The Senate has the 30 sponsors it needs to move a bill to the floor to reverse the FCC's decision to repeal net neutrality.

 Courtesy of The Hill:  

A Senate bill that would reverse the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) decision to repeal net neutrality received its 30th co-sponsor on Monday, ensuring it will receive a vote on the Senate floor. 

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) announced her support for the bill on Twitter, putting it over the top of a procedural requirement to bypass committee approval. 

The bill, which is being pushed by Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), would use Congress’s authority under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to reverse the FCC’s rollback of its popular net neutrality rules. 

“We’ve reached the magic number of 30 to secure a vote on the Senate floor, and that number will only continue to climb,” Markey said in a statement Monday. “Republicans are faced with a choice — be on the right side of history and stand with the American people who support a free and open internet, or hold hands with the special interests who want to control the internet for their own profit.”

It should be remembered that net neutrality has overwhelming support from the American people, so these Senators have to keep in mind how this vote will be used against them in their next reelection bid.

That bodes well for the passage of this bill.

Though of course you can bet that communications giants like AT&T and Comcast are going to lobby hard against it.

Might be time to start making some phone calls to our Senators.

Journalist Sarah Kendzior explains that the end of net neutrality may also signal the end of the resistance against Donald Trump.

Courtesy of the the Globe and Mail: 

We Americans may be a captive audience to our reality-TV star who thinks he's an authoritarian, but we are a chatty audience, and our loquaciousness has been our salvation. For nearly a year, we have exercised First Amendment rights like we were working a defibrillator on democracy's damaged heart. We debunked lies, catalogued crimes, demanded justice and created a vast, informal movement dedicated to the pursuit of truth over alternative facts. 

But that may be about to end. Last week, the Federal Communications Commission announced it was planning a sweeping rollback of net neutrality, allowing corporations to decide what content is available online while pricing most citizens out of equal access to information. 

For nearly a year, America has stood at the crossroads of a damaged democracy and a burgeoning autocracy. If net neutrality is destroyed, we will cross firmly into the latter, and our return is unlikely. 

The threat to net neutrality highlights the reliance on social media and an independent press for political organizing in the digital age. Should net neutrality be eliminated, those avenues will likely become curtailed for much of the public or driven out of business due to loss of revenue. Without the means to freely communicate online, citizens will be far less able to challenge the administration. It doesn't matter what cause someone prioritizes: The elimination of net neutrality will impede the ability to understand the cause, discuss it and organize around it.

She's not wrong.

The best bulwark we have against fascism is our 1st Amendment which has now evolved to include our ability to communicate online in a variety of social media platforms.

Including this one.

This is one of those moments in history where a people are confronted with a choice which may determine the survival of their society as it exists in the present.

Just imagine for a moment what it would be like if Donald Trump and his cronies were able to use their connections to big telecom companies to put the squeeze on CNN, MSNBC, Raw Story, Mother Jones, Politico, etc., and quiet their voices to a low murmur in the background.

If you do not think that is ultimately the plan then you have not been paying attention.

P.S. For those of you who do not know who Sarah Kendzior is, here is video of her going off on a representative from Breitbart.

This video went viral again, so a little context. It's from a late Nov 2016 panel at the News XChange conference in Denmark. I was responding to Matthew Boyle of Breitbart, who is seated at the end of the row. https://t.co/OCMuaglwvD

— Sarah Kendzior (@sarahkendzior) November 26, 2017

We are dealing with a lot of important issues right now, but arguably net neutrality is one of the MOST important.

Something to keep in mind.

Next time someone tries to tell you that the internet was fine without #NetNeutrality and it going away will won't change anything just remind them of this... pic.twitter.com/YHJMiWEBSe

— Barnacules Nerdgasm (@Barnacules) November 24, 2017

We busted our asses to put those net neutrality protections in place, and now we need to get off our asses in order to protect what we accomplished.

For more information, and guidance on what you can do, just click here.

Trump's head of the FCC is on track to reverse the 2015 bill on net neutrality.

Courtesy of Reuters:  

The head of the Federal Communications Commission is set to unveil plans next week for a final vote to reverse a landmark 2015 net neutrality order barring the blocking or slowing of web content, two people briefed on the plans said.

In May, the FCC voted 2-1 to advance Republican FCC Chairman Ajit Pai’s plan to withdraw the former Obama administration’s order reclassifying internet service providers as if they were utilities. Pai now plans to hold a final vote on the proposal at the FCC’s Dec. 14 meeting, the people said, and roll out details of the plans next week. 

Pai asked in May for public comment on whether the FCC has authority or should keep any regulations limiting internet providers’ ability to block, throttle or offer “fast lanes” to some websites, known as “paid prioritization.” Several industry officials told Reuters they expect Pai to drop those specific legal requirements but retain some transparency requirements under the order.

The progressives worked hard to get these protections in place, and it will require even more of an effort to protect them. 

Remember every single thing that the Obama Administration accomplished Donald Trump is determined to destroy.

John Oliver hysterically responds to criticism over his attempt to shame the FCC into protecting Net Neutrality.

Courtesy of Raw Story:

John Oliver wasn’t about to let it go when Fox Business News hosts attacked his net neutrality campaign. In previous episodes, Oliver has worked to explain the complicated topic and began a campaign to encourage people to express a plethora of public comments about the opposition to the Federal Election Commission removing independence from internet service providers. 

In a web exclusive, Oliver explained that over 1.6 million comments have been made on both sides of the issue, but Fox took issue with the fact that some were from people saying that their names were “Donald Trump” or “John Oliver.” Other comments were insulting or racist, and Oliver told those commenters to “cut it out.”

Oliver is doing very important work in a very humorous manner, and he deserves nothing but support.

Everybody, and I really mean EVERYBODY, should be helping to protect access to the internet.

Because if you don't think these internet providers would eagerly slow down or interfere with your access to sites like IM, you are sadly mistaken.

I'm pretty sure we are on a list somewhere. 

John Oliver helping us all to protect Net Neutrality.

Courtesy of Raw Story:

One of the first John Oliver segments to gain national attention came in 2014, when he called for viewers to flood the FCC's website with comments opposing net neutrality restrictions. The next day, that site crashed due to “technical difficulties with our comment system.” It was the first of many instances in which Oliver would spur grassroots activism among his viewers, whether it be through pushing a hashtag or flat-out soliciting donations to worthwhile organizations. On Sunday night, Oliver ran back his initial call to action by once again encouraging viewers to visit the FCC's website and make their voices heard. This is because, once again, net neutrality is in trouble.

Two years after Oliver shut down the FCC's website, the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld new net neutrality rules supported by President Barack Obama. "Today’s ruling is a victory for the open, fair, and free Internet as we know it today—one that remains open to innovation and economic growth, without service providers serving as paid gatekeepers," the Obama administration said in a statement. 

Now that Donald Trump is in office, however, that "open, fair and free internet" is in jeopardy. His administration in April announced plans to roll back Obama-era net neutrality protections. 

Here is the link that Oliver is providing to help the American people protect their access to the internet.

And as he says this really is something that should unite ALL of us.

Newly released behind the scenes video shows Sarah Palin pimping "Amazing America" to NRA News and demonstrating why she really needs good writers and a teleprompter to help her make any sense.

Okay talk about disjointed speech patterns.

Currently Palin supporters, and her daughter's ghostwriter, are touting her CPAC speech as an indication of the REAL Sarah Palin. However this behind the scenes interview proves just the opposite.

Palin is all over the place in this interview and seems to be having significant trouble completing one thought before she gets distracted by something else.

You know, like usual.

And Palin's ridiculous argument against the FCC's net neutrality move is almost too stupid to comment on.

By the way the "average citizen" rarely knows what's right when it comes to complicated problems. That's why we go to the experts.

Today, finally, the internet is safe. Update!

Courtesy of USA Today:  

The Federal Communications Commission voted Thursday to implement new net neutrality rules designed to make sure Internet service providers treat all legal content equally. 

The historic vote on the proposal, pitched by FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, elicited hearty cheers from a wide array of technology companies and consumer groups while setting the table for lawsuits from Internet service providers. The controversial proceedings that led up to the vote generated heated lobbying in Washington and public clamor on social media, all in efforts to steer the future direction of the rules that guide Internet traffic. 

"The Internet is too important to allow broadband providers to make the rules," said Wheeler to applause from the standing room-only crowd gathered before the FCC panel. 

"So today after a decade of debate in an open, robust year-long process, we finally have legally sustainable rules to ensure that the Internet stays fast, fair and open," he said.

This is great news for those of us who use the internet for our livelihood.

Update: Here is a note from President Obama to the folks on Reddit for fighting the good fight for net neutrality. 

FCC to save the internet from greedy service providers.

Courtesy of BGR:  

Verizon’s lawsuit against earlier net neutrality rules is about to backfire in a spectacular fashion. The Wall Street Journal reports that the Federal Communications Commission will propose new net neutrality rules that will reclassify ISPs under Title II of the Telecommunications Act and thus open them up to being regulated more like utilities. 

“According to multiple people familiar with the agency’s plan, Mr. Wheeler intends to change the way both mobile and fixed broadband firms are regulated,” the Journal writes. “Rather than being lightly regulated information services, they would become like telecommunications companies, which would subject them to greater regulation on everything from pricing to how they deploy their networks.” 

This would give the FCC the power to stop ISPs from blocking traffic from services that rival their own and from setting up paid prioritization schemes where they would charge money to Internet companies to ensure that their traffic got delivered faster than other companies who don’t pay up.

This of course has angered many service providers like Verizon and AT&T, who had hoped to make huge profits by charging large companies like Netflix more money to allow them faster connection speeds while limiting regular users.

I have to tell you as somebody who relies on the internet for my livelihood I welcome this news with open arms.

I currently pay through the teeth for my internet here in Alaska from GCI, and I really hope that these new regulations will help improve our overall access to bandwidth and also reduce costs.

By the watch to see which politicians start calling this government overreach, big brother tactics, and an attack on capitalism. Because those are the politicians who are in the pocket of big business.

Where Senator Al Franken tries to explain to Ted Cruz what Net Neutrality means.

Courtesy of Raw Story:  

Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) struggled on Sunday to explain to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) why he had been wrong to assert that net neutrality was “Obamacare for the Internet,” and that it would stifle innovation. 

But Franken told CNN’s Candy Crowley that Cruz had the concept of net neutrality “completely wrong.” 

“CNN’s website, [and] a blogger in Duluth, Minnesota travels at the same speed… The New York Times, their website travels the same speed,” Franken pointed out. “That’s the way that it’s been from the beginning. And we want to keep it that way.” 

“He has it completely wrong, he just doesn’t understand what this issue is,” the Minnesota Democrat said of Cruz. “We’ve had net neutrality the entire history of the Internet.” 

Franken observed that “Obamacare was government program that fixed something, that changed things. This is about reclassifying something so it stays the same. This would keep things exactly the same as they’ve been.”

Now I think of Al Franken as a national treasure. He is one of the smartest guys in politics right now, though to be honest that is kind of a low bar.

And when it comes to explaining things he is perhaps one of the very best. Perhaps even better than the "Explainer in Chief" himself, Bill Clinton.

But I can guarantee you that this is not going to change the mind of Ted Cruz one little bit.

And I will even give Cruz credit by saying that he actually DOES understand that what he said is ignorant and wrong.

However he also realizes that his target audience are a bunch of simple minded nose picking morons, who believe that the only thing the internet is good for is finding naked pictures of girls that remind them of their first cousins so that they can touch themselves.

So they will believe without question whatever ridiculous lie that Ted Cruz tells them. 

Alex Jones comes out against Net Neutrality and in support of Ted Cruz. Which essentially tells you everything you need to know about both.

Courtesy of Raw Story:  

“This has been the plan for a decade – free-quote-Wi-Fi that’s paid for by taxpayers, but you have no rights on that Wi-Fi, and you can’t get to InfoWars.com or DrudgeReport.com, that the White House officials have said they want to shut down, basically,” Jones warned this week on his radio program. “So this is it, they’re coming.” 

Jones, who claims to be nonpartisan, promoted a widely mocked statement by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who misrepresented the president’s statements on regulating Internet service providers like utilities to claim “net neutrality is Obamacare for the Internet,” reported Right Wing Watch. 

“Bottom line, ladies and gentlemen: Obamacare is now moving to the Internet,” Jones said. “Federal regulation and control written for select corporations, right out of the FCC to shut down all of their competition, and Republican leaders – to their credit, have now come out with statements … saying that it is Obamacare for the Internet.” 

“That’s what Ted Cruz has come out and said,” the broadcaster said. “I like Ted Cruz, he knows what he’s talking about.”

Okay so Jones, who has also been quite chummy with another potential 2016 GOP presidential candidate Rand Paul,  has COMPLETELY misrepresented net neutrality here. What it does is the exact opposite of what he says it does, which of course is how the Right Wing addresses things they don't like of don't understand.

I think Alex Jones promoting Ted Cruz is a good thing, in that it allows rational people to realize just who is drawn in by the message Cruz is putting out.

I mean hell if crazy people like your crazy message, than it would be crazy NOT to run for President of the United States. Right?

President Obama's move to protect net neutrality is good for everybody except powerful service providers, so that means the Right Wing is coming after him with torches and pitchforks.

Courtesy of The Washington Post:  

President Obama on Monday called for the government to aggressively regulate Internet service providers such as Verizon and Comcast, treating broadband like a public utility as essential as water, phone service and electricity. 

Such a move would have a dramatic effect on cable and telecom firms that have fought vigorously to keep their highly profitable Internet businesses free of regulation. 

This is Obama's most aggressive statement yet in favor of a free and open Internet and against allowing Internet service providers to charge content companies like Netflix for faster access to their customers. The president's statement, released online Monday while he traveled to Asia, calls for the FCC to adopt the strictest rules possible for ensuring so-called net neutrality, or the principle that all Internet traffic should be treated equally. 

"I believe the FCC should create a new set of rules protecting net neutrality and ensuring that neither the cable company nor the phone company will be able to act as a gatekeeper, restricting what you can do or see online," Obama said in a statement.

Of course for somebody like me, whose entire day is spent on the internet and who has a local service provider trying to bleed me dry, this is incredibly welcome news.

We absolutely need more regulation to protect us from monopolies that have customers in a vice grip, and to protect online businesses from having to pay extra money to stream their content, the cost of which invariably gets passed on to the consumer.

So because this is clearly a great idea for most Americans, conservatives hate it.

Of course most are not quite as batshit crazy about it as Ted Cruz:

"Net Neutrality" is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government.
— Senator Ted Cruz (@SenTedCruz) November 10, 2014

I don't even know what the hell that means.

However the folks over at The Oatmeal have made an effort to educate Ted Cruz.

Here of course is the real reason that big telecoms and their political surrogates like Ted Cruz are going to fight this thing, and why it could ultimately be a godsend to folks like you and me: 

Right now, no one is really talking about rates: The main concern is balancing access to the internet with investment by the private sector. The FCC wants to make sure it can prevent internet service providers from discriminating against traffic, and US courts have made pretty clear that the best way to do this is to classify the internet as a “common carrier,” as Obama endorsed today. The FCC has the powers to regulate common carriers across a variety of arenas, including preventing unreasonable discrimination. 

But one other thing that the FCC can do with a common carrier is ensure that its rates are “just and reasonable.” For instance, the FCC doesn’t allow phone companies to charge more than $6.50 for a single line, so that all Americans can afford access. Similar pricing rules are in place at electricity plants. If the internet is regulated under Title II, the government could come up with a similar cap on how much companies can charge for internet access.

Of course currently there is no mention of this in what the President is suggesting, and I understand why, but ultimately I would like to know that such regulations on how much providers can charge customers might be in the offing.

However even without that component to this change the idea is still very sound and would protect companies, and their consumers, from the type of abuse that we know is coming soon. And in some cases is already here.

Last week President Obama addressed Net Neutrality. What he said gives me hope.

Courtesy of ARS Technica:

“There are a lot of aspects to net neutrality,” Obama said in response to a question at an event hosted by Cross Campus in Santa Monica, CA. “I know one of the things people are most concerned about is paid prioritization, the notion that somehow, some folks can pay a little more money and get better service, more exclusive access to customers through the Internet. That’s something I oppose. I was opposed to it when I ran; I continue to be opposed to it now.” 

Obama pointed out that the FCC is “an independent agency” but said he wants the commission to prevent paid prioritization. 

“My appointee, [FCC Chairman] Tom Wheeler, knows my position,” Obama said. “Now that he’s there, I can’t just call him up and tell him exactly what to do. But what I’ve been clear about, what the White House has been clear about, is that we expect whatever final rules to emerge to make sure that we’re not creating two or three or four tiers of Internet.”

I know a lot of people are not really concerned about, or paying much attention to, the issue of net neutrality. 

But as an independent blogger, with no big corporation to back me, this is constantly on my mind.

So hearing that the President is firmly in my camp makes me feel much better about this going forward. 

In what can only be described as brilliant, John Oliver somehow gets FCC Chairman Tom Walker to publicly deny that he is an Australian dingo.

Courtesy of Consumerist:

A couple weeks back, HBO’s John Oliver questioned whether it was wise to fill the FCC Chairman vacancy with former cable/wireless lobbyist Tom Wheeler, likening the decision to a parent hiring a dingo as a babysitter. Wheeler takes issue with the comparison and is now publicly denying that he is a child-devouring canine. 

In the original 13-minute segment from Last Week Tonight, Oliver referred to Wheeler’s previous jobs as president of wireless lobbying group CTIA and of the National Cable and Telecom Association. 

“The guy who used to run the cable industry’s lobbying arm is now running the agency tasked with regulating it,” quipped Oliver at the time. “That is the equivalent of needing a babysitter and hiring a dingo.” 

At last week’s open meeting of the full commission, Brendan Sasso of the National Journal asked Wheeler if he’d seen the Last Week Tonight piece on net neutrality. 

“I think that it represents the… um… high level of interest [makes bizarre snuffle-laugh-chuckle] that exists in the topic in the country,” replied a very slow-speaking Chairman, “And that’s good.” 

Then comes an amazing few seconds during which Wheeler stands silently, the only sound coming from his fingers tapping on the podium, before he deadpans, “Uhhhhmmm… You know, I would like to state for the record that I’m not a dingo… I had to go look it up; it’s a feral, wild animal in Australia.

This made me laugh so hard.

You know I was not as impressed with Oliver's stint at hose of the Daily Show during Jon Stewart's absence, but damn he is really hitting his stride with this new show.

In fact he is really giving Stewart and Colbert a run for their money.

John Oliver explains net neutrality in the most entertaining way possible. Update!

Net neutrality is possibly one of the most important issues of our day, but it is very hard to explain to people in way that gets them motivated to do something to protect it.

In fact I have only posted about it once, which considering that my blogging could be adversely affected by the loss of neutrality is pretty shameful on my part.

However in the above video, which runs a very reasonable thirteen plus minutes, Oliver does the impossible.

He explains net neutrality in a totally NON-boring manner, and also gets you fired up to protect it.

So please take the time to visit FCC.GOV/COMMENTS and let them know that you will not stand for any "cable company fuckery."

Update: Courtesy of Raw Story:

Many of our commenters noted that the FCC comment page that Oliver pointed to, FCC.gov/comments, appeared to be down for most of the day, either suggesting wonderful irony or that Oliver's call to action has been monumentally successful. The FCC has put up some tweets in which it apologizes for technical difficulties, without explaining why they were occurring beyond "heavy traffic." 

Who said that liberals can't take direction?

Darrell Issa tries to earn brownie points from internet users by kissing up to Reddit. Reddit bitchslaps him instead.

Seriously how smart can these so-called "Redditors" be?

Courtesy of CNN:

In an unusual step, a U.S. congressman is proposing a two-year ban on all new federal legislation regulating the Internet. 

Rep. Darrell Issa, a Republican from California who has been an advocate for Internet freedoms, has posted online a draft of his legislation, the Internet American Moratorium Act of 2012. The bill would "create a two-year moratorium on any new laws, rules or regulations governing the Internet." 

Issa first posted the complete text of the bill Monday on Project Madison, the nickname for a crowdsourcing platform that allows citizens to amend individual passages of legislation by adding or striking language. On Tuesday, he posted a link to the bill on Reddit, the social news site, where users quickly voted it to the top. 

"Together, we can make Washington take a break from messing w/ the Internet," Issa said on Reddit, where he also invited users to suggest changes to the proposed bill. He said he will begin taking questions about it from Reddit users Wednesday morning.

I don't trust Darrell Issa as far as I can throw him, and someday I'd like to find out just how far that might be, and the overwhelmingly liberal users of Reddit were no less suspicious. Here are a few of the responses that he received:

Hey Darrell, why did you vote for CISPA? 

He's a wolf in sheep's clothing. He doesn't support SOPA, but was a co-sponsor of CISPA because it wasn't as widely publicized. He's been constantly lying to everybody regarding his stance on net neutrality for the past two years. 

His legislation's name is as Orwellian as the PATRIOT Act, come to think of it. Issa's shown himself to be a sleaze time and again...I'm certain he has an ulterior motive. 

Internet lawyer here. This bill, as currently drafted, is a bogus, apparently fraudulent attempt to impose a wholesale ban on all federal regulations regardless of their impact on the internet. Reddit, we are being pandered to by a Republican Party whose future existence is threatened by its tanking approval ratings among the "young."

There were a few who tried to come to Issa's aid and provide a more neutral response, but overall there was mostly open hostility and anger at the idea that he thought they were that easily manipulated.

Overall it was very gratifying to see that the Redditors, mostly comprised of the very young people who we are counting on to move this country forward, did not fall for what I believe was a fairly obvious attempt to gain their support in a transparently sneaky fashion.

Perhaps Issa might think twice before trying this kind of bullshit again.

P.S. For those few who have never heard of Reddit, let me cautiously provide a link. However be warned, hours of very productive time may be lost forever if you visit.