[2017]

I had a "I feel like this already happened" moment reading the article. This clears it up.

What clued me in to even check was that both houses of Congress would have had to have passed this, and that makes no sense today.

So long ago that the resolution was introduced by Jeff Flake, that legendary lion of staunch opposition to Trump...

FTA: "...the backlash was overinflated given that the FCC rules never went into effect and that popular websites not covered by the regulations also use customers’ data for advertisements."

"AT&T, Comcast and Verizon — put out blog posts on Friday decrying what they saw as a misinformation campaign against the bill.

They argued that..."

I intentionally omitted that bit because I didn't want to prejudice the bit I did quite. If something is true, does it matter who stated it?

Where is the true part? I see the subjective word "overinflated" and a misdirection about what "popular websites" do.

This is more a case of a press release being a press release no mater who says it.

True that people shouldn't be upset because they repelled a bill sooner than it could be implemented? How does that change anything if people wanted the bill.

Is there any thing positive about repealing this bill?

From the article's claims, everyone wanted this bill and Trump just tore it up because he hates Obama so much.

That may very well be the case but I believe there are three sides to every story. (Eg. The Reporters side, Trumps side, and finally somewhere in between is the truth).

So I would ask again, does anyone feel brave enough to face the wrath of the mob and provide a legitimate reason why Trumps choice in repealing this bill might have some merit?

Possibly stopping internet bullies, phisisng schemes, pedophiles, mass shootings or terrorists? Anything at all?