This is one step in a larger fight. Cenk Uygur and John Iadarola, hosts of The Young Turks, discuss. To get even more TYT in your life, go to https://TYT.com/app and download our free app!
Read more here: https://www.vox.com/2018/5/16/17360318/net-
"The Senate voted by a narrow margin on Wednesday to preserve net neutrality and repeal a controversial Federal Communications Commission ruling to dismantle it. But the fight is far from over.
A vote to open debate on the ruling passed 52-47, after which the vote on the ruling itself also passed 52-47. Going into the debate, the creator of the Senate resolution, Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA), seemed confident petitioners had the votes needed to push the measure through the Senate. In the final vote, a few Republicans swung in favor of the ruling, including Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), John N. Kennedy (R-LA), and Susan Collins (R-ME).
The petition allowed Congress to undo the FCC’s December repeal of net neutrality using the Congressional Review Act (CRA), which lets Congress reverse — and, crucially, permanently block — any federal regulation with a simple majority vote.”*
Hosts: Cenk Uygur, John Iadarola
Cast: Cenk Uygur, John Iadarola
The Largest Online News Show in the World. Hosted by Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian. LIVE STREAMING weekdays 6-8pm ET. http://www.tytnetwork.com/live
Subscribe to The Young Turks on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=theyoungturks
Like The Young Turks on Facebook: http://facebook.com/theyoungturks
Follow The Young Turks on Twitter: http://twitter.com/theyoungturks
Buy TYT Merch: http://www.shoptyt.com
Download audio and video of the full two hour show on-demand + the members-only post game show by becoming a member at http://www.tytnetwork.com/join/. Your membership supports the day to day operations and is vital for our continued success and growth.
Young Turk (n), 1. Young progressive or insurgent member of an institution, movement, or political party. 2. A young person who rebels against authority or societal expectations.(American Heritage Dictionary)
Yah but the ISPs issue more bribes, so as far as republican politicians are concerned, net neutrality is evil. Currently, the republicans have a larger majority in the House than the senate so flipping a couple ones to care about what America wants and needs won't be enough.
This is the right thing to do, but I am always cynical as to the reason this made it through the Senate. The legislators who voted for this were certainly lobbied by huge corporations like Google and Facebook who were opposed to the repeal of net neutrality. Gone are the days of truly principled votes. The money is all that matters anymore.
"for the first time Google and Facebook are on the right side of history"... not actually rare for them to be on the right side of history... they often are. The problem is with that fascist administration, Google and Facebook will soon be used to go after political enemies, so the rest of the world should force them to hold all personal information for Europe in Europe, China in China and so on. And not just hold, but under constant supervision by the locals.
I see it passing the house. Moderate Republicans will help pass this bill. Trust me, with the farm bill dead we are gaining momentum. (moderate Republicans weren't the ones who helped kill this bill but it gave Dems more momentum we need)
Americans talk about net neutrality as if the US government controls the entire world's internet and makes the rules.
Guys, this only affects the US and it's ISP's. Net neutrality exists in other countries under their own governments and then there are other countries where net neutrality actually doesn't exist in fact.
VFORVENOM It depends. It would affect other nations as well because US-based services such as Netflix are also used by those who do not live in the US. If Netflix were to get bumped to a premium lane, it would affect every Netflix user, not just US-based users.
Forgive my ignorance not from US but a Bill needs to pass in the Senate vote, then it moves onto the House vote and if it passes both the President has to agree to sign it into Law, if he Veto's the bill in its current form it has to be amended and pass through the Houses again, correct?
You don't don't have multiple readings and chances for amendments as a bill is voted through both houses (Commons and Lords) like in the UK before it gets ratified, just a once through if nothing changes?
bigdaz7272...Yes & NO. If Trump vetoes it, it goes back to congress & if they can get a 2/3's vote it becomes law without the Presidents signature. They don't have to amend it.
It could work the way you described by amending it & again giving it to the President if they're unable to get a 2/3's vote.
The objective isn't to win the vote, it's to make the issue largely known and force political parties to take their stance on the issue. With the midterms coming up, and with the House's opinions on the matter on the record, we can pressure them with our votes and threaten their chances in the upcoming elections. We are trying make the house and the current administration understand that the majority of the American people want to keep net neutrality, and if they refuse to give to us, we refuse to give them our votes and refuse to support them in any way.
net neutrality helps the GOP base as well as the democratic base. without net neutrality, trump would've never gotten elected and hillary would be president. that's not a statement against net neutrality at all but instead a point to the GOP that voted against net neutrality about biting the hand that feeds you and just how out of touch they are when it comes to how influential the internet is. their side can and has used it effectively to help them the same way that .......then again, net neutrality could be seen as a threat to the corporate donors who would like to gain more control over the content that is on the internet. that's seems to be all these senators and congressman care about and so of course they .......now i get it. :D
So it's Obama's fault that republicans are trying to destroy net neutrality because Obama didn't manage to get a congress dominated by republicans to ever sign on anything with his name on it? Same for Iran? Seriously? The party of "personal responsibility" is full of s***.
As for warning the Iranians that they, the republican party, would start warmongering as soon as back in office just tells you how committed to wars that party is. Also, since the republicans dominate congress and the WH house currently, a treaty wouldn't be in any way more secure.
Luckily, there is a solution: throw all republicans out of office. There, solved.
Jo Pao that they CAN do it.
Same with Iran Deal. Because congress did not pass it it is NOT a law. It is an executive order. An ink thin bandaid. Notice how I support Net Neutrality saying it should be a law.
Obama wanted legacy points he didn't care for long term. So he executive branched it into existence and now you are left holding an empty bag.
The republicans warned Iran about this. If they signed this deal they would run the risk of another president stepping in and just whiping it off the table.
The Irani aren't that experienced with democracy you see.
I see Q People or I seek Ewe People. "Baaaa'd!" that's what she(ep) said.
Hey! It's EweToo(b). Be sure to check auto-sheep, I mean, ship. Wanna know how to differentiate between BS and Bias? BS makes scents.
quleughy it’s isnt conflating anything retard. Both take money. Hence both are influenced by their corporate/ wealthy donors hat help them get re-elected
It’s literally the most obvious thing in the world
wannabchomsky Really? Because it seems like it’s the “both parties take corporate money” types who focus on a single issue (corporate money in politics) to conflate the two, while the rest of us have been paying attention to the many other issues where, you know, they disagree.
Zotan Inoron “Isn’t a lot of difference”? Sure, buddy. Okay. Let’s just ignore the contrasting stances both parties have on the ACA, social security, Medicare, taxes, gun control, reproductive rights, sex education, contraception access, teaching creationism in the class rooms, lgbt rights, the voting rights act, climate change, alternative energy, social welfare programs, DACA, immigration, and of course net neutrality. But sure, if you ignore all those things, the two parties have very few differences.
You want more issues with such divided votes? How about the Iraq war? Or that awful last tax bill? Maybe the Iran nuclear deal? Or Citizen United? Clearly the dems can be fuckups too, but nowhere near as constantly as the "conservatives".
Greg B you chose a single vote on a single issue, and think this is representative of the parties general voting pattern as being corporatist republican lites?
You are retarded... please stop embarrassing yourself
Vera Nika true but this was done to try to secure more Republican votes. If, for whatever reason, the blue tidal wave doesn't happen (and if it doesn't happen it will be because the Russians ensure it doesn't happen, especially if the sanctions and Magnitsky Act are still being enforced) the Republicans will get rid of Net Neutrality - it will be one of the first things they do. One thing for sure is no one can assume that the Dems will take control of any of the branches. Toppling the regime is going to take work.
Or vote progressive (and hope they actually stick to their guns after the old school dems have been ousted.)
Just to clarify -- there's a distinction made (not just by me) between "progressive" democrats and "establishment" democrats. Those who make the distinction are referring to the latter when saying they're basically the same as republicans. Progressives are practically a whole new party with wholly different views building up within the dem's shell. (And yes, I think it would be awesome if we could see some progressive republicans as well and get politics back to being about issues rather than party affiliation.. but it doesn't seem to really be happening over on that side.)
They're the same in the sense that they all work for their donors instead of for you. Apparently in this case, Verizon and Comcast didn't think to pay off the Democrats. Or perhaps Google/Facebook/Apple/whoever just paid them more.
*"+SpurnOfHumanity my point is that everyone is entitled to an opinion and it must be respected"*
Absolutely not! Everyone is *entitled* to their opinion. That is what is to be respected.
The opinion itself, if bad, is not worth respecting.
For instance, you're entitled to think that all fat people are evil. I would respect your right to hold that view. But I don't respect that view itself.
As to my original point, specifically, they have the right to vote in any way they please. And I have a right to viciously disagree with their vote. That's democracy working in both ways.
That is really no point when you understand what Net Neutrality is. A vote against it is like a vote against competition in the markets and free trade on the internet of ideas and solutions. Everything the US stands for economically. I mean seriously you might as well hang a sign that says, "I am for big businesses and monopolies!".
cool, Democrats in office only fight for things that have been lost. At this rate, people are going to have to lose a host of things before the party starts acting like it representing the people, and even then we'd just be back to this shithole that is the current Presidency and political state
Because politics. Trump would have to... eh, I don't feel like explaining it. He'd look like a chump, and be going against the majority of people including the ones who voted for him and out himself as bought and corrupt.
The internet is something that effects everyone in the country including most members of congress. I think this bill is going to get more votes in the house than people think. And if this bill passes the house, I'm not worried about POTUS veto. If it passes the house, that means they more than likely have enough votes in the Senate to override the veto. I suspect Republican members of Congress don't want their internet messed with anymore than they want their electricity or their hot water messed with which is bad for lobbyist. I wonder why none of these talkin heads seems to be making this Common Sense argument
Aaron Wantuck selling out their mothers and children is easy for these guys. The question is, how many of these guys would sell themselves out. How many members of Congress would vote against their own best interest to increase their net worth? We'll find out when the House votes
The internet isn't going anywhere. What it will do is get significantly more expensive for average users. For you and me, our $100 internet bill suddenly tripling (to get similar levels of service) is a tough pill to swallow. But most members of Congress are at least millionaires. Another $2400/yr for them is practically pocket change.
Of course there will be cheaper options available for us plebs, but they will be significantly more restrictive than what we've gotten accustomed to over the past 20ish years. Primarily (assuming they invent no new horrors,) this is likely to come in the form of tiered "fast lane" packages, and while the rest of the internet will still be generally accessible, anything outside of the packages you purchase will be horrendously slow by comparison. Like maybe 20-50mbps while your "packaged" sites run at 100+mbps or something along those lines.
They may also try metered billing at some point but as far as I know there's nothing preventing that anyway and even cell phones have been moving away from the practice as consumers absolutely hate it and the first mover would probably get themselves crushed unless they severely underpriced their plans for the first few years while the rest of the industry switched over and consumers just no longer have a choice. This one seems pretty unlikely in the short(ish) term but I wouldn't count it out completely when any questioning of practices like zero-rating is removed from the debate. Zero rating is already treading on very thing ice with respect to net neutrality but getting rid of NN clears that right up.
Isn't there a veto proof number of votes they could get? Not that it will ever happen but pretty sure if they get a certain number of votes, Trump can't veto it. Or is that not possible because the Senate only won by 5 votes.
davelanger it is possible to override the president’s veto, however in this case the measure passed in the senate but will probably fail in the House since the Reps have the majority. Unfortunately, if the House shoots it down it doesn’t go the the president to be signed.
how you allowed this shit cow,penis,monkey worshiping subhuman to head this important institution. this shit disgusting Indian must be sent to his shithole poverty stricken India, otherwise he will forget himself and shit in Washington monument in the middle of Washington, DC, thinking he is in India.
When Are They Going To Impeach Him, He Has His Foof In The Door, To Start Dictating, Just Like Putin, He Has His Hands On Everything, Every Button He Will Be Abole To Push Will Make Progress,,,American People Will Be Sorry They Let Him Go This Long,
Oh for Fuck's sake. No it is not you stupid moron. There is nothing wrong with government regulation that protects consumers. You have it when you use electricity, the regulations to make sure you have clean water free from certain deposits like lead, the food you buy in the supermarket is not rotting and will not kill you, prescription drug testing, and the list goes on and on.
All Net Neutrality says is that the ISP can not favor or block websites even if those websites offer better services then they do. Like Netflix.
I've grown skeptical to the point that an honest dialogue has to be had with Net Neutrality. As liberals (myself included formerly) have framed it, it's all sunshine and rainbows. But I have done some more research (it's hard to find a decent rebuttal but it can be done). Particularly with T-Mobile's "binge-on" service where they provide unlimited data to certain partners (which now includes Netflix, I believe). This is a grey area that needs discussion. T-Mobile provides this service by "throttling" (really downgrading the video to 480P). But I think this is a valuable service that they're providing at a cost of bandwidth. I think, as long as they are upfront about the service (which they aren't exactly), this is a legitimate use of "throttling".
This is a dumb attempt at a giveaway to Google, Netflix, and Facebook. They are driving the demand for more bandwidth due to their overwhelming use of streaming 4K traffic and don't want to pay for the network upgrades. Instead, they want YOU to pay for it.
Let me ask you a question. When Ford started to make more cars affordable and people began to use them, was it For's responsibility to build better roads? When TV's and computers were created was it the TV manufactures and say IBM's job to build power plants?
Your logic is as stupid as when older neighborhoods start upgrading their home's cooling systems to AC from say evaporative cooling. If the electric company needs to update your transformer to handle the load since the transformer on the street level that the entire block uses can not handle the load they charge with its replacement. Everyone else benefits especially the other homes that change over to AC in the future but you were forced to pay for something that is not your responsibility since you already pay them to provide you a service and then pay to use that service.
It is not Google, Netflix, and Facebook's responsibility to build a stronger infrastructure to handle the increasing load. It is the company who is providing that service. Telecoms since they profit from people using Google, Netflix, and Facebook. After all Google, Netflix and Facebook spend money to create more content for you to consume in the hopes they get your business.
Viagra Plus is a new formulation of world-known medication enhanced with the most active and reliable herbs that give you a new feeling of unlimited potency, over-whelming desire and incomparable endurance. Levitra cheap us pharmacy no prescription