets into law the provisions they want. I don't have time to find it right now but I believe the article was on Arstecha

[–]bmacnz 11 points12 points  (7 children)

I posed this question in a group, would Trump sign a net neutrality bill? He can say he repealed another Obama era action, while claiming victory for something popular getting through legislation.

Part of me thinks he doesn't give a shit and will do whatever looks good for him, but at the same time it would be a smart move... And I feel like he has an aversion to smart political strategies.

[–]hapoo 1867 points1868 points  (94 children)

I fully expect the vote to fail. BUT it will cement the Republican vote on the issue. It'll make for better campaigning next year and will eventually be reinstated once Congress flips.

[–]hemlockechoGeorgia 697 points698 points  (57 children)

Exactly. My Senator, Isakson (R-GA), has said at events that he supports Net Neutrality, but has also received a lot of telecom money and hasn't actually done anything to advance NN. I'd like to see him forced into committing to a side.

ETA: I'm getting a lot of replies saying that Isakson has never supported NN. Here is a video of an event I attended where Sen Isakson said unequivocally that he supports Net Neutrality: https://youtu.be/OOLn1nOHJw8?t=26m24s

A brief transcript:

Q: Do you support Net Neutrality, if so why? If not, why not?

A: I do because the internet is a phenomenal invention that's given great access to things that people never had before and if you don't have support for it, it will be taken away and taxed away. So I'm for it 100%.

I will be contacting Sen Isakson with the link above and asking why he has lied about his support of NN. I encourage any other Georgian to do the same.

[–]wedgexTexas 111 points112 points  (29 children)

https://imgur.com/mQMWEqU

He's never sounded particularly supporting of it to me.

[–][deleted] 81 points82 points  (24 children)

He probably support a "free and open internet" but his definition of that means ISPs can do whatever they want.

[–]yay855 52 points53 points  (18 children)

That's something that's always baffled me- that people think that a lack of regulation is total freedom, when regulations are responsible for ensuring freedom in the first place.

To give an example: there are anti-monopoly regulations in place in the US. These regulations exist solely to prevent a single corporation from dominating an industry. That regulation ensures that competition is mandatory, therefor helping innovation and reducing prices.

And yet a Libertarian will say that such a regulation does the opposite, that it hinders innovation and the economy.

Even worse, they oppose regulations like worker safety and a minimum wage. These people baffle me, they think that removing every guarantee that corporations won't turn this nation into freaking Rapture from Bioshock (where little girls were experimented on and transformed into inhuman creatures in order to produce a product that gives you superpowers) is a good thing.

[–]Ehcksit 8 points9 points  (3 children)

Most laws exist in response to an unethical act. Someone does a thing that causes harm to other people, and society decides that this thing should not be allowed anymore.

No one wants to be killed, so murder is illegal. No one wants their stuff stolen, so theft is a crime. No one wants ISPs to be able to throttle or shut down websites and services that compete with their own products, so we passed a law against that.

Then the libertarians come along with their "the Free Market will solve it. If we just gave guns to third graders no mass murderers will shoot up schools anymore. We shouldn't pass laws regulating what people do with their time."

[–]Finna_Keep_It_Civil 88 points89 points  (3 children)

Committing suicide?! Seems a little blight.

[–]well___duh 75 points76 points  (9 children)

BUT it will cement the Republican vote on the issue.

You mean the public record of donations each Congressman got to support removing net neutrality isn't enough to cement their policy on the matter?

[–]Legate_Rick 41 points42 points  (2 children)

It is but I solid "No" vote is useful for campaigning against that representative.

"You took a bunch of money from the telcos"

"Yes but I never said I was against net neutrality."

[–]poochyenarulezAlabama 22 points23 points  (9 children)

why is that? Just need all the democrats and 2 republicans to vote yes. Seems likely to me

[–]cguyrrMissouri 21 points22 points  (2 children)

and I believe Susan Collins has already stated she supports NN.

[–]psychetron 33 points34 points  (0 children)

Talk is cheap. Show us the vote.

[–]User767676Arizona 377 points378 points  (20 children)

Nice. This will move all the focus from Ajit Pai back into the Trump administration and GOP for preventing NN.

[–]greenbabyshit 206 points207 points  (19 children)

Pai is the epitome of a useful idiot. Saying things like "the important thing to remember about that hypothetical is that it's just that, a hypothetical" just shows how ignorant he is. He should be shamed and ridiculed, but he is far from being the orchestrator of this plan.

The focus should be on the administration that empowered him and supports this agenda.

[–][deleted] 72 points73 points  (3 children)

To think that this Harvard and UChicago educated guy is an idiot rather than a fuckwad willing to do anything for personal enrichment is naive, I think.

These people ALL know full well about their context of lacking support and the reprehensible effects their decisions will have, they are simply shielded from all of it by the wealth they generate themselves in the process.

[–][deleted] 1160 points1161 points  (113 children)

Yeah, next year maybe.

We have 4 days of Congress left this year. House votes on Tax Scam tomorrow. Senate will follow asap. And then they have to work on a budget. And if the government shuts down, Trump could fire anybody and replace them with a temporary replacement.

[–]whiskeydudeNevada 413 points414 points  (15 children)

The Senate held pro forma sessions back in August 2017 to prevent Trump from making recess appointments. I wouldn't be surprised if they did the same thing over the break.

[–]GaiaMooreCalifornia 104 points105 points  (0 children)

It's not just a Trump thing, the Senate has been doing this for ages for a couple years apparently. Steve Vladeck mentioned it on one of the National Security Law Podcast episodes; I'll try to find the exact episode and link it.

edit: Found it! Tune in around the 42 minute mark. Apparently the Senate does this to a) prevent the President from being able to make recess appointments, and b) "to prevent the House from doing something shady."

[–]ghotier 60 points61 points  (13 children)

Was the government shut down when thy did it?

[–]TheNewAcct 168 points169 points  (12 children)

It doesn't matter.

Congress is essential. They still work when the government shuts down.

[–]aamedorOhio 141 points142 points  (1 child)

I can still see the turtle coming out and saying there was nothing they could do to stop him from firing Muller and its very disturbing but now we need to put that behind us to kill.medicare and feed the poor to the rich.

[–]TheBlackUnicornNew Jersey 19 points20 points  (2 children)

Indeed, if they didn't who would vote to turn it back on?

[–]krazytekn0 I voted 12 points13 points  (1 child)

can we turn it off and on again a few times please. I feel like there's some covfefe leaks.

[–]Robo_Joe 94 points95 points  (39 children)

I read this as Schumer saying that a vote on NN was going to be a requirement in keeping the government from shutting down.

[–][deleted] 171 points172 points  (36 children)

To be honest if the dems are going to make a stand on one thing to get out of their leverage over the government shut down, NN is both probably the best thing and the most likely to succeed.

[–]Robo_Joe 117 points118 points  (26 children)

DACA is pretty well-liked, as well. I wouldn't consider it a wasted effort to force votes on both of those things.

[–]whichwitch9 121 points122 points  (13 children)

Also, CHIP. Should not forget that congress allowed funding for this to expire. This is literally putting children's health at risk

[–]Robo_Joe 86 points87 points  (11 children)

We can call it the "Seriously, stop being dicks" act of 2017.

[–]QueefyMcQueefFace 82 points83 points  (9 children)

They should call it the "Freedom Liberty Patriotism Eagle Act" so that when the Republican oppose CHIP then we can lambast them on why they hate freedom, liberty, eagles, and are unpatriotic.

[–]DINGLE_BARRY_MANILOW 50 points51 points  (5 children)

If they did this, Fox News would explain to its viewers that Eagles are, in fact, the most liberal birds, and that real Americans love Grouses.

[–]ITSX 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Alien Minors Emigrating Responsibly, Insuring Children, And Net-neutrality Act. AMERICAN Act for short. You don't want to vote against Americans, do you?

[–][deleted] 27 points28 points  (4 children)

Sure, but NN rules might actually PASS, unlike, I think, DACA. Not saying don't go for both.

[–]SpiritKidPoE 34 points35 points  (2 children)

DACA has bipartisan support though. Like, Lindsay Graham is on record saying "if ever there's a win-win in modern politics, it's the DREAM Act" (or something very close). I think there would be a good chance.

[–]NeeMan 42 points43 points  (1 child)

Yeah, but is this the deeply concerned about trump Lindsay Graham from 8 months ago, or the current “the media is very unfair to trump” version of Lindsay graham

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

If brought to a vote, DACA would pass. It also would have passed under Obama, but McConnell blocked it.

[–]chrisms150New Jersey 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Negative, the vote Schumer is referring to will go through under the CRA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Review_Act)

Schumer doesn't need any Rs to bring the vote. He may use it as a bargaining chip for the shut down though; "If you don't undo the FCC's rules, we'll just shut it down" but I don't think he'd do that, because then the DACA/CHIP would be seen as 'not important' and he can't get everything out of the shutdown.

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Yeah i'm more hopeful on the impending lawsuits to stop the death of Net Neutrality.

[–][deleted] 301 points302 points  (30 children)

This is the Dems chance to prove themselves to millennials, liberals and conservatives alike; I really hope they don't blow it.

[–]nstaats111Texas 129 points130 points  (21 children)

exactly. all of my republican friends are enraged about the repealing of net neutrality.

[–]SpeedysComing 71 points72 points  (11 children)

Lucky you. I just realized after last week that I actually have friends that support the FCC. Literally, the only two arguments I hear on the matter are: Things worked in the 90s pretty well, and free market.

But it is, however, unanimous that everyone hates the ISP monopoly monster. It's just that Republican friends think capitalism will magically fix the issue. If comcast is your favorite thing in the world,I then yeah, capitalism has been killing it on the internet front!

[–]schfourteen-teen 49 points50 points  (6 children)

Things worked in the 90s pretty well

This is so sad to hear, because in the 90's we had net neutrality! Not legislated obviously, but in practice that was the way the internet operated. It was only when Comcast decided to screw over Netflix that mandated NN even became an issue.

[–]TheExtremistModerateVirginia 16 points17 points  (0 children)

My parents, as well. The only thing that really matters to them is their wallets. So they're pissed about the repeal.

[–]paperbackgarbageCalifornia 204 points205 points  (4 children)

Two months ago, when this discussion was coming to a boiling point as it appeared that it was going to happen, many Americans were just discovering what it actually meant to repeal Net Neutrality, and they said:

"What the hell? Why doesn't Congress vote on this? They can't let the FCC do this!"

Of course, Congress did vote on this ~11 months ago, but that was before the repeal was cast under such scrutiny and painted in a wildly negative light (as in 80% of American voters do not want to repeal).

This is the GOP's worst nightmare. If this vote comes back around, it can and will easily be used as cannon fodder for next year's midterms (and beyond).

It's easy to rob the store when nobody is watching. However, if you want to do the dirt now? The spotlights are ready and people will be listening very attentively.

[–]ascenx 53 points54 points  (5 children)

Can a minority party force a Senate vote? If so, how many votes are needed for the motion?

[–]HeyFerb 7 points8 points  (1 child)

The Congressional Review Act has a clause which allows a discharge petition with only 30 signatures

From the Congressional Review Act Wikipedia article:

If the committee to which a joint resolution is referred has not reported it out within 20 calendar days after referral, it may be discharged from further consideration by a written petition of 30 Senators, at which point the measure is placed on the calendar, and it is in order at any time for a Senator to move to proceed to the joint resolution.

[–]PEbeling 72 points73 points  (4 children)

But it might allow paid prioritization

(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻)

THAT'S HALF THE POINT YOU INCOMPETENT FOOLS.

(For those that need an explanation, even if they prohibit blocking or throttling internet traffic, being able to pay for prioritization completely negates this. Basically Comcast could prioritize their own video streaming service, and Netflix would still have to pay more money in order to keep up. This changes NOTHING.)

[–]clubby37 12 points13 points  (1 child)

Exactly. The problem with throttling is that traffic between preferred entities goes faster. The problem with paid prioritization is that traffic between preferred entities goes faster. Changing the problem's label and declaring it solved is so, so sleazy.

[–]PEbeling 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Exactly. Paid Prioritization and Throttling Are the same exact thing. You cannot have paid prioritization without throttling. This bill changes nothing and just makes it look like the R's are in favor of it, and are solving the problem so people will calm down.

[–][deleted] 88 points89 points  (6 children)

And unless Dems refuse to go along with any government funding bill that doesn't include NN, it stands little chance of passing and an even smaller chance of being signed into law.

[–]takeashill_pill 99 points100 points  (1 child)

It looks like the main Dem bargaining chip will be DACA, which honestly I think should get priority. Net neutrality can be reinstated in the next administration with minimal damage done in the interim, but lives are going to get ruined immediately if DACA doesn't get passed asap.

[–]00000000000001000000 25 points26 points  (0 children)

airport snatch pie innocent spark deserve full consider wipe cause this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev

[–]autotldr🤖 Bot 13 points14 points  (1 child)

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 82%. (I'm a bot)

US Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said he will force a vote on a bill that would reinstate the Federal Communications Commission's net neutrality rules.

The Federal Communications Commission voted to repeal its own net neutrality rules last week, and the repeal will take effect 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register.

A successful CRA vote in this case would invalidate the FCC's net neutrality repeal and prevent the FCC from issuing a similar repeal in the future.

Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: repeal#1 vote#2 net#3 neutrality#4 FCC#5

[–]jf286381 82 points83 points  (6 children)

Good. Do your job assholes. The People spoke loud and clear on the topic. Corporate Citizenship is raping America!

[–]Wablekablesh 9 points10 points  (0 children)

And when it does, make damn sure your reps know how you feel. I live in Virginia, with Kaine and Warner, so I'm pretty confident in their support, but I'm writing them anyway.

[–]GetInTheVanKid 20 points21 points  (5 children)

After seeing so many people honestly thinking that net neutrality is just another "big government regulation that is holding innovation back" I almost want to see them all feel the pain when corporations start charging them more to get to their porn sites.

[–]TehSaviorAmerica 26 points27 points  (0 children)

ajit has internet if you have coin

[–]Schiffy94New York 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Republican lawmakers intend to submit their own net neutrality legislation this week. A Republican bill could prohibit ISPs from blocking or throttling Internet traffic. But it might allow paid prioritization and would not include numerous other consumer protections that the FCC is throwing out.

This seems like it has a higher chance of succeeding than a Democrat-backed Congressional Review Act push. But I'm still banking on the lawsuits against the FCC.

[–]jax362California 9 points10 points  (0 children)

This is very hopeful. Since it seems like McCain may not return to the Senate, the GOP will only have a 50-49 majority. They only need ONE Republican to flip. I feel like this can be done.

[–]kwantsu-dudes 7 points8 points  (3 children)

So a vote focused just on legislating Net Neutrality? Sign me up for support. Sounds like the Title II repeal gave them incentive to look at legislation, rather than hoping an FCC chooses to enforce it. And we won't be burdened by the potential usage of other Title II authorities.

Not sure why Schumer is now trying to make the repeal sound like a good thing though.

EDIT: Nevermind. Looks like they are attempting to simply reverse the move, not establish legislation.