Skip to main content

The U.S. Senate voted 52-47 in favor of restoring Net Neutrality

FCC Chair
FCC Chair (Image credit: FCC)

Updated 5/16/18 — The Senate's final vote is in, with the official number being 52 - 47 in favor of restoring Net Neutrality! While this is an exciting and unexpected development, the battle to completely reverse FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's actions is far from over. The CRA will now go to the House of Representatives where Republicans currently hold the majority at 236 to 193. If it by some miracle passes through the House, it then needs to be approved by President Trump who will more than likely veto it. Net Neutrality still has a chance, but we're going to have to fight tooth and nail to make sure it sticks around.

In mid-December last year, the FCC voted to repeal Net Neutrality. That repeal will officially go into action on June 11, but not before the U.S. Senate votes to hopefully restore it.

On May 14, Democratic Senator Ed Markey announced that he and other fellow Democrats have pushed the U.S. Senate to vote on whether or not the FCC's repeal of Net Neutrality should be reversed. The vote will take place on Wednesday, May 16, and it's being done as part of a Congressional Review Act (also known as a CRA).

Commenting on the announcement, Senator Markey said –

By passing my CRA resolution to put net neutrality back on the books, we can send a clear message to American families that we support them, not the special interest agenda of President Trump and his broadband baron allies. May 16 will be the most important vote for the internet in the history of the Senate, and I call on my Republicans colleagues to join this movement and stand on the right side of digital history.

So far, 50 of the 100 Senators have said they'll vote to restore Net Neutrality (one of which is a Republican). Considering this and the fact that Republican Senator John McCain will be absent due to his current health conditions, there's a chance the Democrats could get the vote to go through.

If that happens, however, that doesn't necessarily mean Net Neutrality will once again be alive and well. After the Senate, the vote will then need to through the House of Representatives where Republicans have the majority of seats at 236 to 193. If it by some miracle gets through the House, there's still the chance that President Trump will veto it.

Even with those obstacles in mind, it's still somewhat reassuring to see that action is being taken to roll back FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's decision.

What do you expect will happen this Wednesday?

Net neutrality, consolidation, monopolies, and you

Joe Maring was a Senior Editor for Android Central between 2017 and 2021. You can reach him on Twitter at @JoeMaring1.

128 Comments
  • Getting the popcorn 🍿 now, Lol. 😂
  • Make sure it has extra butter
  • I can’t believe it’s not butter
  • DRUMPH will veto this ASAP. It's something the Obama Administration put into place. As we all know DJT is a Man CHILD. He was the butt of a few jokes by Obama at a dinner one time, and the orange shitgibbon paid to win the presidency so he could say he beat Obama (which he didn't btw), and reverse ANYTHING Obama did as president. We see that happening now. Way to go Murica! For even casting one vote for this orange peice of ****. Just goes to show how many racists and biggots live down there.
  • If you want to have net neutrality it should have been legislation to begin with, government agencies shouldn't be creating law in this way.
  • Pretty much this^^^^
  • That also goes for all the three letter agencies.
  • Agreed, but not with a congress full of corruption. Until we have a trustworthy congress, it should remain in tact.
  • Corruption?? Naw. Never.
  • Agreed, something this important should not be left up to one person like Ajit Pai to have this much control over.
  • But it was created the same way, by a 3-2 FCC vote. If it's created by a 3-2 vote...it will be eliminated by a 3-2 vote once there is a power shift.
  • This won't pass, but it will identify the anti-consumer legislators so that people can target them for replacement. I know that's a lot to hope for from the American voter base these days, but one can hope. If a consumer starts seeing their phone bill getting separated by service or increases in Neflix and Hulu attributed to carrier greed, maybe they will actually react appropriately and remove the legislative idiots that just keep screaming "regulations bad!" in a caveman voice.
  • We rejected Hillary, so, theres hope
  • What does that have to do with Net Neutrality? It's Trump's appointee that canned it. Don't devolve into a partisan moron in this discussion.
  • Took all of your 3 brain cells to come up with that one, huh?
  • its politics. we will get the shaft.
  • Hopefully this will pass. Net neutrality should be a right in this country.
  • I'm personally not in favor of the government having their hands in my internet. I am anti-net neutrality for that reason. Net neutrality also has a negative impact on competition. Net neutrality sounds like a no brainier, but once I looked further into it, I realized that it isn't as cut and dry as most sites report. It's because most of these sites don't want to have to compete. If the competition isn't allowed to pay more for a higher speed, you don't have to pay more to keep up. Of course this is a very generalized and basic example, but it is a factor to think about. We went a long time without net neutrality and things worked out just fine.
  • There are alot of things we went without in the past that are needed now. The world and tech changes.
    We did not use to have speed limits but we do now. No its not *** for tat but the point is that argument that we never had it before does not mean that we do not need it. All other things aside
  • Wait what? A negative impact on competition? Yeah, it's totally fair that a company like Netflix can afford fastlanes but a startup that wants to compete with Netflix can't. Things did not "go fine" without Net Neutrality. AT&T blocked FaceTime, Verizon blocked Google Wallet, just to give you two examples (there are more, but I don't feel like Googling). You should keep looking further into it.
  • Huh? No. Net neutrality doesn't have a negative effect on competition. It *facilitates* competition. You're advocating for a climate in which the first to climb the ladder get to pull it up after them.
  • I'm with you. Less government is always better government.
  • Not always. I sold my single shot 45/70 rifle because of my higher capacity lever rifle 45/70. This more capable "government" will protect me better when hunting bears
  • That statement and principle does not hold into the modern world.
  • You could always just some mercury top your family's drinking water if you want to experience a government-free utopia. Don't forge to pay your neighbors for passing though their property on your way to the mercury store. I know you wouldn't want to use public roads. Sure, negotiating movement rights with each of them will take some time, but if you want to be consuming mercury like a real libertarian, sacrifices have to be made.
  • It is pretty clear from your post that you don't actually know what net neutrality is. Please understand that when an ISP charges, say, Netflix to avoid throttling, that cost is passed on to you, the consumer. You are already paying your ISP for a certain amount of speed. Without net neutrality, your ISP can charge you again (by charging content providers), based on what sites you use. This allows a company like Comcast to provide streaming video at a lower rate, driving you, the consumer, to use their services instead. This would be like Walmart owning your road, and being able to force you to drive slower if you wanted to go to Target. Or, Target could pay Walmart to allow faster speeds, but then Target's prices go up. Either way, you suffer if you choose not to shop at Walmart.
  • It'll pass the Senate but fail in the House. It's just a line in the sand that will at least force the Republicans to own it. They wont be able to weasel out when the negative effects of this crap start happening😉
  • Own what? 99% of the population has no idea what Net Neutrality is or why it matters. It was in effect for less than five years and most people can't tell how it changed their lives in anyway. They just know a bunch of people are upset about it and it sounds nice. Net Neutrality, sounds fair and honest.
  • Funny how my internet or cell bill hasn't gone up nor am I paying extra for certain new "packages". Weren't we supposed to die from this already anyhow?
  • This. Funny how when senators talk to Zuck, we laugh at their complete lack of knowledge about what the internet is, but when it's net neutrality, they're freaking geniuses. Go ahead, show of hands, how many of you has your bills raised by evil providers? Lol
  • Read up on the facts. It hasn't gone into affect yet.
  • Mine has. Both cable and cell phone. Give it time.
  • Switch providers. It's amazing what happens when you vote with your wallet.
  • Most areas have monopolies. Jeeze
  • Monopolies that are granted by a level of the government. Eliminate the monopolies, or are we just chickens. I saw the stimulus funded high speed internet being built in an area that had multiple forms already. Don't know of a single person or business that is using it yet. Waste of money
  • It's amazing what could happen if you actually could vote with your wallet. Maybe when I have 4-5 ISP's offering landline service in my area that can happen. But I, like most other American's, only have 2, and only one of those offers reliable service.
  • Thanks to government monopolies
  • Government has almost nothing to do with ISP monopolies. The return on investment for a new provider to overbuild a physical network in a region that already has a provider is terrible. Tearing up or digging under roads, yards, driveways, and existing utilities is extremely expensive. Each provider that joins a region to get a piece of the pie makes the pie pieces smaller. Consider city water. Is it better to have 1 provider, regulated by the government? Or 1 provider that can charge as much as they want until competition lays down an entire new water distribution system. How much more would that company need to charge you to justify the cost of running new pipe throughout the city, building new towers, new treatment plants, etc?
  • It's not going to be over night, especially with all the attention on it. Plus, it just took effect like weeks ago. And nobody said your bill will definitely increase. Good chance it might go down, but you'll have less options and lower performance. You'll end up paying more for what you originally had.
  • *correction, ends 6/11
  • It hasn't even taken effect yet that's why!
  • Net neutrality doesn't even end until next month. It was put in place because ISP's, such as Verison, were indeed already starting to throttle bandwidth for their content competition. Here is a question. Now that you know you were wrong on the basic facts, will your conclusions change? Or are your conclusions independent of your understanding of the facts?
  • Don't forget stopping Google wallet in its tracks back in 2010
  • Net neutrality needs to be tossed out forever. We should be trying to keep governments as far away as possible from the Internet otherwise we'll end up messing up the greatest communication tool that has ever existed.
  • Do you even comprehend what you just said?
  • Nope. No grasp of history either.
  • I agree. People are ready to grant more power and control over one of our greatest assets, to the very same government that was caught abusing its ability to surveil Americans and people across the globe, only a few years ago. No grasp of history.
  • Do you even know what Net Neutrality is? You don't seem to know what you're even saying.
  • Yes. Needless regulation and internet socialism. Also, the insane idea that a small group of politicians and un-elected bureaucrats could possibly know more than industry experts and companies that work in the field.
  • I don't think that you fully comprehend. Try looking at it from the other side, compare facts from articles written for and against net neutrality and you will see that it isn't as cut and dry as you may think. The companies pushing for net neutrality are okay with a negative impact on consumers to save on their bottom line. Very crude example: Hulu cuts a deal with Verizon to allow uninterrupted speeds over FiOS. Netflix still has the same connection that they have had for years (Hulu's is better because they opt to pay more). Netflix has 2 options pay more for the uninterrupted stream that Hulu pays for or leave it as-is and see how customers respond. With net neutrality, Hulu can't cut the deal, Netflix doesn't have to try to compete and the consumer doesn't get to see if the service that they pay for could have been better. Weather you agree or disagree, it isn't cut and dry. It's very complex.
  • It really is, because your example is backwards. If neither company is paying for preference, both can afford to spend it on their service. And if both are on an equal playing field, they both will compete to provide the best service, and what's more, others can join the game if they think they can do better. If they don't, and the customer can choose, the customer will choose. But if one company has paid for the best speeds, their financial resources are lower, and there is less incentive to innovate with their service because they have the best one without having to be the best that they can be. And their competitors cannot even trying to offer a challenge in the marketplace, because there is a hard ceiling preventing them from operating as smoothly and quickly as the winner in this bribery scam. And the customer has no choice, so the customer cannot make a difference. But it's not just a problem of industry giants clashing. It's a problem for every kind of business, from the behemoth to the big national success to the medium local success to the start-up that's trying to get going, to any indie site that needs a decent internet shop. Killing net neutrality. We've known for decades the studies on user patience, the numbers of seconds that they're prepared to wait for a page to load before they move on. If you think this is positive, how would you feel about variable highway speed limits according to the user's ability to pay? Because it's basically the same thing. In fact, worse: the equivalent would be Amazon paying to decide that Barnes & Noble's trucks could only travel at a maximum 30mph.
  • They already have fast lanes in travel. Turnpikes, expressways, etc. you pay for the faster way to get around. Flying vs driving? Train vs bus? You pay to get around faster or take the long way around. Your choice.
  • Terrible analogy.. And we do have fast and slow internet under net neutrality. You can buy dsl, 60Mbps packages from isp, 250+ mbps, 1g etc.. Nobody wants any single company allocated to the bulk of our speed.
  • My analogy is on point. The OP said paying for variable highway speed limits. We already have that according to your ability to pay tolls, or pay for the high ticket prices for flight to make your commute faster. If you don’t pay the tolls, your limited to go the long way around which could include much more congestion taking much longer. But you are correct about the tiers you can pay your isp. It’s your choice. Government shouldn’t have a say in any of this.
  • So you agree with keeping net neutrality? And your analogy was dumb.
  • Never said that. And no, It was still on point.
  • But what if Ford owns the road, and you want to drive a Toyota? Will you pay Ford for use of the expressway AND more to Toyota so they can pay Ford to allow Toyota's to drive at the faster speeds?
  • The government shouldn’t allow this to happen. Period. But if so, it’s your choice. You can drive a Ford to gain all access or a Toyota and pay more. Or how about a Chevy that started a price war with ford and Toyota giving full access at a much cheaper price. Or a Nissan that’s even cheaper giving many more perks than the others to get your business. It can go both ways. I’m not against net neutrality nor am I for it. They both have positives and negatives and the market, not the government, should have the say.
  • There's only negatives. 0 positives
  • Chevy isn't going to build a whole new network in your area of roads in the hope of getting your business. Nor can they give you full access to Ford's roads. Because Ford owns those roads. You get your choice of maximum speeds based on the road plan you purchase. If you buy a Ford, you can drive up to that limit. Or you can buy a throttled car from another manufacturer. You may also want to consider where you buy your gas. Ford gas can be delivered to gas stations in your area at a normal rate. Stations can buy from other gas companies, of course, but they have to pay Ford extra to use the roads. Sure, you can let the market decide in a case like this. Is it really....hold on...Ford just raised the cost of driving on their roads by 20%. 50% if you want to transport anyone who has shopped at a non-Ford grocery store. The problem is that ISPs are by and large monopolies, and the largest ones also are major content providers. If ISP's can drive up prices for other content providers, your choice is hardly a choice that can change the market. You can get your content from your ISP, or you can pay extra to your ISP for other content. The market will ALWAYS decide in favor of the ISP under these conditions.
  • So you aren't the least bit concerned about letting those who make a profit determining the fate of the internet? The goal of Net Neutrality is to prevent the "messing up of the greatest communication tool that has ever existed", but as long as people like you fall for the line that "all government is bad regardless of the situation" we'll have corrupt politicians taking a stance against the American consumer. For all of us, please educate yourself better
  • This. People think unregulated capitalism is the be-all-end-all answer to consumers woes. But in fact, it's quite the opposite. Unrestrained capitalism leads to unrestrained funneling of wealth to the very few that already have it. Regulated capitalism like we already have in this country is great. We can argue all day about whether we have enough regulation or not, but it's indisputable that regulation as a concept is 100% bad.
  • Actually, it's usually government that "leads to the unrestrained funneling of wealth to the very few that already have it." We have had over a century of almost unrestricted and unrestrained statism in America, and the wealth disparities have continued growing. Government regulation is unnecessary. The people are more than capable of keeping company's in check with their wallets.
  • There will always be concerns, about many different things. How networks can be built out, company's business practices, pricing and availability, etc. What I argue, is that the government is the least capable entity of addressing any of these concerns. Yes, I would much rather the people making a profit oversee the Internet, because they are 100% invested in its growth and success. It truly saddens me that people demonize profit all the time. Profit is one of the best indicators of success. To be on top, in a truly free market, means you are providing the best value and service, of all your competitors, to the public. Where it starts to get really messy and corrupt is when you bring government into the picture. Legislation that favors one side vs the other, that protects the profits of some companies vs their competitors. One needs look no further than public education and the healthcare industry to see how government intervention and regulation corrupts the industry, stifles innovation, and drives up costs. Net neutrality needs to go!
  • They really do care about the little people https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/01/obama-expands-surveillance-powers-...
  • I am shocked at how disgustingly partisan tech sites have gotten, now including Android Central!! We do not want the government regulating the internet!!! Just look how they screwed up healthcare in the name of helping people!!! The government needs to be small and limited because it ruins everything it touches!!!
  • You're really talking about two separate issues... On the subject of sites like this bring partisan, when you have a party that aggressively opposes science and tech, people in those industries will naturally choose the other side. Besides, this shouldn't be a party split issue. Anyone who actually understands net neutrality and doesn't own an ISP should be in favour of it for selfish reasons whether they believe poor children should be allowed to starve or not. On the issue of regulation, small government would be great, unfortunately it can't be done. Companies and businesses NEED regulation. It's what stops grocers selling you flour that is 60% chalk, keeps the drinking water drinkable and ensure medicines are actually medicine and not just sugar pills or worse...
  • Before the war on poverty and after it was implemented the same percentage of people live in poverty. Doesn't sound effective
  • There is a massive difference between relative and absolute poverty. And absolute poverty has declined drastically.
  • Actually, just PAYING ATTENTION to what you are buying should be enough to "stop grocers from selling you flour that is 60% chalk". The same goes for drinking water, medicines, internet service, butt scratchers, cars, etc...
  • There's one government Healthcare system, it's called Medicare. And it works well. I assume you're referring to "Obamacare" which is private insurance. And net neutrality isn't government "getting involved", it's keeping it from being manipulated from corporations. Please get your facts straight
  • Well you wouldn't expect the average Republican voter to understand any of that especially the Trump supporters
  • Obamacare mandated people buy something. And pay more than it cost before. Net Neutrality means the government can regulate and manipulate internet and information (for your own good, of course) and that rarely ends well. Also, when government regulates anything, that's simply politicians telling big corporations to donate to their re-election funds if they want favorable treatment. Key: cell phone technology was available in the 1930s but businesses paid big money to politicians to keep the bandwidth unavailable. Stifled an entire industry.
  • That is not what Net Neutrality means at all! Have you done any research on Net Neutrality?
  • I'm finding there's a lot of people on here who have no idea what Net Neutrality is..
  • Yes, it mandated something extremely important. But if you didn't have it, then you pay a $500 fine/tax for the year. It wasn't the end of the world. And it's not the government manipulating anything. Do you like the way we get electricity, water, gas? Or you think you should pay more to run LG dishwashers rather than GE?
  • There is the VA health care, know of people who had to fight to get heart surgery. Don't forget about the health plan for the native people, it many times runs out of funding early in the fiscal year. Oh Obama Care is more like fascist Care, not government owned but government mandates it
  • If you understood the basic concept of insurance in general, you'd understand the ACA.
  • Obamacare was inspired by Romneycare and by the Heritage Foundation.
  • You forgot Hillary care as well. Most of what was implemented was introduced by Hillary during the Clinton years.
  • Can't wait for the government mandated waivers for corporate donors
  • GOOD NEWS EVERYONE! For now, at least.
  • F yeah! We have to keep the pressure on though.
  • Money out of Politics www.wolf-pac.com Only then we can have a chance to get representative democracy back.
  • The US is not a democracy. It is supposed to be a constitutional republic. We will never be able to get money out of politics. The government is going to just keep growing uncontrollably. Doesn't matter what party is in control.
  • This is why we can't have a government.
  • NN needs to go back to the dump where it belongs.
  • What have unknown authors ever done to you?
  • This was all about reelection LMAO
  • NN was not some utopian regulation. Just search "expert offers overview of net neutrality debate"
  • The only time the Democucks have given me a reason to support them.
  • As someone who was once throttled by Comcast because they didn't approve of torrent apps, throttled so severely my connection was worse than dial up and nothing could steam and no online game worked, I strongly support Net Nutrality.
  • Under Net Neutrality, Comcast can promise lots of cash to politicians and "encourage" them to make torrent apps illegal. (In the name of fairness, naturally.) Competition is whatever the regulators want it to be.
  • Uh no. It doesn't work like that.
  • That's totally incorrect..
  • That isn't even vaguely true.
  • What you described is called lobbying. It has nothing to do with Net Neutrality
  • Well this is surprising but welcome, even if it doesn't get past this point. I hear the moaning and groaning about government and corruption, but having a dirty cop around is better than the thieves having you to themselves.
  • Great news to support the American family indeed! But having 47 votes against it is a grave concern if this is a win for the American people what are those 47 thinking of? their pockets?
  • They're Republicans. Alas morals in that party has drastically drifted away from the consumer and the people
  • There are those who remember having to pay for long distance. We also remember the dark days of DSL when the Bells were the only source for 'high-speed' internet. Then a wonderful thing happened, telecommunications was de-regulated. Consumers got a choice of long-distance providers. Then we got a choice of local providers. Cable companies started offering true high-speed internet and lobied to provide phone service. Speeds increased and cost went down. When was the last time you paid for a long distance call? Interestingly, AT&T and the Bells tried to lobby against the cable companies because their speeds gave them an unfair advantages. Thankfully they lost and were forced to innovate. Fast forward to today and gig-speed fiber is coming to market to compete against cable. Not to mention the explosion of cellular, 4G and eventually 5G. None of this happens if the government kept a stranglehold on telecommunications. When companies are forced to compete the customer wins. If you only have one choice for ISP, government is typically the barrier of entry.
  • I wish more people would grasp this understanding. This myth of government regulation protecting the American consumer is completely false.
  • When AT&T owns Time-Warner, and CNN, do you think they will tell you the truth or what will benefit the stockholders of AT&T. ABC does that with Disney. Fox News never tells the truth about the Murdochs. They protect their owners. Whatever is best for their owners is what they tell you is what us best for you too. Even if that isn't true. There is right vs left. It's mega corporations and the politicians they bribe to write laws that benefit them vs you.
  • Competition. I saw high speed over cable demoed in the early 1990(s) but AT&T and the Bells used government regulation to delay it's entry into the marketplace sticking consumers with DSL speeds years longer than necessary. Cable companies are now using government regulation to delay implementation of gig-fiber internet. Change the focus to removing barriers of entry so the consumer has ISP choices, Net Neutrality wouldn't be necessary. This story is never told because politicians love the power, corporations have become accustomed to leveraging politicians to quell competition and people actually believe a political party will act in their best interest. Here's a question for you. What makes one corporate sponsored regulation better than another? Or did you think Net Neutrality was pinned by benevolent politicians?
  • These are misstatements and falsehoods
  • Not all regulation is the same. Net Neutrality is designed to give equal transport to all data. Your example is incorrect because in your argument, you actually support what NN is supposed to do. You cite multiple long distance companies having equal access to the same physical distribution system as being positive for the consumer; it is. Net Neutrality allows equal access to the same physical internet distribution systems. Without NN, your long distance example would be HD Voice for long distance from the network owner, and walkie-talkie quality from other long distance providers unless you agree to pay the network owner more money in addition to what you pay the long distance provider
  • Can't wait for my parents to pay as much for their cellular Service as I do. Oh I use the heck out of it and they don't hardly use it. This will eliminate budget plans and require many people to either do without or upgrade to the more expensive and only plan available.
  • This is not what Net Neutrality does at all. You can still buy lower levels of bandwidth from your ISP.
  • It is so sad to witness federal American politicians vote in the best interests of lobbyists paying them cash, not the American public. The House will vote against the interests of the American public. Net neutrality will not return in America unless Democrat party supermajorities occur due to American midterm elections. The Presidential veto can be overrided by both a 2/3 vote in support of a bill by the Senate and House.
  • For everyone AGAINST Net Neutrality, please read the Executive Summary in Section II of this link. Then, using that summary, explain your points as to how this government regulation is being used for censorship and government control? https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC...
  • You said it yourself. Government regulation = Government control
    Plus nobody here as to explain their self to you.
  • Wow, you lowered the bar to floor with your idiotic comment.
  • Yes get rid of all government regulations. Big business clearly has the best interest of the people.
  • The Senate doesn't understand what Net Neutrality is. Neither do most people. It sounds benign, so it must be good. It basically gives total control over what you see online to a handful of mega corporations. Actually read this thing. It's a nightmare. Senators just vote for whichever side gives them the biggest bribes. Like always. Mega Corps buy power thru bribes. Then Mega Corps tell you its great via the media and news outlets they own, with no bias in favor of their own corporate interests. Go read things for yourselves. Make your own choices.
  • Complete lie. Just the opposite..
  • You clearly don't understand it either. Net Neutrality PREVENTS data discrimination
  • Yawning!!! Yawning and More yawning.
  • What is wrong with the young people today? They want more Government control while giving away their rights (right to bear arms). I just don't get it.
  • Net neutrality is a nonpartisan issue in every country except America, where the Supreme Court ruled there are no limits on political donations, thereby legalizing the buying of politicians to the highest bidder. The core value of net neutrality is that no internet service provider can favour access speed to any corporate online service or business. It creates a level playing field for new businesses who have equal access to web traffic. Those who oppose net neutrality believe Internet service providers should be able to sell speed & favour businesses willing to pay more & limit competition. The Internet is settled everywhere but America as being thought of as a public utility.... A basic and essential service like electricity, water, or roads, where unlimited access is equal to all.
  • America always has to be the odd one out. FROM Healthcare, to Net Neutrality, our politicans just over complicate anything, with our populace not being better in how easily maniupulated they are by fake news and charlatans.
  • Public isn't manipulated... It's a case of your politicians selling out to special interests & ignoring what is best for American citizens. But yeah... Lol, in another example... the feds refuse to negotiate lower perscription drug prices for the healthcare they administer.
  • If we have for profit Healthcare companies and a long/stringent/expensive medication approval process, we will never be able to control any costs.
  • Manipulated in a way that they continuously vote for those very individuals that sell their principils and what's right for the biggest bidder and special interests.
  • Some Americans are devolving quite rapidly in the past 2 years.
  • Oh yeah, best statement here. Land of the Free: free to get shot, sued, prejudiced, socially shamed, write untruths, red taped, beaten by police, legislated, taxed to death, medicated, road raged, participation trophy'd, mini-vanned, Facebooked, Kardashianed, over insured...yeah it's just wonderful. Bring me back a few decades please.
  • Stop crying, my goodness
  • Shut up or I'll sue you!
  • As the basic modality of communication shifts from POTS (recognized and regulated utility) to IOT, the basic argument against regulating IOT has been, 'it worked fine before'. The Net-Neutrality regulations were brought on because a few LARGE internet providers has figured out they could gate/throttle access based on the source of data content. (ATT tried to get Netflix to pay for your ATT access, Netflix uses their own servers to connect to the Internet).
    So, NO, things weren't fine before.
    It was mostly 'nipped in the bud'.