Slashdot Mirror
Democrats, Minority Groups Question Net Neutrality Push
uuddlrlrab writes "A group of 72 Democratic lawmakers is the latest to question the US Federal Communications Commission's move to create new net neutrality regulations. Democrats, including US President Barack Obama, have generally supported new rules that would prohibit broadband providers from selectively blocking or slowing Web content, but the group of 72 members of the House of Representatives sent a letter Thursday to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, saying they're concerned that new regulations would slow down investment in broadband networks. A coalition of minority groups made their objections known as well, saying, 'We are concerned that some of the proposed regulations on the Internet could, as applied, inhibit the goal of universal access and leave disenfranchised communities further behind.' This follows news from earlier in the week that similar letters were sent by a group of 44 tech companies and a group of 18 Republican senators."
It's worth noting that the FCC is receiving letters in support of the net neutrality regulations as well. One such is from a group of internet pioneers, which includes Vint Cerf and Stephen Crocker.
These are utilities and common carriers. They're supposed to work for US
No, these are for-profit companies. They work for their shareholders ("themselves").
The group of Democrats that have been suckered in by the propaganda become their stooges, once again. They won't learn. But why should they as long as their own campaign finances are good.... filled and lined by the telcos?
Then perhaps, vote for their competitors. Or campaign by yourself. I question that there is any need for the federal government to intevene. Let's let a few states do net neutrality, let a few other states not support net neutrality, and see what happens.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
With people like you, Europe would have been nazi. Asia would have been massacred until it was 100% communist, or worshipped the mikado and the US would likely be fighting a war for survival. If the Soviets combined forces with said mikado, they would likely win. I wonder if statements like this mean that you are pro-Nazi, pro-Soviet and pro everyone who ever went to far. Surely you are in favor of kidnapping children of anyone with a competing religion ("devshirme"), for example ? Otherwise you wouldn't be pro-peace.
War is not good, but violence is the basis of society. Whether we're talking protecting the weak from the (physically) strong, division of resources, or borders. Violence always was, is, and always will be the basis for civilization. And if you don't agree with me, think that peace is more important, I will personally come and hit you hard in the face until you agree with me, or die. If you do hit back, or call the police, you're obviously dishonest.
Right, he'll just handily get that all fixed before jetting off to the Mideast, make peace between Israel and their neighbors, create a new Palestinian state, convince the militants in both Iraq and Afghanistan to lay down their arms, thus ending both wars and magically transforming both nations into corruption-free democratic-republics just like us, convince Iran to stop their nuclear program, and make OPEC fall in love with the U.S. and give us free oil just long enough until we get our energy policy sorted, which should be by, ohhh, say noonish Monday? After that, he'll return for a relaxing weekend of writing up a new healthcare plan that makes everybody happy and cures all disease instantly! Of course, being a magic negro, he won't need sleep, and he'll spend Sunday night into Monday morning crafting aforementioned energy policy, which he'll handily convince congress to implement before lunchtime. With all that tackled, he'll be free to casually move on to simpler issues like the worldwide recession, world hunger, and violence and repression in Africa, all of which couldn't possibly take him, what, two, three days tops? Amirite?
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo
If the ISP's are treated as content providers, then the Fairness Doctrine will have more impact when it gets reapplied - they can try to force ATT, Comcast, L3, etc. to manipulate their traffic in a way that promotes "fairness". So the carriers could be forced to, say, throttle traffic from Rush Limbaugh's website so that its traffic level matches, say, Public Radio International (PRI). Or the NRA's website until it matches the Brady campaign.
Slashdot really needs a new mod-tag: "-1: Insane nutburger who's off his medication."
... and then they built the supercollider.