OfficialExpert
86674
956
68
Dear Corey:
Thank you for contacting me about net neutrality. It's good to hear from you, as always.
As you may know, on April 26, 2017, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Pai announced his intention to repeal the FCC’s 2015 Open Internet Order. This plan would eliminate Obama-era rules that reclassified Internet service providers (ISPs)—including mobile broadband providers—as “common carriers," a term originally used in the Communications Act of 1934. Since 2005, ISPs were classified as “internet service providers” and regulated under Title I of the Communications Act. The reclassification changed their regulatory treatment and imposed much of the same regulation facing landline telephone companies even though the two are vastly different. The Order gave the FCC authority to regulate more companies’ practices, charges, and services.
The so-called “net neutrality” is based on the principle that ISPs and governments should treat all data on the internet equally. However, prior to the recent FCC rule-change, the U.S. already enjoyed some degree of net neutrality. In fact, in January 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals dismissed federal rules requiring broadband providers to treat all Internet traffic equally on the grounds that the FCC exceeded its authority to regulate how broadband ISPs manage network traffic. Yet the FCC’s 2015 Order granted the Commission authority to impose these stringent regulations as requested by President Obama in November 2014.
I understand the concerns about some internet service providers’ actions and restrictions on access to online content. In fact, I recently cosponsored the Restoring Internet Freedom Act, which was introduced by Senator Mike Lee (R-UT). This Act would immediately nullify the FCC’s Open Internet Order and prohibit the FCC from issuing similar rules in the future unless authorized to do so by Congress. As Congress considers this and other measures related to the Open Internet Order and net neutrality, please rest assured that I will keep your concerns in mind.
A well-functioning republic depends on active citizens to inform their elected representatives of issues of concern and to hold elected officials accountable. I’m grateful to hear from my fellow citizens on matters of public policy. These communications can be both insightful and useful as I work to represent you, and I hope that you will continue to keep me informed of your opinion.
I am truly honored to serve as your Senator; please know that your interests and affairs have my unceasing attention. Always feel free to call my office at (202) 224-2353 or visit www.cotton.senate.gov.
Sincerely,
Tom Cotton
United States Senator
heylookoverthere
He's against it
DougForcett
TL;DR - Y'all are too stupid to understand what you want and need so I'll make these decisions based on the lobbyists who fund my relection
hardytardigrade
I read this as "Obama wanted net neutrality, but that's illegal. I'm supporting legislation to ensure your right to not get net neutrality!"
pocushocus
Fuck this motherfucker
UnluckyLunkhead
1: we need to change because Obama. 2: You need me to control you.
Knilore
He wants the internet free...from regulations against ISPs...
brillantmc
He's a member of the GOP. I know a lot of you think there's no difference but that indication tells you all you need to know on NNeutrality.
FunshineBear
I understand your concerns about dingoes eating babies. In fact, I'm currently sponsoring a bill that would give babysitter classification
FunshineBear
to all dingoes, and prohibit that classification from being revoked in the future. This should help keep dingoes from eating babies.
T0MK4T
CityYeti
From the way he's wording this, it seems like he's against net neutrality
NocturnalGreed
That's not his wording, that's exactly what he said.
Hovenbeet
Translation: "I suck dicks for campaign contributions."
yellowtoolboxblackbag
Start a campaign of mailing breath mints to him and others. "To help get the taste of lobbyist dick out your mouth."
autodootsrollout
Tl:Dr I am against it but here is a lot of political jargon to make it sound like I am for it
derekjohn
What a turd-tongued, arse-nuzzling, two-faced piece of work. You sure can pick 'em.
Erdaron
In the referred case, the court decided based on limitations of Title I, and basically invited FCC to reclassify under Title II.
MyNameIsJesusAndIStealHubcapsFromCars
ISPs and governments should absolutely treat all data on the internet equally. i've seen this arrangement of words on a few of these. 1/2
MyNameIsJesusAndIStealHubcapsFromCars
2/2 except they use it condescendingly like it's unimportant for all information to have equal opportunity to reach a consumer.
saikorhythm
So basically he tiptoed around saying "nyaha fuck you" with MUH OBAMER as a scapegoat. What a shitbag. Vote him out when you can, OP!
KingoftheCommentLurkers
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's shithole representatives like this that makes over 80% of the country feel like they have no voice.
TheFirstFurst
You are wrong. Most of the country doesn't have a voice.
KingoftheCommentLurkers
Perhaps you're right at that... I hope there is still a diplomatic way to get it back.
excepttheoneswhoaredead
He starts sentences with "In fact..." and "Yet..." in the exact opposite way they should be used. Makes it harder to understand him.
bigian77
Speech like this is exactly why politicians are hard to like. Say what you mean, fuck face
SmolTenk
THe entire point is to make people think you are helping them even if you dont. Being open about it rarely yields good results.
OfficialExpert
It's even worse if you read it in Cotton's voice
Nomulus
Trump's a cunt but at least he's simple to understand so when he's inconsistent then it's easier to call him out on it.
sumowoman
Bullshit. Trump lies, tells alternative truths, leaves things unmentioned... Doing it in baby language is only the other extreme of it.
Nomulus
And that makes him any different from other politicians? The only difference is that he does it so obviously. Doesn't make him any better.
OdeToBouncer
A lot of misdirection and babblespeak for : "The Cable Co's bought my vote for 70,025."
yellowtoolboxblackbag
I was sorta shocked when that list came out. I knew they were for sale, I just didn't realize for how cheap. We should chip in & buy one.
sunboy4224
To be honest, I'm not entirely sure why people don't. Maybe they're worried that ISP's will just pay even more?
yellowtoolboxblackbag
Which will ultimately come out our pockets anyways. That's why I'm fond of the Monopoly money ploy- to remind them of how cheap they are.
bloatedplutocrat
Yay an Arkansas thread!
MakeTabbouleNotWar
Great another thing to be ashamed of
Sentinelricce
Hooray Arkansas! but also fuck cotton and recaf.
Sentinelricce
for the record: the hooray was because it's my state of Arkansas, not because of the voter information thing.
drepark78
Like reading a fucking contract. You can't tell of its bad or Not! Dirt bag!
Jakattak6417
It's not that difficult to understand.
absolutezero182
It's bad. Dude basically says: The market will regulate itself, so we're repealing the regulations. P.S. Fuck you"
SmolTenk
Of course you can. He says a lot of words but the important part is that he doesnt support net neutrality.
boneh3ad
Tom Cotton is one of the shittbaggiest of all the shitbags in Congress. I wouldn't have expected any less.
IronicUsername
Came here to make a similar comment. Fuck Tom Cotton.
Appel99
I'll tell ya what, these days its a real contest of who's this biggest shitbag.
boneh3ad
Agreed, thus the use of "one of" in my comment.
CigaretteMan
He's the one who made a statement that the US has an "under-incarceration problem". He's indeed a nasty piece of work
jsktrogdor
This is the shitbag who wrote a letter to the Ayatollah to try & torpedo America's nuclear negotiations. He should've been hanged for that.
rossimus
This.
boneh3ad
Yeah he has his own special (needs) opinions about what is good for this country and he's almost universally wrong.
absolutezero182
I got almost the exact same response from Senator Mike Lee of Utah. It's like they have a script or something
congressionalbitch
The staffers who write these letters are trained to write in certain formats. not copy and paste but it does seem that way. I was a staffer
absolutezero182
So what exactly does a staffer do? All the info i have on it is from house of cards, which probably isnt a reliable source
Dvicemuse
"thanks for your concern but I don't give a fuck about what you want. Here is a misguided explanation of what I'll do instead"
smoochmysnoot
He can have this
v
DickRogers
Ahh I ge- no nvrmind Wait yes, no *scratching head*
MediocrityGetsMeHot
"Please excuse any typos. This is the exact wording Comcast has required me to use when addressing my constituents. God bless America."
LordBadkitty
Best synopses ever.
Cutlass0516
I wonder how much money he is getting to act against net neutrality.
GiantRobotsRule
And rest assured he'll continue to oppose campaign finance & disclosure laws, so we can all continue to wonder...
absolutezero182
According to theverge.com: $70,025 was donated to him from telecoms or telecom employees.
absolutezero182
https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/29/15100620/congress-fcc-isp-web-browsing-privacy-fire-sale
CertifiedMemeGuy
I am really disappointed in the Republican party.
TheotherAgentJohnson
stormegedendarklordofall
This is one of the best uses of this gif I have seen
bloatedplutocrat
That's a bold strategy, let's see if it pays off for Cotton.
TheWielderOfTheFlameOfAnor
ResoluteDuck
2014- court rules FCC can't regulate ISP's. 2015- ISP's reclassified to allow FCC regulation. Now, GOP wants to repeal re-classification.
chiefs86
(2) these kinds of sweeping changes that drastically affect the United States. Sure, it's alright when they agree with you, but 5 or 10...
chiefs86
(3) years down the line you have an FCC you don't agree with, all of a sudden shit hits the fan, and no one ever elected any of em.
chiefs86
While I am pretty stringently pro-NN for this issue, I have to say I am not a fan of the FCC being an unelected position, capable of making
ResoluteDuck
Agree, that's a bit of a risk, but we have to weigh that against the certainty of what ISP's will do now if this is rolled back.
chiefs86
IMO the best thing ISPs can do is stay the status quo. They're already raking in $$$ hand over fist. Why needlessly enrage your customers?
ResoluteDuck
ISP's often operate as monopolies, so keeping customers happy takes a back seat to profit.
chiefs86
Oh I didn't say they were going to keep people *happy*, I just implied that they would do the bare minimum not to cause literal outrage.
chiefs86
(2) That's *if* NN is killed, of course. Anything that they do change will of course be marketed as customer friendly though.
Exactually
Can someone translate this into easy to read English?
SinisterStingray
There is case law saying the FCC, as created, doesn't have regulatory authority over ISPs like it does telecommunications.
Exactually
Like, for example: Pro net-neutrality or "net-something-else that sounds neutrality-ish, but actually just lines his pockets"
TheGhostofElizabethShue
"Fuck you".
MyNameIsJesusAndIStealHubcapsFromCars
obama bad. it's not important that all things on the internet be treated equally. government oversight is bad. condescending thankyoufuckoff
sonnydojo
Sure, here you go: http://imgur.com/FU5earS
obviouslyrob
He's against it. The bill in question allows ISPs to self-regulate: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/993/text
WardSharlow
Yes. Zero, divided by Zero is whatever you want it to be.
wackjack
Fuck you, give it to me, I'll take care of it. Shut up and sit down.
aguacatedeldiablo
"I don't support net neutrality, and when I wave my wand and say the magic words, neither do you"
Thispostisaboutacat
It's all bullshit.
HappyJello
Its all junk. A bunch of information, it sounds great, but he doesn't take a stand. Additional sources show he's against net neutrality.
Promethianfire
"The present net neutrality rules are bad because they happened under Obama. I sponsored a shit bill that has a happy sounding name."
thebratinthehat
I feel like he dropped the O-bomb on purpose here.
Promethianfire
It's so dumb. A thing is not good or bad because of the administration it happened under or the party of the politician who sponsored it.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Promethianfire
Well we're gonna run out of politicians with that kind of thinking!
KaminM
The FCC overstepped its authority, and the industry regulates itself just fine, thank you. We'll let congress decide in the future.
IronicUsername
Oh look, a dumb person. Do you mean like how it regulated itself just fine when Comcast was throttling bittorent traffic?
RogueVector
okay guys stop downvoting the poor (wo)man, they've realized their mistake.
IronicUsername
Appreciated but it's not a big deal. Points don't mean anything and, in retrospect, it was a pretty shit comment.
myimor
You're good people
mikeatike
That is what the fucking lawyer said.
IronicUsername
He's a Senator but you're right. Totally forgot I was looking at a reply, thought he was stating his own thoughts. Jumped the gun; sorry.
GoDownToTheStoreGetSomeViagraAndItllHelpYouGoFYourself
It's all good, you saw that you did and like a good person admitted to it. +1
missbelled
"Oh look, a dumb person." :^)
DMSledge
"The people that paid me said it's bad so I want it to go away but everyone else loves it so I'm just going to pretend I'm fixing it."
KaminM
To clarify, that was the translation and not my own personal views on the topic.
IronicUsername
Whoops; sorry about my response. Overlooked that you were replying to someone asking for a translation. Should have read more carefully.
Exactually
Thanks for the translation
Feronach
Maybe use quotes to clarify.
KaminM
Would have loved to have enough space in the response field to say it. Twitter level text limits suck.
AwkwardKeming
Am I an idiot? I can't figure out if he's for or against neutrality.
LooseyGooseyBrett
If you can't figure it out, you don't understand net neutrality.
idieeverytime
blackmar
How is it that you can't lie to a share holder but you can lie to your constituents. We pay these people and they do what they want.
AwkwardKeming
Because we keep electing them.
goodguyC
Restoring Internet Freedom Act is a fancy way to say fuck your internet freedom....
goodguyC
https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2017/05/9-senators-proposed-bill-kill-net-neutrality-called-restoring-internet-freedom-act/
PreciousPotato
Puh, I thought it was me.
AlexanderBlackX
There's a solid chance he didn't even write the damn thing himself. A carefully crafted non-response from one of his "people."
LowKeyTroll
If by whisky...
forestfinagle
He pulled the ol' bureau-ese double talk. If you question it, you're a simpleton because it was explained so clearly.
SplashesinPuddles
He is against the full use of Title II to enforce net neutrality. He may not be opposed to the general concept of net neutrality.
SplashesinPuddles
Normally these people prefer either a narrow classification under Title II or to use an Anti-Trust Law and the FTC.
DMSledge
Anyone that says they are for something but they just need to get rid of it first is not for it.
BilldeTurlock
That's a good politician. A Great Politician stays bought
WardSharlow
He's definitely not for the dismantling of anti-neutrality protections which could prevent non-neutral bias in repealing old regulations.
tenaciousjeebs
He is very much against it, but the only negative aspect mentioned relates to telephone company regulation without any explanation.
DamThisNameAintTaken
I got a similar email and can't tell for if he's for or against
RoboticTurtle
As far as I can tell he's for it in principle (likely because his constituents are) but against it in its current implementation.
RoboticTurtle
Nope, scratch that. He's for deregulation, therefore against it.
cwblackandyellow
You're not an idiot; he's a politician.
sonnydojo
There's not a single Republican that's for net neutrality. That should help clear it up some.
yellowtoolboxblackbag
And they'll stay that way until Comcast's check start bouncing, or someone writes them an even bigger check.
mookiedoi360
Thats how the deceptive motherfuckers talk
Piornet
He's a Republican - that's all you need to know if you're wondering if he's pro-evil or not.
deadat69
it's worded in a way in which it's made uncertain, probably because he knows the general public doesn't correspond with his view
justahumanbeing
Typical Polititian, say 1000 words, yet not say a single damn thing.
beatlegs
they won't come out & say it, but republicans believe net neutrality is an attack on conservative speech. don't ask me why
javer80
If the phrase is prefaced by "so-called", you can be pretty sure he's not a fan.
Ketodama
Interpretting this email or not, look at his voting history to tell you instead. Yes politicians flip flop on it, but it's better than 1/2
Ketodama
taking their word at face value. Also he talks about cosponsoring Restoring Internet Freedom, which is decidedly anti-Net Neutrality.
Beleg7
Well, he says he cosponsored a bill that would have ended net neutrality and prevented the FCC from restoring it. Sounds like against.
TheGhostofElizabethShue
Against.
quailow
He basically said, "thanks for your input, but I'm going with the people with money".
Humblecandy
I hate to be that guy, but he is a Republican senator. He's against it.
YouWillNotLikeThis
His third sentence was about "eliminate Obama-era rules"
FaithAlone
He is against it but knows that is unpopular so he worded it in the most confusing way possible. Politicians.
Grubenwolf
It's what they do. Money walks bullshit talks.
derpaderps
mrw http://imgur.com/KBBSC9H - for or against, if you aim to disguise your intentions in your speech, you're a twat
yellowtoolboxblackbag
It's corporate whore-ese. A regular hooker will get right down to what and how much. But a dollar dog? They have to keep up appearances.
Booblyflow
Why does it have to be all or nothing? Hes saying he for neutrality but current title 1 and 2 laws are outdated
inboxmefoxes
He is 100% against it while using idiotic doublespeak that makes it sound like his support of those bills is good for net neutrality.
Dvicemuse
He's against met neutrality but is trying to make it sound like he's for it
YerDadSellsAvon
so he's sounding pretty neutral
N0ledge
http://i3.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/008/071/Screen_shot_2011-12-25_at_4.52.05_AM.png
cryogenian
Yes, I caught that. Am in government, see this doubletalk all the time.
obviouslyrob
Against. Here's the text of the bill in question: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/993/text
minesnotmoviequality
He's pro opinion neutrality.
respondwin
Yes.
chefassassin52
He's against it because, as always, Tom Cotton is long necked dipshit. I appreciate him going to the "Obama did it!" well as illustration 1/
chefassassin52
for something being bad. Shows just how disingenuous these sentient cum rags actually are.
Hipstersayswhat
It seems as though he is against it. He is for Congress having the control.
PaintedSlate
Well, how else is he going to keep making this much money from lobbyists?
EnvoyEngineer
That's what I read.
joshgrimm
That's the worst part. "Don't worry, neither you nor the ISPs will have control. WE will." Oh good, I'm so comforted Mr. Cotton.
711isAnInsideJob
He's forgainst it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZtRNi7mgGk
cryogenian
I like that.
JaWannaKnow
Title II rolling back is going back to where it was, which was a free internet, ripe for the fuckery of ISPs
mikeatike
He is against it. But he worded it in the cunty lawyer language.
robotbabybomb
I read that as "country lawyer" and thought of Dustin Hoffman in "Runaway Jury"
TungstenOxide
The legal system and the justice system are two very different things. The former is won with money, is completely corrupt, and is >>
TungstenOxide
>> the most frequently used of the two in the US.
TungstenOxide
The legal system and the justice system are two very different things. The former is won with money and is the one we use in the US.
SinisterStingray
Oh, you mean "The Law"?
DrCocksMD
https://az616578.vo.msecnd.net/files/2015/11/08/6358260362553923811237859510_tumblr_nkigyv8qZC1qdacjho1_250.gif
mikeatike
I like my term better.
AwkwardKeming
As a lawyer, I do too.
TMStage
I believe the correct term is "Legalese"
Thispostisaboutacat
Which is exactly what he's going for.
AmeliaAmmalia
Literally just made an account just so I could answer. What he's saying is that he doesn't believe in any regulation in favor of (1)
AmeliaAmmalia
Net neutrality, just with a lot of code words. The "Open Internet" bill he mentions is not really a form regulation, (2)
AmeliaAmmalia
it's actually a way to block any future regulations of the internet which should be, according to his letter "open". The logic here is (3)
AmeliaAmmalia
Republican thinking 101: there is no need to impose rules and regulations on corporations, let them do their thing and they will (4)
xtallyx
Likely means he's been bought out already
JaWannaKnow
Or just keeping in party lines, but since he co sponsored a bill, yea probably has some sort of incentive in it
imnicetopeopleontheinternet
Would you say he's being....neutral?
AwkwardKeming
cerpintaxt475
No more like duplicitous
OfficialExpert
I read the email three times. I can't either.
obviouslyrob
Here's the text of the bill in question: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/993/text. He opposes Net Neutrality.
yellowtoolboxblackbag
Instead of monopoly money, you could mail him a roll of lifesavers. To help him get the taste of lobbyist dick out of his mouth.
aarhusianer
Politicians all over the world have one thing in common; the inability to answer "yes" or "no" to a simple "yes" or "no" question. Problem!
JoshJitsu
Read the bill he cosponsored. He is SO against NN.
SmolTenk
He is protecting the free internet by prohibiting net neutrality is what he is saying...
LurkerOfDarkness
Free in the sense that big business will be free to screw over their customers at will.
babypotato
Use Watson to analyse the text
yellowtoolboxblackbag
Mail him a stack of monopoly money and tell him to stop pretending. "This is all you really care about, so why even fake it?"
LordKrondor9000
He's against it. RIFA's goal is to take away the FCC's authority. Rule of thumb:
LordKrondor9000
If the response to a yes or no question is something other than yes or no, it's the answer that's morally wrong or a bad idea.
Textuality
"Did you kill this woman?" "Well, first you have to determine whether or not 'kill' is valid in the case of--" "Yeah, he did. Book him."
LickingAssAndTakingNames
Needs more upvotes for intense accuracy.
Teevorkio
No not the wrong answer just the unpopular one