SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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."
The Democrats' effort won the support of its first Republican backer, Sen. Susan Collins (Maine), last Tuesday.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 17 2018, @07:28PM (6 children)
Obama originally didn't want net neutrality. He went for it after it became clear that enough people cared, but prior to that he was obeying his corporate masters.
Today, democrats are putting on a show to gain political advantage. Their corporate owners will tolerate it because a veto is certain.
It's like what happened during the Obama years, when republicans pretended to oppose Obamacare. Republicans didn't want to piss off their corporate masters (including health insurance companies) but could freely vote to repeal Obamacare as long as a veto was certain. It made great political theater, helping the republicans gain political advantage. As soon as we got a president who might not veto the repeal, the republicans got cold feet. Suddenly, every attempt to repeal Obamacare came up one vote short. Note that it wasn't two votes short. The senators who were least likely to run for reelection were chosen to vote against the repeal. All the others got to pretend they supported the repeal. We can't really know how many of them actually support a repeal. It could be 45, or 18, or whatever. They will always fall one vote short.
Now you're seeing the democrats do this with net neutrality. They'll vote for it again and again, feeling safe that Trump will veto it. As soon as a democrat becomes president, the vote for net neutrality will always be one vote short.
(Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday January 17 2018, @08:37PM (5 children)
Obama originally didn't want net neutrality.
Obama was campaigning on Net Neutrality as far back as 2008. (that was his first campaign since you seem to be lacking some historical knowledge)"“I will take a backseat to no one in my commitment to network neutrality,” [youtube.com]
Support network neutrality on the Internet: Promise Kept [politifact.com]
(Score: 3, Funny) by e_armadillo on Wednesday January 17 2018, @10:04PM (2 children)
Don't ruin a good story with the facts. Oh, wait, that is for "good" stories . . . carry on DM.
"How are we gonna get out of here?" ... "We'll dig our way out!" ... "No, no, dig UP stupid!"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 18 2018, @03:10AM (1 child)
Yes. Let's all get real self righteous and prissy about a President that cared so much about justice and righteousness that he had Citibank literally choose his entire fucking Cabinet for him, before he even took office.
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Thursday January 18 2018, @05:56AM
Wikileaks is amazing. The stuff that’s coming out, the #PodestaEmails [twitter.com] and so much. Real bad stuff. The press doesn’t even pick this stuff up. You look at the Fake News Media, where are you seeing it?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 17 2018, @10:27PM
What is so special about 2008? It isn't when Obama was born, at least not according to the forgery.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 18 2018, @03:39AM
Why do you want to cut things off at 2008? Is that, perhaps, a really convenient cut-off date?