There's still hope for Net Neutrality

Dec 18, 2017 10:49 PM

Vitafidm23

Views

148975

Likes

3663

Dislikes

154

As we all know, last week Ajit Pai and the FCC decided to end Net Neutrality and allow ISPs to do what they want with our internet. I came across this article this morning and thought I would share seeing as Net Neutrality issues don't get enough coverage in the mainstream news.

The long and short of this article is that Schumer is planning on having the Senate vote on a bill that would reinstate N.N. rules. It only needs a majority vote to pass. Regardless of how you feel about Schumer and the Democratic Party, Net Neutrality is not a partisan issue and affects everyone. That's why I am asking you to reach out to your congressman and let them know where you stand on this issue. The fight is not over, there will be hurtles afterward, but you can still make a difference.

Link to article: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/there-will-be-a-senate-vote-to-reinstate-net-neutrality-schumer-says/

Link to Your Senator's Information: https://www.senate.gov/senators/index.htm

Also, Massachusetts is suing the FCC over it, so that's a thing

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Cunt

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

If McConnell brings it to the floor ... democrats don't have the control right now

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

More like "there is still a multi-decade of ping-pong awaiting us."

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

BLACKED DOT COM SHOULDN'T BE A PARTISAN ISSUE, GIVE ME MY PORN

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Verizon: I am the senate!

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

v

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I sure hope that mocking condescending video Ajit made comes back to bite him in the ass. Only takes a bit of savvy to see right through it.

8 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 5

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Hope it happens. BTW there aren't any Democrats that I'm worried about that might vote against it. Not a one.

8 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 3

"Hey, you know how we could get more money from eliminating net neutrality? If we get to vote for it too." -Senate Probably.

8 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 3

I don't like 90% of what Schumer does, but I agree with him completely on this.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Well the senate is pretty simple after all

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

It's only a partisan issue because republicans like money

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Good. Maybe Senators will actually fear the 80%+ of the population that calls them and files a complaint.

8 years ago | Likes 184 Dislikes 13

Hahahahha :D that would be the first

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Oh sweetie

8 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

Even if the vote fails, the point is that it will used as a stain on them during the 2018 campaign. Democrats are making a calculated move.

8 years ago | Likes 53 Dislikes 7

Democrats were on board.

8 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 2

8 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

We either get our regulations back, or we get a list of whos been paid for. Hopefully we take that list into the booth with us.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Governments should be afraid of their people.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

My congress person is a massive raging shit-waffle

8 years ago | Likes 26 Dislikes 3

Still contact him, and if he gives you a bullshit response share it with the world so they can see his true colors.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Same. I sometimes hope he gets hit by a bus.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

mines Sam Brownback, or was i think.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

He's been governor of Kansas for 6 years now...

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I know, i was wondering if he was kicked out recently or not.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

I don't know what to do. My senators like net neutrality. Fuck it, imma email them thanking them.

8 years ago | Likes 24 Dislikes 1

Wait until Doug Jones is seated to hold this vote if thats possible.

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

Wasn't aware a 48 vote minority could force a vote on anything....

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

They got the quotes misplaced. Should read: There will be a Senate "vote"...

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 3

Every Democrat in Congress was against repealing the NN rules while ~95% of GOP were for it. It's the definition of a partisan issue.

8 years ago | Likes 22 Dislikes 13

It's the definition of a non partisan issue that republican politicians have decided to all rally against because money.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Dems will try but Republicans own. Don't hold your breathe.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

What about using the internet for gaming consoles?

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

N N is still governed by anti trust acts. It being governed by the executive is a recent thing. The irony is by repealing the protections...

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

And the decisions that justified it, it takes power away from the executove branch. Which is historically extremely rare for an admin. to do

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Michigan here and I already know my congressman is a fucking Asshole who hates net neutrality, so not much I can do.

8 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 4

Call their office

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Make sure that congressman knows that if they don't vote for net neutrality you don't vote for them.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Both of my senators are dems though so that's good.

8 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 1

That doesn't mean shit.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 8

It shouldn't mean shit, but the only people opposing net neutrality are republicans.

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

I don't have the exact survey results, but 3/4 Republican voters say they are for NN.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I should have said the republican politicians were the only ones opposing net neutrality. Pretty much every American wants it.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Yeah that's cool and all but GOP has the majority and most likely this will die before a vote is called for.

8 years ago | Likes 46 Dislikes 5

Isn't it only the majority leader that is allowed to bring a vote to the floor? Schumer can't do shit until 2018

8 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 4

I would think some good faith could be earned by at least hearing it and voting on it

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 3

At the earliest

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

He literally said, in the three whole sentences in the article, that he doesn't need the majority leader.

8 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 2

That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.

8 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 1

Exactly, it sends a message to future voters.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Try to give the provenly bribable government legislators the ability to legislate something that has been fine on it's own for decades. GG

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Net Neutrality debate and vote brought to you by the same people that are giving rich the biggest tax break ever. Should go well.

8 years ago | Likes 142 Dislikes 14

You are an idiot. There was no vote outside of FCC just like the day it was implemented two years ago.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 9

The article states there WILL be a vote. With vote is usually debate. Both will be done by Congress, they read things as much as you do.

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

If their constituents light them up with NN support they might listen tho. Politicians like to be reelected

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Schumer is a Democrat, not one that had any hand in the tax bill. This NN vote won't pass, but it will get Rs on record being opposed to it

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Yeah, I already feel that trickle-down of cold, cloudy piss.

8 years ago | Likes 34 Dislikes 0

To be fair they never said WHAT was going to trickle down.

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Well, it's pretty tough to give poor people a tax break.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 6

You can still take as much as possible from those who earn & give it to the poor. Why raise people up when there are people to tear down?

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

But they can be given health insurance (instead of simply dying) and the best way to do that is by taxing multi-billion dollar corporations.

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 2

Too bad it's not the multi-billion corporations footing the bill for that *free* healthcare you want.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

I only get $50 in HC subsidies, I pay $324/m. But if I have to get HC anyway, and it allows poor people to get treatment, give me the bill.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Also, it's very possible to make HC affordable, but that would require the GOP to try to make it work instead of removing it entirely.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I hate how Political parties involved, and by extension the Media, have played this as Right vs Left. I'm a right wing Libertarian and...

8 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 7

... think this is all bullcrap. It has no weight on political affiliation. It's a right, not a privilege.

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 6

You're not very libertarian if you choose government mandates over private choice. Government has a monopoly on violence. ISP's do not.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 6

Government doesn't have a monopoly on violence. Source: I punched my brother once.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

A monopoly on legal violence

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Hockey.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Consentual

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Sorry that I don't ONE HUNDRED PERCENT fall in line with my political party. Like a robot. Sheesh.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 3

How dare you have your own opinions!

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

He's not talking about the party, he's talking about your ideology. The best way to remember is that the party has the capital L

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

A right-wing libertarian.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

I only clarified since people tend to falsely think Libertarian and Liberal are the same because they sound the same.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

They're rather mistaken.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I'm on the bottom right corner in this scale. If that helps.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Yes, I am familiar with that device.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

So not a real libertarian. Which is cool, but maybe call yourself by a correct identifier.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Missing the point. This is one issue. Which is why I mentioned my party. In part, BECAUSE this doesn't fall with my party idealology. Just..

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Sorry, confusion between ideology and party. 99% of libertarian party members are not libertarians by ideology. They need a new name.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

You're not a libertarian by ideology is the point. Because if you were, there is no way in hell you would support NN imposed by the govt.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

This is literally the ONE issue that I fall into that mindset. Everything else? Down the middle.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

...because someone is one party doesn't mean there can't be issues that they agree or disagree with that fall out of said party. Thats...

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

...absolutely ridiculous to think otherwise.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

He knows he has no shot of accomplishing anything but grandstanding for the hometown voters.

8 years ago | Likes 43 Dislikes 30

Well, the hope is the republicans get scared of losing the next electon with enough of this, that they help.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Im pretty sure that grandstanding is like 90% of what politicians do anymore.

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 3

if nothing else, the way congressman vote on this bill will let us know who the corporate shills are, so we can more easily vote them out.

8 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 2

I agree, but spoiler alert: they are all corporate shills *sad shrug of confusion*

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 6

2/3don’t get the votes and nothing changes... except voters know who NOT to vote for next time around. IMO, if one takes action its not

8 years ago | Likes 37 Dislikes 3

3/3grandstanding. If they only talk about doing something, that is grandstanding. Trying and failing is not as bad as not trying.

8 years ago | Likes 40 Dislikes 3

It's the case of trying and knowing with 95% certainty that it will fail

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

I could be wrong, but the majority party controls the agenda - Schumer can’t force a debate or vote if Reps don’t want to?

8 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 4

Usually, but the Congressional Review Act was designed so the minority party could force a vote if a regulation is changed when power shifts

8 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 1

Thats BS. Best case scenario they get 3 GOP to be decent people and and overturn FCC. For which there IS a shot. Worst case scenario they1/3

8 years ago | Likes 39 Dislikes 3

They won't even get 100% of their own party. Too much money involved.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 26

I suppose only time will tell. But whats your alternative?

8 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 0

Vote EVERY representative out next year, and replace them all with civilians for a single 2-year term, pass a bill like FMLA for 2-yr leave.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 5

Quit bitching. NN was a bad thing.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 30

Why or is your comment based on the complete lack of knowledge on the subject.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I'll just go ahead and wait for your inevitable rage fit when you suddenly have to pay more for a service you liked. Enjoy. You deserve it.

8 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

Username checks out.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Ajit? Is that you?

8 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 0

Can i ask why NN is bad? Can i also ask why companies should get full control of the web when taxes paid for most of the infrastructure?

8 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 0

Hi Ajit Pie.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Net Neutrality is a discussion that needs to be had in Congress by elected representatives, not by appointees in the Executive branch.

8 years ago | Likes 901 Dislikes 17

Let's just hope the bill doesn't give tax cuts to their own families, repeal healthcare provisions, and redefine firearms as unborn babies.

8 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

I have an idea. Let's just stop electing fucking twat pieces of hot shit.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Or keep it neutral and make it not really an issue at all and dismissed entirely as nonsense

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 15

Look I know it has "neutrality" in the name but that doesn't make it exempt from partisan politics.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

It should be treated like a utility. Equal access like electricity and water.

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Yes, one party wants to do that. The other does not. QED, partisan issue.

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Come to think of it, This is the same party that won’t give electricity to Puerto Rico or water to Flint correct?

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

They did have it... back in 2015... but Obama was for it which means Reds can't think or have an opinion. They MUST hate it.

8 years ago | Likes 269 Dislikes 27

Seriously we need to abolish this Republican-Democrat bullshit. Fuck this "us against them" shit.

8 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

When Ted Cruz logs into pornhub and finds out has to pay to see some nice momma fuck, they'll turn around real fucking quick.

8 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 2

The people who backed it won't have to deal with it. That's how bribery works.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

As a Republican (more centrist really) I hate that we throw out even discussing things bc either Obama promoted it or a Democrat liked it.

8 years ago | Likes 140 Dislikes 5

Oh eat a dick ‘more centrist really’ take your virtue staging and shove it. Seriously who are u trying to impress.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 24

I sincerely don't agree with either side on everything, especially in the extreme. I've seriously never tried to impress anyone with this.

8 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

Left's playing identity politics, right is playing football. Here I am, stuck in the middle with y'all

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 15

It's how American politics works, if one side likes something, you must either hate it or support the opposite of it, no exceptions.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

This is how Republicans work. Until Trump Dems base expected them to reach across the aisle. It’s why most bipartisan bills get introduced

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

by Republicans. Because if Dems introduced, Reps would have to oppose to sate their base, but Dems can support whatever majority likes.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

i hate when anybody does that. just because somebody you dont like came up with an idea doesnt mean it has to be a bad idea

8 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 2

Ex: Majority of Dems supported NCLB while Rs opposed it. Dems and public blame bush because he signed it (co-wrote with Kennedy)

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

Agreed. Both sides do it and that's why fuck all gets done. We have to gain something that the other side hates or we don't pass it at all

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

ya its also like the health care bill do i think obama care got everything right? no but lets fix it instead of just getting rid of it1/?

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

That party is abandoning you, as it did me.

8 years ago | Likes 25 Dislikes 2

One party abandoned me, the other despised me. Both let me down. Now I can impartial. Both have good and bad parts. Both are too exclusive

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It's really just more of a "this is what's on my voter reg card, but not necessarily aligned with my ideals."

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 2

Well I appreciate you keep it and try and bring some sanity back to the party through primaries... it’s been pretty bad last few years

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Sadly politicians act this way because its the same sentiment as their base, which is inspired by the media having the most polarizing views

8 years ago | Likes 47 Dislikes 1

I'd argue *echoed, not inspired.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Also polar media exists because it sells and it sells largely due to confirmation bias. Demonizing "The Media" like it is some kind of 1/2

8 years ago | Likes 19 Dislikes 0

Illuminati puppet master has created such distrust in legitimate journalists that they can no longer full fill their function and call 2/3

8 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 0

tbf, when you gerrymander your base, polarized politics is the sentiment that sells.

8 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 1

This is on the GOP leadership. They did nothing to dissuade Fox news from lying through their teeth to the american public for decades.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Did you hold this view in 2015?

8 years ago | Likes 23 Dislikes 65

I didn’t. But that was NN was in jeopardy and the Exec branch needed to do something to keep it from going away. /2

8 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 2

Whatever way keeps it I’m in favor for. I am not ashamed to say so. It SHOULD be the Legislative branch, but the R’s wanted it dead. 2/2

8 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

This is a congress issue. Pai is right. This is not within the FCC’s statue. Nothing to do with R’s.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Why is this being downvoted lol, don't like to have to face your own hypocritism, huh.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Did you hold their dick or let them stick it in your mouth the first time they tried this?

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 26

Edgy AF.

8 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 2

Just asking the same question you asked in more colorful language. Everything's better in color.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 8

You're mistaking simplicity for complexity. Hope that doesn't happen often...

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Certainly. Perhaps 30 years ago when the internet was just starting out, the Executive branch could manage it. Not anymore.

8 years ago | Likes 40 Dislikes 3

I don't think anyone needs to manage it, but I applaud your consistency.

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 34

You are aware of the shit providers did before nn? What are your views on that?

8 years ago | Likes 19 Dislikes 0

The market should be free to work that out.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 3

EXCUSE ME SIR, GIVE IS OUR PIXELS BACK

8 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 0

And still do though not allowed now they just make an excuse. Hard to prove sometimes

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

piss off. when they started infringing more and more the rules were made necessary after repeated offenses

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Narrator: But there weren't more and more offenses.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

They blocked VOIP services, tried to charge extra for FaceTime, throttled google wallet, the list goes on over hundreds of offenses

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

So they charged more for the use of their private property? That's perfectly normal.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

You. Are. Wrong.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

What if he did? Opinions can change in nearly 3 years.

8 years ago | Likes 19 Dislikes 3

Just asking for reference.

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 7

Yes, but opinions only change because they don't like the result.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 10

There's a word for changing your views based on new or previously unknown data, but, due to a recent executive decision, I can't say it.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Ahhh yes. Because twitter/FB/Imgur never banned anyone3 weeks ago. Suddenly you’re scared of a gov’t no longer in control of interwebs

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 3

What unknown data is there in who should decide on net neutrality?

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

Or, you know, from thoughtfully evaluating issues from different points of view like rational adults.

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

At some point I would love to hear them instead of the daily Imgur screed of insults towards Ajit Pai.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0