Net neutrality

[Virginiá]

Can Restoring Net Neutrality be a major legislative plank for Democrats in 2018-2024?

No, not really. People generally don't care about more nuanced issues like that in a way that makes it politically potent. People care about "the economy" and "healthcare" and so on. It's not to say people don't support net neutrality - I'd guess the vast majority of people support those principles, it is just not something that is going to generate excitement outside of a limited subset of the population.

Democrats would do better to make this a smaller talking point in relation to a broader "corporate crackdown" strategy, where they argue against runaway corporate power, monopolies, and so on. That is something that can rile people up. Or, at least more so than net neutrality alone.

[Dr. Arch]

Not looking forward to something like this.

[Rookie Yinzer]

Ugh. The Republicans are such pricks.

[Blue3]

Where to call

https://www.battleforthenet.com/

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Looks like someone toyed with wikipedia.

[junior chįmp]

Didn't 4 Democrats vote to approve Pai....I seem to remember Hillary telling me to vote Dem unless "I wanted to see Net Neutrality gone"

[Illiniwek]

Ajit Pai is possibly the most evil member of this administration.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Couldn't this be tarred as anti-small business?

[GoTfan]

Couldn't this be tarred as anti-small business?

No ifs ands or buts about it, it is anti-small business. It benefits maybe a handful of major corporations, that's it. Smaller, localised sites could be blocked pretty easily under the new laws.

It's the complete opposite of Republican ideolology. It's a sellout to the biggest corporations for no reason at all. Hell, libertarians should be opposing this as well.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Couldn't this be tarred as anti-small business?

No ifs ands or buts about it, it is anti-small business. It benefits maybe a handful of major corporations, that's it. Smaller, localised sites could be blocked pretty easily under the new laws.

It's the complete opposite of Republican ideolology. It's a sellout to the biggest corporations for no reason at all. Hell, libertarians should be opposing this as well.

Not disagreeing with you here.
The thrust of my question was however, could Democrats attack this policy as anti-small business?  I think that that could be quite successful if done right.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

How is this even constitutional? This is a First Amendment issue, plain and simple. I don't see how utilities can be allowed to censor people.

Repealing 'Net neutrality is like letting the phone company listen in on calls and disconnect people.

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

How is this even constitutional? This is a First Amendment issue, plain and simple. I don't see how utilities can be allowed to censor people.

Repealing 'Net neutrality is like letting the phone company listen in on calls and disconnect people.

If I'm not mistaken, the Internet isn't classified as a utility. But it should, as that would block corporatist pricks like Pai from making moves like this.

[Storebought]

This should be a campaign issue for Democrats in 2018. Make it a big deal and force the GOP to address the issue as well. This is too important.

"F**K Comcast" would win over middle America.

I saw a man in downtown Philly wearing a sandwich board with just that message.

[junior chįmp]

This should be a campaign issue for Democrats in 2018. Make it a big deal and force the GOP to address the issue as well. This is too important.

"F**K Comcast" would win over middle America.

I saw a man in downtown Philly wearing a sandwich board with just that message.

Say hello to Grumps for me!

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Ajit Varadaraj Pai was first appointed to the FCC by Obama. Pathetic.

[Virginiá]

Ajit Varadaraj Pai was first appointed to the FCC by Obama. Pathetic.

Didn't he have to appoint 2 Republicans? I think the law actually states only 3 members may be from the same political party. Of the numerous things to rightfully dump on Obama for, I don't really think this is one of them.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Ajit Varadaraj Pai was first appointed to the FCC by Obama. Pathetic.

Didn't he have to appoint 2 Republicans? I think the law actually states only 3 members may be from the same political party. Of the numerous things to rightfully dump on Obama for, I don't really think this is one of them.

Couldn't he have appointed some random pro net neutrality Republican like muon?

[GoTfan]

Couldn't this be tarred as anti-small business?

No ifs ands or buts about it, it is anti-small business. It benefits maybe a handful of major corporations, that's it. Smaller, localised sites could be blocked pretty easily under the new laws.

It's the complete opposite of Republican ideolology. It's a sellout to the biggest corporations for no reason at all. Hell, libertarians should be opposing this as well.

Not disagreeing with you here.
The thrust of my question was however, could Democrats attack this policy as anti-small business?  I think that that could be quite successful if done right.

As an attack ad, it writes itself, don't you think?

[Person Man]

Ajit Varadaraj Pai was first appointed to the FCC by Obama. Pathetic.

Didn't he have to appoint 2 Republicans? I think the law actually states only 3 members may be from the same political party. Of the numerous things to rightfully dump on Obama for, I don't really think this is one of them.

Couldn't he have appointed some random pro net neutrality Republican like muon?

He could have done a reverse Souter. Either this on when Kennedy retires, it's an automatic referendum on Roe in the senate.

[Person Man]

Couldn't this be tarred as anti-small business?

No ifs ands or buts about it, it is anti-small business. It benefits maybe a handful of major corporations, that's it. Smaller, localised sites could be blocked pretty easily under the new laws.

It's the complete opposite of Republican ideolology. It's a sellout to the biggest corporations for no reason at all. Hell, libertarians should be opposing this as well.

Not disagreeing with you here.
The thrust of my question was however, could Democrats attack this policy as anti-small business?  I think that that could be quite successful if done right.

As an attack ad, it writes itself, don't you think?

Between this and tax reform, the Democrats have an anti-trust program of stronger laws against monopolies, net neutrality, eating big business, and repealing the tax hikes on modestly successful individuals and competitive start ups. This should be tarred and feathered as welfare for the super rich. The closest 20th century analogy would be to reappropriate highway money to a development company to build a toll road and a parking garage for their own HQ.

Again, though they started on entitled reform in an effort to redistribute resources from the very poor tho middle class, AS what Trump claimed he wanted to do, the main policies right now are eating the white collar and freelance workers to give moree free stuff to the rich and famous.

[publicunofficial]

It's gonna be awesome when a Democrat takes the White House and doesn't bother to reverse this decision because Time-Warner paid them not too.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

It's gonna be awesome when a Democrat takes the White House and doesn't bother to reverse this decision because Time-Warner paid them not too.

Or perhaps they don't because Silicon Valley supports net neutrality.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Can Restoring Net Neutrality be a major legislative plank for Democrats in 2018-2024?

No, not really. People generally don't care about more nuanced issues like that in a way that makes it politically potent. People care about "the economy" and "healthcare" and so on. It's not to say people don't support net neutrality - I'd guess the vast majority of people support those principles, it is just not something that is going to generate excitement outside of a limited subset of the population.

Democrats would do better to make this a smaller talking point in relation to a broader "corporate crackdown" strategy, where they argue against runaway corporate power, monopolies, and so on. That is something that can rile people up. Or, at least more so than net neutrality alone.

I’m not so sure about that: Healthcare and the economy are nuanced issues too: it’s all about framing. If Democrats are successfully able to frame it as, “Republicans want to give corporations the right to choose which websites you see” or even “Republicans say they support free speech but then turn around and censor the Internet” it could have a major impact.

[Person Man]

Can Restoring Net Neutrality be a major legislative plank for Democrats in 2018-2024?

No, not really. People generally don't care about more nuanced issues like that in a way that makes it politically potent. People care about "the economy" and "healthcare" and so on. It's not to say people don't support net neutrality - I'd guess the vast majority of people support those principles, it is just not something that is going to generate excitement outside of a limited subset of the population.

Democrats would do better to make this a smaller talking point in relation to a broader "corporate crackdown" strategy, where they argue against runaway corporate power, monopolies, and so on. That is something that can rile people up. Or, at least more so than net neutrality alone.

I’m not so sure about that: Healthcare and the economy are nuanced issues too: it’s all about framing. If Democrats are successfully able to frame it as, “Republicans want to give corporations the right to choose which websites you see” or even “Republicans say they support free speech but then turn around and censor the Internet” it could have a major impact.

This. Republicans can be cast as the party of Big Government AND Big Business.

[Wakie77]

Damn, I thought we had won this fight; going to have to double the pressure on this administration.

The full on reality is that they don't care about the American public or the big money interests.  Patel's 30 member advisory council only contains 2 people from city government's with telecom regulation experience.  The other 28 are consultants and lobbyists.  Particularly egregious is there is a member of the panel who, although technically a US citizen, hasn't lived in the country for 10 years, resides in Denmark, and has young children there (aka she ain't coming back any time soon).