Slashdot Mirror
Democrats Pan Google-Verizon Net Neutrality Proposal
GovTechGuy writes "Four House Democrats wrote to the Federal Communications Commission, urging them to write strict net neutrality rules and reject the framework put forward by Google and Verizon. The lawmakers, including Rep. Anna Eshoo, who represents the district containing Google HQ, said the Google-Verizon proposal increases the pressure on the FCC to come up with actual net neutrality rules, and characterize the deal as harmful to consumers and beneficial for the corporations. In particular, the letter took issue with two pieces of the Verizon-Google proposal: exemptions for managed services and wireless services from strict net-neutrality rules."
I fart in your general direction!
The liberals got it exactly right. For years now they’ve been telling us how “vibrant” mass immigration has made stale, pale White societies. Well, London was certainly vibrating on 7th July and that got me thinking: What else have the liberals got right? Mass immigration “enriches” us too, they’ve always said. Is that “enrich” as in “enriched uranium”, an excellent way of making atom bombs? Because that’s what comes next: a weapon of real mass destruction that won’t kill people in piffling dozens but in hundreds of thousands or millions. Bye-bye London, bye-bye Washington, bye-bye Tel Aviv.
I’m not too sure I’d shed a tear if the last-named went up in a shower of radioactive cinders, but Tel Aviv is actually the least likely of the three to be hit. What’s good for you ain’t good for Jews, and though Jews have striven mightily, and mighty successfully, to turn White nations into multi-racial fever-swamps, mass immigration has passed the Muzzerland safely by. And mass immigration is the key to what happened in London. You don’t need a sophisticated socio-political analysis taking in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Jewish control of Anglo-American foreign policy, British colonialism, and fifteen centuries of Christian-Muslim conflict. You can explain the London bombs in five simple words:
Pakis do not belong here.
And you can sum up how to prevent further London bombs – and worse – in three simple words:
PAKI GO HOME.
At any time before the 1950s, brown-skinned Muslim terrorists would have found it nearly impossible to plan and commit atrocities on British soil, because they would have stood out like sore thumbs in Britain’s overwhelmingly White cities. Today, thanks to decades of mass immigration, it’s often Whites who stand out like sore thumbs. Our cities swarm with non-whites full of anti-White grievances and hatreds created by Judeo-liberal propaganda. And let’s forget the hot air about how potential terrorists and terrorist sympathizers are a “tiny minority” of Britain’s vibrant, peace-loving Muslim “community”.
Even if that’s true, a tiny minority of 1.6 million (2001 estimate) is a hell of a lot of people, and there’s very good reason to believe it isn’t true. Tony Blair has tried to buy off Britain’s corrupt and greedy “moderate” Muslims with knighthoods and public flattery, but his rhetoric about the “religion of peace” wore thin long ago. After the bombings he vowed, with his trademark bad actor’s pauses, that we will... not rest until... the guilty men are identified... and as far... as is humanly possible... brought to justice for this... this murderous carnage... of the innocent.
His slimy lawyer’s get-out clause – “as far as is humanly possible” – was soon needed. Unlike Blair and his pal Dubya in Iraq and Afghanistan, the bombers were prepared not only to kill the innocent but to die themselves as they did so. And to laugh at the prospect: they were captured on CCTV sharing a joke about the limbs and heads that would shortly be flying. Even someone as dim as Blair must know you’ve got a big problem on your hands when there are over 1.6 million people in your country following a religion like that.
If he doesn’t know, there are plenty of Jewish journalists who will point it out for him. There’s the neo-conservative Melanie Phillips in Britain, for example, who never met an indignant adverb she didn’t like, and the neo-conservative Mark Steyn in Canada, who never met an indignant Arab he didn’t kick. Reading their hard-hitting columns on Muslim psychosis, I was reminded of a famous scene in Charles Dickens’ notoriously anti-Semitic novel Oliver Twist (1839). The hero watches the training of the villainous old Jew Fagin put into action by the Artful Dodger:
What was Oliver’s h
Translation: Hello, we need some campaign funds!!!
Got Code?
Google and Verizon really stepped in it. Their new pact doesn't have enough opportunity for government power brokers to choose winners and losers in exchange for campaign contributions. How dare these big companies decide to carve up the free Internet without giving the local warlords their due?
Expect a grand jury investigation of Google WIFI spying to begin sometime in the next 2 months. It's going to take a lot of campaign contributions and jobs for family members to call off those dogs.
Somebody in Washington is actually STOPPING the maniacally evil corporations for once? I must be missing something. Either that or I'm going to fall over dead from a shock induced heart attack in 3, 2, 1.......
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
What is upsetting everyone is that Google was very vocal about net neutrality for wireless just a few years ago--when they thought it would help them compete with the iPhone. Now, they're crippling what they were fighting for. Not that I'm opposed. "Net neutrality" is more big-government legislation that we don't need. Sysadmins at private companies can run their networks however they want. Internet access isn't a constitutionally protected right.
What a load of fanboy defense bullshit.
You continue to lie about what net neutrality is and what it entails. You do this because you know you are not intellectually competent to make an honest argument against it. No other reason is possible.
>>>So if there is a video service on your cell phone, should the data transfer for that video be network neutral? G/V are saying no, and the Dems are saying yes.
Google/Verizon is correct. There is no need for the government where a monopoly does not exist. The wired internet, which is mostly a Cable/Telephone duopoly needs regulating, but the wireless net does not. Most people have over ten providers to choose from. If one of those blocks access to whatever video you're trying to watch, you can change to another provider that does not.
No monopoly == no need to regulate/impose net neutrality. Of course it's worth mentioning that if the government (a monopoly) blocks the video, then you're out of luck.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
I wish they took the RISC approach. If the law has 15 parts, then pass 15 different laws.
Then the Republicans would have to filibuster fifteen times as many bills.
Support SETI@home
Ever since the political red shift of 1980, our country has been falling apart. Our infrastructure is decaying, our schools are degenerating, our health care is failing, and the gap between rich and poor is widening. And yet here you are moaning about "big government legislation" to protect the one shining beacon of the past 30 years: the internet. What a fool you are.