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.
What is wrong with the way that Internet has been run for the last 20 years? Nothing, and when something did go a little awry they got hit with a civil lawsuit and it got fixed real quick. The FCC is the same organization which fines stations for saying words that are deemed inappropriate and finds the showing of skin offensive. What is to stop the FCC from imposing those same standards on the Internet? So the FCC gives us net neutrality, but at the same time starts censoring the web the same way it does public airwaves. Is that really what you want?
When did Democrats start leaning left? When last I checked, they were a centrist party.
Palm trees and 8
>>>What makes you think the FCC is trying to protect consumers?
Gee, I don't know . . . Vaccination Programs, School Lunches, Schools, in general, The road you drive on, The Internet I'm typing on, Social Security, Medicare, Food Stamps
Somebody can't read.
Probably a product of the
government school monopoly.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>>>A totally biased, lying, piece of shit ultra conservative program that makes it's own definition of news is followed by millions of sheep in the US.
Let's examine that shall we? Over-the-air broadcast television which is regulated by the FCC breaks-down like so:
Liberal: ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS
Conserv: None.
Or if I include cable television (which is private and not regulated):
Liberal: ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, MSNBC, CNN
Conserv: FNC
I think your statement that the media is dominated by conservative news is in error.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Apparently you're flamebait, and I'm a troll. Moderation gone berserk.
I'm amazed at the pure, child-like faith that people here have of the government. They take a one-line versio of several hundred pages of law, and argue that nobody sane can disagree with the law, since that one line is unassailable.
The government is not your mommy and daddy, people. Power is too concentrated already.
Dream on. Fox News is by far the largest AND fastest growing news network in the US. By contrast, CNN and MSNBC ratings are plummeting. The reason for this is that while its presentation is over the top (just like MSNBCs) and as a "news" channel it is certainly biased (just like MSNBC), its message is basically right (very much unlike MSNBC) and people recognize this.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
I did watch the whole video and it is still unacceptable that a government official in that position was so blatantly racist, even if she did "see the light" in the end. As I said, the main story is the nodding heads and overall approval from the NAACP audience before they knew what the ending of the story will be.
Fox News beats other cable news channels is because their message is basically right and people recognize this. MSNBC is trying to adopt the same methods and it is failing spectacularly because it is not about the methods but about the underlying philosophy.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Thanks for quoting back most of my post to me, I love seeing my words cited. But I have to tell you, since I'm the one who wrote it, I sort of already knew what it said.
Did you have a point in any of that, or were you just so excited that somebody said something Rachel Maddow would disagree with, you had to repeat it?
I'm well aware that socialism, when combined with proper amounts of fairy dust, kitten whiskers, double rainbows, and the earnest wishes of 6 year olds, will eliminate "social inequalities". I'm also well aware that it doesn't do that in practice, because all socialism does is concentrate wealth in the hands of the central government, which special interests then wrestle with each other to control - often with bloody results.
I can do that too! Watch me:
There is the government, and there are corporations. If your mind can't understand that those are functionally indistinguishable today, and that neither of them works with YOUR interests in mind, then your mind and your opinions are useless and logically incoherent.
Perhaps you could try *making* a point then, rather than just disagreeing with what I've said via innuendo and sneer?
If you wanted to discuss "social democracy", that's not what I (or the post I responded to) were talking about, and in fact we specifically *stated* that the topic was "socialism" and socialist ideology.
But I'm heartened to know that socialism has eliminated (or even "greatly reduced") social inequality everywhere it's been implemented. Thanks for the examples - oh wait, you didn't provide any.
Straw men. You has them.
Ad hominem attacks! YAY! Perhaps you'd like to compare me to hitler and the nazis now, just to close out the thread?
Thank you for eloquently making this point. I too am for the first definition of Net Neutrality, too bad most politicians pushing it are for the second.
To understand the push for Net Neutrality one must only look at its main sponsors: FreePress and Google.
FreePress is a group headed by leftist radicals w/ many ties to the Obama administration. Google donated large sums of money to Obama in hopes that Obama would use Google resources to employ Net Neutrality.
Then of course there's Mark Lloyd. In case you don't know he is a former senior fellow at FreePress and Obama's current Diversity Czar. Lloyd favors reinstituting the fairness doctrine or, if not that, revoking licenses if programs are not balanced. Lloyd has been described as being against all private media ownership and an ardent admirer of both leftist radical Saul Alinsky, and Hugo Chavez who has this nasty habit of locking up reporters. So why is he relevant? Not only is he one of the biggest proponents of Net Neutrality, but guess who would be in charge of overseeing the internet regulation that get put into place? That's right, Mark Lloyd.
Until Obama is out of office any attempt by him and his cabinet to pass this must be thwarted so that we can retain our freedom of speech. Obama and his czars cannot, and must not, be trusted. Thank goodness it looks like freedom will win out and this bill will go down in flames.
>>>It needs to at least be big enough to take on corporate interests on my behalf.
Or a smaller government could just revoke all corporate licenses. Bam. No more corporations for you to be afraid of.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall