Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, January 17, 2018

John Bowden, The Hill: Senate Democrats have put together 50 votes for a measure meant to block the Federal Communications Commission's December decision to end net neutrality rules put in place by the Obama administration. Democrats are just one GOP vote shy of the 51-vote threshold for a Senate resolution of disapproval, which would strike down the FCC's December rules change. "With full caucus support," Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said, "it's clear that Democrats are committed to fighting to keep the internet from becoming the Wild West where ISPs are free to offer premium service to only the wealthiest customers while average consumers are left with far inferior options."

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Fox News viewers will be able to see how talented Stormy Daniels is after all.

#1 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-01-17 07:30 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

Anyone taking bets on who the Repub will be to make 51?

#2 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2018-01-17 07:36 PM | Reply

I would prefer it if Congress would actually write a new law as opposed to a Senate Resolution of Disapproval, since Trump can just write a new executive order to circumvent this Resolution, but what more can we expect from this crowd other than the minimum effort necessary.

#3 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-17 07:59 PM | Reply

Ah, yes. The partys are the same. Not.

- what more can we expect from this crowd other than the minimum effort necessary.

Says the Republican, rofl!

#4 | Posted by Corky at 2018-01-17 08:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

... Trump can just write a new executive order to circumvent this Resolution ...

Nope.

(2) A rule that does not take effect (or does not continue) under paragraph (1) may not be reissued in substantially the same form, and a new rule that is substantially the same as such a rule may not be issued, unless the reissued or new rule is specifically authorized by a law enacted after the date of the joint resolution disapproving the original rule. www.law.cornell.edu

#5 | Posted by et_al at 2018-01-17 09:41 PM | Reply

Hopefully the GOP holds.

If Dems want Net Neutrality, pass a damn bill.

#6 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-18 10:33 AM | Reply

If you live in a Republican State call and write your Congressman to support Net Neutrality. It should be possible to make this point to people who claim to believe in free and fair markets. One or two Republican votes are all that is needed. BE LOUD.

#7 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-01-18 11:45 AM | Reply

"Hopefully the GOP holds."

Why do you say that, how does losing net neutrality benefit you or anyone else exept big broadband companies?

#8 | Posted by danni at 2018-01-18 12:09 PM | Reply

I can't believe Dems still have not learned how to fight against the wealthy Dems/Reps who are going to eventually get their way with this topic. Instead of trying to stop it, which will NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVER happen as it will become the normal at some point because we live in reality and that's just how things works, they should start fighting what they can today that would prevent the actual problems that would come about once net neutrality is gone for good. For example, people are scared they will have to pay to visit a site. Well, start legislation today that would govern the prices. So if people are scared they will have to pay, make laws that say a company can only pay a penny for the number of registered users, not web hits. That's obviously just a made-up example, but it gets the point across. Stop trying to stop reality. It's not going to happen. Start living in the real world and start attacking the problem where it hurts. Sure, it's not easy and there are a billion discussion points, but at least it starts us down the road of not fighting something that history has proven beyond any doubt that it will happen eventually. In fact, this is what pork barrel legislation is made for! Instead of corrupt politicians adding in their own legislation that benefits them, they need to come together and start sliding in very obscure rules that would make the end of net neutrality much less significant. Of course, that won't happen because neither side makes money or gains power from it, so it won't actually happen. But that doesn't make the idea any less optimal.

#9 | Posted by humtake at 2018-01-18 12:21 PM | Reply

A 50 vote effort to save an executive order riddled with anti-net neutrality loopholes.

www.wsj.com

thehill.com

hightechforum.org

www.technologyreview.com

www.wired.com

Obama's appointee Wheeler was explaining the loopholes the major providers were carving into the order. Democrats on here smeared him as a Time Warner sellout.

#10 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-01-18 01:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

"riddled with anti-net neutrality loopholes."

You're pro Net Neutrality????

#11 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-18 02:01 PM | Reply

You're pro fake Net Neutrality?

#12 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-01-18 02:34 PM | Reply

I don't have a political outlook which positions the good aa the enemy of the perfect.

Nor am I a Libertarian, but I repeat myself.

I am pro Net Neutrality. You?

#13 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-18 02:39 PM | Reply

I have been since the mid-90s. My first job was in an ISP's NOC.

You're not pro net neutrality if you support the OIC. You are supporting the exact opposite through lobbyist written loopholes.

#14 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-01-18 03:00 PM | Reply

Now, just a quick check.. but since TWC was one of the arch villians that destroyed Net Neutrality through OIC loopholes, where did they spend their money in the 2016 campaign season?

Couldn't possibly be to the party of the President that just passed that order, could it? Oh wait..

Clinton, Hillary $561,095 $561,095 $0
DNC Services Corp $385,242 $385,242 $0
Democratic Congressional Campaign Cmte $138,730 $138,730 $0
Harris, Kamala D $127,725 $126,725 $1,000
Sanders, Bernie $37,230 $37,230 $0
Van Hollen, Chris $32,650 $25,650 $7,000
Bennet, Michael F $32,000 $26,500 $5,500
Americans for Responsible Solutions $20,800 $15,800 $5,000
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte $20,401 $20,401 $0
Correct The Record $20,000 $20,000 $0

#15 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-01-18 03:06 PM | Reply

I remember when Obama was pro net neutrality. I liked that in his campaign. Shame it didn't work out.

#16 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-01-18 03:09 PM | Reply

"You're not pro net neutrality if you support the OIC."

Except I am pro Net neutrality, since the Obama rules are closer to the goal of Net Neutrality than the real world alternative being offered.

By not being a libertarian, I am afforded the opportunity to have my opinions informed by the real world.

That is the fundamental difference in our political outlook. You think all the answers can be found in books. I think you've got to get your hands dirty and pay attention to the outcomes to know what actually works in the real world versus what just looks good on paper, e.g. communism. I believe in the trial and error of incremental acts of governance to build a better future.

#17 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-18 03:18 PM | Reply

I'll pass on the "less than good". Weed has been illegal for what, 118 years? Why do I want to set back Net Neutrality for a ridiculous amount of time based on bad marketing to people that haven't kept up on the actual law and want loopholes back? That's a stupid idea.

Codify the ideas of the Clinton memorandum without the OIC's loopholes. That's all it takes. It was a reasonable document with good guidance. It was sold out to Time Warner for campaign spending that didn't even help.

#18 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-01-18 03:30 PM | Reply

I'll pass on the "less than good".

Of course you will. Your adherence to dogma easily predicts it.

America has passed on voting libertarian for what, 118 years?

I would have guessed your broken clock would have been right at least once a century... but we can't just deny reality. Well, I can't. You found a way to embrace it, politically.

You're like a proponent of Communism from 1862, before it had been tried and shown to fail... everywhere.

#19 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-18 03:45 PM | Reply

You're like a kid who keeps sticking his finger in a light socket and can't figure out why he gets shocked. Supporting the return of Not-Net-Neutrality in the naive hope it will incrementally be turned into actual Net Neutrality by the people that already sold us out is cognitive dissonance.

#20 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-01-18 05:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Supporting the return of Not-Net-Neutrality"

Compared to the other alternative that has an actual chance of becoming reality via government action, which one is better aligned with our desire for Net Neutrality?

#21 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-18 05:46 PM | Reply

#5

I know what 5 USC §§ 801-802 say, but if you think that a new Resolution with different language can't be drafted that would achieve the same goal (assuming that the disapproval resolution doesn't get vetoed by Trump under §801(a)(3)(B)) then you haven't paid much attention to how this works.

#22 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-18 05:59 PM | Reply

Ooooooooh!

Esquire versus Esquire!

This might get bloody!!

#23 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2018-01-18 06:04 PM | Reply

Wouldn't it take 60 votes to bring it up for discussion?

#24 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-01-19 12:04 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort