Slashdot Mirror
GOP Senators Move To Block FCC On Net Neutrality
suraj.sun writes "Seven Republican senators have announced a plan to curb the Obama administration's push to impose controversial Net neutrality regulations on the Internet."
"The FCC's rush to take over the Internet is just the latest example of the need for fundamental reform to protect consumers," says Sen. Jim DeMint, who I'm sure truly only has the consumer's needs at heart — since his campaign contributions list AT&T in his top five donating organizations.
How about the FCC's action on Comcasts' interference with BitTorrent traffic?
Palm trees and 8
If you look at the "major political campaign donations" lists, I believe telecoms have overwhelmingly given to Democrats as well... as have most tech companies. For AT&T specifically, they favor Republicans by 2% at the moment. It has shifted back and forth.
This is regulation of the companies so they can't regulate the internet, so to speak. Slashdot has always been for net neutrality.
And READ THE -~=*FRIENDLY*=~- ARTICLE. All of it.
DeMint's received contributions from ATT: $37,500. Total Funding Received: $6.33M
As far as Candidates receiving funds from Computer and Internet Industries: DeMint ranks #35.
Telecom Services & Equipment: #20.
Both of those rankings are WELL below several names of Democrats.
If DeMint's in anybody's back pocket it's Old People. Retirement. Insurance. Real Estate. Securities and Investment.
Quoted:
"In theory, many Democrats favor Net neutrality. President Obama recently reiterated through a spokesman that he remains "committed" to the idea, as have some Democratic committee chairmen.
But theory doesn't always mesh with political practice. More than 70 House Democrats sent a letter to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski instructing him to abandon his Net neutrality plans. A majority of Congress now opposes Genachowski's proposals. "
I'm sorry, what were we talking about again?
It is bad for specific, very large, very profitable, very influential corporations who currently happen to enjoy local and regional monopolies or duopolies.
I am somewhat conflicted on the whole issue, but to me giving a government agency ANY authority over the content on the internet is a huge flashing red light and and potential slippery slope
And I agree with you. Fortunately, net neutrality has NOTHING AT ALL to do with content.
Net neutrality means this, and only this: all packets are created equal. Comcast has to treat packets originating from Google the same as those originating from Bing, and treat packets sent in response to http requests the same as packets sent in response to ftp requests. That's all it is. The whole thing, right there. Content has absolutely nothing to do with it. And the ONLY role the FCC has in this is enforcement of this simple rule.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Called my Senator's office and gave my opinion. I keep their numbers in my phone so this kind of thing is easy to do.
Everybody (US Citizens) should call theirs to shoot this bill down. The FCC has been doing a good job so far to protect consumers. There's no need to limit them like this. You can find your senator's contact information here: http://senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
When you call the number, just tell the person who answers that you'd like to give your opinion. They will ask for your name and address and what message you wish to pass along to the senator. You might get a letter back in the mail concerning your opinions and what actually happened with the bill. You can hang these letters on your fridge and any ladies passing by will be impressed with your official correspondence with the government.
http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
Uhhh... Newsflash: this moral panic was brought to you by social conservatives. You know, people who almost always vote Republican.
And the previous comment was brought to you by the willfully ignorant and political ideology blinded. However, it's not too late as he can still read the article, but I can't guarantee that anything will ever open his mind.. Here's a snippet that may help him get educated.
"But theory doesn't always mesh with political practice. More than 70 House Democrats sent a letter to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski instructing him to abandon his Net neutrality plans. A majority of Congress now opposes Genachowski's proposals."
and
"The new bill--called the Freedom for Consumer Choice Act, or FCC Act--doesn't eliminate the FCC's power over broadband providers. But that power would be narrowed in scope, and come to resemble the antitrust enforcement power of the Department of Justice."
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Look you troll, she was talking about something she did wrong. If you see the whole video, not the FOXNews version you will see this was about a time in her life when she learned to change, not what people should do.
The simple answer to why fox news beats other cables news channels is their lack of news. Rather than reporting they concentrate on angering crazed rednecks.
Did you listen to all 40+ minutes of her talk? This is a woman whose father was murdered by a white man when she was 16 years old. She had reason to dislike white people. It's a story about how she overcame her racism and came to understand it was more about the haves and have nots than race. When you cherry pick a line or two to make a point opposite to the point the speaker was trying to make I'd call it butchering.
Negative user feedback requires both consumer choice and consumer awareness. Amazon and Comcast could simply keep their dirty dealings secret.
They have nowhere else to go. The businesses understand this very well, which is why they cry out against Net Neutrality.
No, it doesn't exist. There have been numerous stories on this very website discussing htis matter. But even if it did, the profit potential by abusing customers is simply too great in a market with such high barriers of entry for losing the lucky few who can choose to matter.
This is in an outright lie. Net Neutrality means that an ISP may not throttle or block traffick based on what remote machine it's going to or coming from. Of course they can still offer different connection speeds for different pay.
I already pay for bandwidth. Net Neutrality simply makes it impossible for the ISP to try and make the other endpoint of my communications also pay.
This, again, is a lie.
This is a non-sequitur based on your earlier lies.
You're either an astroturfer being paid to spread lies, a libertarian spreading lies due to ideology, or a moron who has no idea what you're talking about. Which one is it?
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.