FCC To Vote On Net Neutrality On December 21

GovTechGuy writes "The FCC just released its tentative agenda for the December 21st open meeting, where the Commission will vote on whether to adopt rules to preserve net neutrality. According to the agenda the FCC will consider 'adopting basic rules of the road to preserve the open Internet as a platform for innovation, investment, competition, and free expression.' House Republicans have already promised to oppose any solution put forth by FCC chairman Julius Genachowski."

Comments

There it goes.

[geminidomino]

Well, we're boned.

(No, I have no faith that the Right Thing(TM) will be done given the number of asshats involved. It's only a question of where it goes wrong)

Re:There it goes.

[Monkeedude1212]

I thought the issue was that the FCC had no power in the issue - not that they couldn't decide what to do?

Have I been wrong all this time?

Re:There it goes.

[zeroshade]

They might actually go forward with the reclassification. That would be awesome :)

Re:There it goes.

[Richard_at_work]

How does the FCC propose to regulate Net Neutrality for the parts of the internet that sit outside of the US but may still impose extra fees on US ISPs?

Re:There it goes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. The FCC is no friend of free speech. They are at best an instrument of control and at worst a source of control in and of themselves. Is it so far fetched to believe that if this goes through congress might decide to stretch this new regulatory power to prohibit any DNS used by US based ISPs from resolving certain domain names (wikilikeaks.org perhaps?) Claiming that net neutrality won't give congress this authority means little when somehow "The Congress shall have power to regulate commerce... among the several states " justifies the federal war on drugs and federal gun laws. Yeah, most of us could access the content still by using an alternative DNS or simply typing the IP address, but 99% of the public won't be able to. The supreme court MIGHT overturn it, but even then the litigation could take months.

Re:There it goes.

[Ironchew]

Well, we're boned.

I dunno about that...
It *is* the solstice and a total lunar eclipse on that day, after all. Maybe there are enough pro-Net-neutrality moon gods to swing the vote our way?
Yes, I'm putting my faith in some rare planetary alignment. We're boned.

Re:There it goes.

[commodore64_love]

Instead of fighting Republicans, the FCC should just re-designate the internet lines as "phone lines" and apply existing common carrier rules.

Re:There it goes.

[commodore64_love]

Net neutrality is not about outside ISPs. It's about the local monopoly ISP not blocking your access to sites they don't like - such as rushlimbaugh.com or netflix.com

Re:There it goes.

[dkleinsc]

You've been seriously misinformed about what "net neutrality" actually means.

Net neutrality basically means that ISPs can't throttle traffic for any reason other than maxing out a connection at the advertised download/upload rate. It says nothing about the content. It gives no extra power to the FCC or any other government agency. What it takes away is the ISPs ability to censor content, or say something like "that's a nice website, real shame if it were unable to be viewed by any of our customers."

Re:There it goes.

[v1]

and when people ask me why I don't like Republicans, I just give them answers like this. Whenever it's Big Business vs The People, we know where they're lobbying.

Would be nice if they lose and We (The People) win this time.

Re:There it goes.

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

We the people lost when the SCOTUS decided that corporations were people and thus entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection.

Re:There it goes.

[DJRumpy]

FCC doesn't care about content in and of itself, but rather how it's treated, which is the entire point. It doesn't matter if the 'content' is outside of the US. What matters is how your local ISP treats your connection to said content. It's also not strictly about blocking content (although that is inherently a part of the larger picture as some will threaten exactly that, like Comcast has threatened with Netflix.

It simply requires that an ISP will treat all content equally. That way they can't discriminate against a competing firms 'content' by reducing the quality of service for that content, while increasing the quality/bandwidth of their own offerings. It levels the playing field.

This wouldn't be as big an issue if content providers were not subsidiaries of telecom providers and vice versa. The first step that should be taken is to separate the internet provider from any content. It is a conflict of interest and spells nothing but trouble for the end user.

I just wish they would regulate internet like they do utilities. it has become an integral part in peoples lives. It is not much different than phone service in that regard.

Re:There it goes.

[Enderandrew]

I'm not sure this the case here.

I think most Republicans in the Senate have no clue what Net Neutrality really means. McCain said in the Presedential debates that he didn't understand the issue completely, but he was against more government regulation of business.

This is more ignorance than evil.

Overall I believe both parties support big business. There isn't a political party that doesn't love money.

The massive difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats want social freedoms, but want to regulate the hell out of everything else. Republicans want financial freedoms, but want to regulate social issues.

It seems the public just wants freedom period, and neither party is really interested in delivering that.

Re:There it goes.

[haapi]

You have it backwards. Nobody is imposing fees on ISPs. Net Neutrality is to protect ISPs from imposing fees on content providers.

Cue gangster voice:

"Nice content you have here.. Would be a shame should anything untoward happen to it during delivery over our networks."

Re:There it goes.

[rezalas]

House Republicans have already promised to oppose any solution put forth by FCC chairman Julius Genachowski."

Yes, because our tax dollars need to be pissed away into the wind fighting anything and everything one person suggests 'just because'. I'm always amused that politicians talk about intelligence and maturity and wisdom but then they act like a three year old who would rather rip the head off a doll than share it.

Re:There it goes.

[jhigh]

and when people ask me why I don't like Republicans, I just give them answers like this. Whenever it's Big Business vs The People, we know where they're lobbying.

Would be nice if they lose and We (The People) win this time.

The problem is that it is not the role of elected officials to do what is in the best interest of Big Business OR The People. Elected officials swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. You're right that far too often Republicans are willing to decimate the Constitution if it lines the pockets of their corporate donors. The inverse of that are Democrats, who shred the Constitution to line the wallets of the people that receive entitlements and make up their voter base.

I'm very skeptical about net neutrality because I don't like giving the federal government more power, and this inarguably does that. Once the FCC tells ISPs what they can and cannot do with traffic on the lines, they have that power forever. That means that, like another commenter pointed out, the government now has the right to filter and censor content. I also think that this is an abuse of the oft-abused commerce clause of the Constitution and is therefore not under the purview of the federal government.

Finally, I don't like the way that this is being done. If the FCC has always had the authority to do this, why didn't they do it before? They waited until they knew that net neutrality would never make it through Congress and then "discovered" the authority.

Re:There it goes.

[commodore64_love]

What's more foolish? The Republicans? Or the fool who thinks the Democrats are any better? They aren't. They are both dicks.

Anyway they oppose the FCC Chairman because they think he's trying to yank rushlimbaugh.com, glennbeck.com, and others off the net using a modern variant of the Fairness Doctrine (but called net neutrality). It's not about opposing for the sake of opposing. The Republicans generally think the FCC CHAIR is trying to censor the net.

And given what the FCC has done in the past (see their lawsuit against a christian station that refused to air Democrat ads), I can understand the R's fears.

Re:There it goes.

[rezalas]

It seems you're targeting a strawman here, because I never said anything about Republican or Democrat, I said all politicians.

Re:There it goes.

[bistromath007]

Yeah, I was just thinking that they should've waited until next year. The only way the result of this will be good is if it ends up being the big, scary 2012 disaster we've all been waiting for. :|

Re:There it goes.

[commodore64_love]

Actually the antecedent is "Republicans" in your message:

"House Republicans have already promised to oppose..... I'm always amused that politicians talk about intelligence and maturity and wisdom but then they act like a three year old..." It's pretty obvious you were taking a slam against the R party, but nice try to backpeddle. You did it as well as a politician does it.

In any case do you think the result would be any different if this was 2007? If Bush's FCC was trying to push through net neutrality, then you'd have the Democrats saying they'll oppose it simply because it's Bush doing it (just as they opposed Eisenhower's Civil Rights Act in the 50s). These idiots don't have any loyalty to the Country. They are too busy fighting each other as if it were the super bowl.

Re:There it goes.

[bistromath007]

You're out of your gourd, and if you seriously believe that even House Republicans are stupid enough to believe that, then they are, too. The only argument I've ever heard from those guys against net neutrality is the one that's actually sincerely against it, i.e., the telecom companies own these lines, and that matters more than our right to do things the way we want. I don't agree, but it's probably the one piece of politics in existence where the arguments of the side I oppose have anything to do with reality, so it's a breath of fresh air. I really don't appreciate you turning it into more ANSI standard scare-mongering by talking about some completely random foilhat bullshit that I haven't even heard Faux News burping up.

Re:There it goes.

[fredrated]

" they oppose the FCC Chairman because they think he's trying to yank rushlimbaugh.com, glennbeck.com..."

Really, someone throws out an excuse and you suck it up like chocolate milk?
They oppose the FCC because that is what defines the Republican Party: all opposition all the time, let there be no successes under Democrats. They are insane and it works because there are enough stupid people to believe their lies.

Re:There it goes.

[commodore64_love]

>>>This is more ignorance than evil.

Exactly. Republicans believe Net Neutrality is simply a new name for an old idea: Fairness Doctrine. And they oppose the Fairness Doctrine, because they think it means Rush Limbaugh (or Glenn Beck) will be yanked off the air and replaced with Rachel Maddow, per the requirement of the Fairness Doctrine.

They also think the doctrine violates Amendment 1 (your website will have to give equal time to opinions with which you disagree). So anyway - they oppose FD therefore they oppose NN, because they consider them the same thing.

Re:There it goes.

[Tokolosh]

... the FCC should just re-designate the internet lines as "phone lines" and apply existing common carrier rules.

Do you have a regular landline? That is regulated as a common carrier by the FCC?

I thought not.

There is a reason we all have VOIP phones, and this is at the root.

Re:There it goes.

[sintral]

Sounds simple, and for that reason alone I oppose the notion with every fiber of my being (or lack of say/vote as the case may be).

Re:There it goes.

[commodore64_love]

>>>if you seriously believe that even House Republicans are stupid enough to believe that,

Belief is no required. Just listen to Beck or Limbaugh or Hannity. They ALL equate Net Neutrality to a revival of the Fairness Doctrine, but under a new name. They strongly oppose FD therefore they oppose NN.

>>>You're out of your gourd

No I pay attention to what Republicans are saying.
You apparently do not.
.

>>>that is what defines the Republican Party: all opposition all the time; let there be no successes under Democrats.

Good. The Democrats are national socialists. They deserve to be opposed when they are trying to take-away your Pro-Choice rights. Look at that ridiculous fine: "Buy insurance else you'll be fined $950." It's MY body and I have a right to decide whether or not I wish to insure it, just as a woman has a right to decide whether or not to carry a pregnancy to its end. But the Democrats oppose body rights - hence the passage of the law to FINE you.

Re:There it goes.

[The Moof]

Sort of. It's been my understanding that Net Neutrality would still allow ISPs to throttle traffic based on type, but not based on the endpoint. For example, Comcast would still be permitted to prioritize web traffic over torrent traffic, but not be allowed to throttle Netflix traffic in favor "Comcast Online Video Service" unless Netflix pays Comcast some kind of fee.

Re:There it goes.

[spun]

Funny thing is, the states that vote Democrat tend to pay more in federal taxes than they receive in federal spending. It is the poor rural red states that are the leaches off of the rich blue states. The Democrats "base" tend to be more educated and affluent than the Republican base. The Republican base are the ones actually receiving entitlements like farm subsidies, and "homeland defense" for small towns of 400 who get more money than New York City.

Read this report on taxes versus spending per state. Note which states receive more federal spending than they pay in taxes, and which pay more than they get. Republicans should stop accusing others of being leaches, when all the evidence shows that they are leaching off of the very people they call leaches. Must be nice living in a Red state, getting all the dirty liberal commies to pay for your farm subsidies and other benefits, and still getting to believe that you are the productive citizen and they are the leaches. Denial is alive and well in America.

Re:There it goes.

[Mongoose Disciple]

It seems the public just wants freedom period

Nope. At best, the public thinks they want freedom, period, until someone else wants to do something with their freedom that they don't like. Then it's: "I like freedom, but X is just wrong."

The percentage of the public that believes you should be allowed to have an assault rifle and an abortion is vanishingly small enough that you can't really call it the public -- and that's without naming anything especially unpopular.

Re:There it goes.

[commodore64_love]

>>>Do you have a regular landline? That is regulated as a common carrier by the FCC?
>>>I thought not.

No you assumed wrong.
(Fell into that didn't ya?)
I still have a landline. It's how the both the phone signal and the DSL comes into the house. The FCC also regulates the Coax cable line that runs into homes (must carry rules, et cetera). The FCC has the power to label both these as "common carriers" and require they carry all traffic regardless of content. But for some reason, they refuse to do it.

Re:There it goes.

[rezalas]

Actually that is an assumption on your part, as my intent (something you obviously didn't understand) was that any politician (as I actually DID say) that opposes 'any' solution is childish and petty. You should consider not placing intent behind someone else's words when you obviously read into my statement what you wanted to be there.

Re:There it goes.

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe that's a little disingenuous. It's more like each party would take their own regulations too far, and politics in general being more about one-upping the next guy or next party than doing something useful.

It seems the overall public will latch on to whoever makes the more appealing false promises, and significant parts of the public will latch on to a party just to belong to a group instead of thinking about the policies. ("My party is for X so X is a good thing,") Maybe that doesn't happen, and I wish it wouldn't, but it sure seems like if it didn't happen that the kinds of political stunts being used lately would have little, highly reduced, or opposite-intended impact. How many political statements go along the lines of "Party-X is great! Opposing-party-Y is crap!"--and how many political statements talk about someone being for or against an issue without explanation?

Back on topic though, if there's elected officials that are fighting against something that they don't even understand the meaning of (NEVER happened before I'm sure)--then it's their responsibility to find out, and voters to hold them accountable regardless.

Re:There it goes.

[ArsonSmith]

This comment pretty much covers government as a whole.

Re:There it goes.

[Enderandrew]

They're called Libertarians.

And generally I'm pro-freedom and largely Libertarian myself (except they're naive on foreign issues).

I do draw the line at abortion because I believe the right to swing your fist extends exactly to the tip of my nose. Thusly a woman should have all the right in the world to do with her body as she chooses, up to the point of killing a baby inside her.

Re:There it goes.

[commodore64_love]

>>>that is what defines the Republican Party: all opposition all the time; let there be no successes under Democrats.

Good. The Democrats deserve to be opposed when they are trying to take-away your Pro-Choice rights. Look at that ridiculous fine they just passed: "Buy insurance else you'll be punished $950." The Democrats and their supporters don't seem to understand:

It's MY body and I have a right to decide whether or not I wish to insure it, just as a woman has a right to decide whether or not to carry a pregnancy to its en. But the Democrats oppose body rights - hence the passage of the law to FINE you if you don't sell your body to Nationwide or Allstate or AARP or some other insurance company.

--

Re:There it goes.

[hedwards]

A couple of things, one the Republicans are not the Democrats. And the Democrats of today are not the Democrats of the 50s. Secondly, The Republicans have been fighting tooth and nail against whatever the President has wanted to do since their exile. It's got nothing to do with what's good for the country it's about screwing over the Democrats. That didn't happen during the Bush administration. You can claim that however like, but the reality doesn't fit the facts. President Bush made precisely zero effort at including the Democrats and regularly went out of his way to pick a fight with them. In spite of that he regularly got votes from Democratic politicians even on controversial items like the Patriot Act.

I realize that a lot of people on the right have a hard time understanding things, but President Bush got 6 years of softball questions from the press, nearly a full year before anybody blamed him for anything. And you're full of it if you're seriously suggesting that Obama has gotten even a small fraction of that support. The more realistic observation is that the Republicans don't love this country or are at least so mind blowingly incompetent as to believe that screwing over the citizens is the best way of expressing ones patriotism.

At least in recent years the Democrats have been trying to do the right thing, the Republicans at this point aren't even bothering to pretend like they care about the country, it's more important to screw over the Democrats and win the Presidency in 2012 than it is to enact good legislation. It's really, troubling that it's coming out of their own mouths without any prompting by left wing operatives.

Re:There it goes.

[spun]

Must be nice living in a Blue state and getting all those benefits and food of the farm subsidies to the Red States.

You fail to see the bigger picture and are more interested in the us vs. them mentality.

You mean, the socialist farm subsidies used to pay farmers NOT to grow food? And that is just part of the welfare the red states get. What about all the homeland defense spending on states with no real targets?

Re:There it goes.

[Golddess]

It's pretty obvious you were taking a slam against the R party

That's odd, because it looked to me more like GP was quoting something. I wonder what it could be.. maybe we should look at TFS?

"The FCC just released its tentative agenda for the December 21st open meeting, where the Commission will vote on whether to adopt rules to preserve net neutrality. According to the agenda the FCC will consider "adopting basic rules of the road to preserve the open Internet as a platform for innovation, investment, competition, and free expression." House Republicans have already promised to oppose any solution put forth by FCC chairman Julius Genachowski."

Now if TFS had mentioned something about Democrats trying to get along with Republicans (as opposed to not mentioning them), you might have had a point. As is though, nice try at trying to twist things to your favor. You did it as well as a politician does it. :)

Re:There it goes.

[Qzukk]

It's hard to say, since we're not getting to see what rules the FCC are actually voting on (or are they literally voting on "whether to adopt rules", and the rules come later?) so for all we know the FCC is calling their rule that "banana splits are to be served after every lunch" net neutrality.

Re:There it goes.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think most Republicans in the Senate have no clue what Net Neutrality really means.

Possibly this is due to the terminology used. It sounds like a typical American euphemism like "citizens against government waste". If it's used often enough, you sound like a dumbo if you don't know what it means, but that's just a trick to hush the debate. Real politicians aren't afraid to use normal words to say what they mean ;-)
If it would be appropriately renamed, such as "the ISP can't fuck with what you want to surf to", the discussion would rapidly become more sane:
"Would you like it if your ISP can fuck with what you are surfing to?" == against Net Neutrality (the viewpoint of those "House Republicans" (what are those?) mentioned in the summary),
"Would you regulate that your ISP can't fuck with what you are surfing to?" = FCC's Julius Genachovsky
If I completely missed the point here, please illuminate :-)

Re:There it goes.

[commodore64_love]

>>> Bush regularly got votes from Democratic politicians even on controversial items like the Patriot Act.

No surprise there.
It was written by a Democrat (Biden).

As for Obama, the media is in love with him. See the MSNBC videos of reporters crying because they were so happy, and they still love Obama (although that is starting to fade). And finally: As I told someone else below, the Republicans met with Obama in late-2009 and tried to compromise with him on the Healthcare Bill (it was broadcast on national tv) but he was unwilling to listen: "No I'm sorry I'm not changing that section."

Don't believe me? Remember what Obama said: "The Republicans can just take a seat in the back and keep quiet."

Re:There it goes.

[s73v3r]

It's MY body and I have a right to decide whether or not I wish to insure it

That only works if you also sign out of any emergency services, and chose never to be treated in an emergency room. Otherwise, since all of those services are required to do whatever it is to save your life, the TAX (not fine) is there to help cover the medical bills you'll run up and not be able to pay when something like that happens.

Re:There it goes.

[commodore64_love]

Why would you oppose treating Comcast, Verizon, and other ISPs as common carriers (like phonelines) required to carry all websites regardless of content?
I don't get it.

Re:There it goes.

[clarkkent09]

Gee, you fall for every dumb stereotype there is. The world is not divided into blue states and red states. Look at the breakdown of votes per say senate seat in the last election. Most voters for Republicans were more affluent, had higher education and were more likely to be male and white. This is true even in "blue" states like California (say Boxer-Fiorina race: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2010/results/polls/#CAS01p1 ). Democrats get most of the minority votes, hence they do well in states like California and New York with high minority population and they get most of the female votes. You won't hear this in the news because it is not politically correct but to say that Republican base is male and white and Democrat base is female and non-white is much more true than to look at the colors on the map.

Re:There it goes.

[flitty]

>>They ALL equate Net Neutrality to a revival of the Fairness Doctrine

Well, just because they say that on their radio show doesn't mean that its true, or what they believe. The "fariness doctrine" canard has been used by republicans for years as a boogeyman of government taking away your favorite things. It's easy to get support for your anti-net neutrality issue if you just call it the fairness doctrine on the internet and demonize it. Do you really think that people who are part of such major media companies would say anything good about net neutrality? Much like the democrats, they aren't going to bite the hand that feeds them.

Re:There it goes.

[TheSync]

You've been seriously misinformed about what "net neutrality" actually means.

This is what the FCC thinks it is:

The key point being:

"Subject to reasonable network management, a provider of broadband Internet access
service must treat lawful content, applications, and services in a nondiscriminatory
manner."

Where:

"We understand the term "nondiscriminatory" to mean that a broadband Internet access service provider may not charge a content, application, or service provider for enhanced or prioritized access to the subscribers of the broadband Internet access service provider...We propose that this rule would not prevent a broadband Internet access service provider from charging subscribers different prices for different services."

Which still leaves a lot of holes - can an Internet access provider have both free peering and then ask CDN's for money?

Re:There it goes.

[s73v3r]

That means that, like another commenter pointed out, the government now has the right to filter and censor content.

NO IT FUCKING DOESN'T.

The only thing this does is tell ISPs that they cannot discriminate traffic based on the end points. Meaning they have to give the exact same QoS to Netflix Traffic as they do their own VOD service. They have to give the exact same QoS to Vonage that they do to their own VoIP product. STOP WITH THE FUCKING GOVERNMENT FEAR MONGERING.

Re:There it goes.

[sintral]

I was being sarcastic while suggesting that doing things the simple way isn't how we operate around here.

Re:There it goes.

[Mongoose Disciple]

I do draw the line at abortion because I believe the right to swing your fist extends exactly to the tip of my nose. Thusly a woman should have all the right in the world to do with her body as she chooses, up to the point of killing a baby inside her.

There you have it. You don't really want freedom either: you've just convinced yourself that you do, and the freedoms you don't like are somehow morally wrong. There's basically no difference between you and the people banning Happy Meals.

Re:There it goes.

[Sprouticus]

why didnt they do this before? Simple.

We had a Republican administration form 2000-2008 and they did not want it.

Before then Net Neutrality was not really even an issue here on slashdot much less in Washington.

As for government intervention, I agree with you about it to an extent. The problem is that we already regulate utilities (and I believe ISP's are quickly becoming a utility) because it is unreasonable to expect the market to be able to handle multiple competitors with the huge infrastructure costs as a barrier to entry.

Re:There it goes.

[Enderandrew]

No. I believe the baby deserves freedom as well.

There is a very important distinction there. Abortion should be no different than anything else. The limitation of your freedom is when it infringes me, thusly the famous phrase that you have the right to swing your first to the tip of my nose.

Re:There it goes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn. Godwined this quickly on a discussion about net neutrality. Good job not spewing hyperbole all the time... wait.

Re:There it goes.

[Tokolosh]

I still have a landline. (snip)...The FCC has the power to label both these as "common carriers" and require they carry all traffic regardless of content. But for some reason, they refuse to do it.

Ok, you got me, but you must be the only /.er with a landline.

Look, I am all for net neutrality and the regulations you espouse. It's just that I don't trust the government to do it without the whole shebang being twisted to the incumbent's advantage and ending up worse than before.

I am more in favor of truth in advertising. If you block ports, sites, browsers, protocols or inspect packets you are not providing an internet service. You must call your "service" something else - may I suggest "AOL"?

Re:There it goes.

[Tokolosh]

Just want to add that I have bare, 10 Mb/s internet-only service from Charter cable. This costs me $29.99 per month - no fees, no taxes. I would like it to stay that way.

Re:There it goes.

[spun]

So what? Of course the rich vote for Republicans, who promise to pander to the rich. So what if the tiny percentage of Americans who make over $100,000 tend to vote slightly more for Republicans (55%) than Democrats (42%)? The middle class (those making 50-100k per year) vote Democrat.

Let me list my points, so you can attempt to actually refute them rather than go off on a distracting tangent, which I'm sure was not your goal.

* There are certain states that historically vote Republican, even though they are poor.

* These states pay less in taxes than they receive from the federal government.

* Republicans are in control of those states. If they wanted what they say they want, they could easily put their money where their mouth is.

* They do not do so, therefore, they do not want fiscal responsibility. They do not want to take care of themselves. They do not want smaller government.

Finally, it is incorrect to say, based on the numbers you show, that Dems base is nonwhite and female while Reps base is white and male. I'm white and male. Those numbers are very close, and when you factor in age, you will see that the primary difference is actually that Republicans tend to be old. Old white men vote Republican. Young white men vote Democrat. Women vote Republican, too. If they are old.

Generally, all you are showing is that old white people do not want things evened out, they really enjoyed being top dogs, and they want their unearned privilege back. Yet more evidence that the Republican Base is defined not by sex, or race, but by being selfish assholes who don't want to share power with anyone else.

Re:There it goes.

[clarkkent09]

You said that Democrat voters subside Republican voters because "blue" states subsidize the "red" states (i.e. dumb hicks who according to you are the Republican base). You additionally said that Democrat voters are more educated. I replied by demonstrating that neither of those statements are true. On the contrary, the more educated and more affluent the voters the more likely they are to vote Republican. "Even" in California, those with no college education, are most likely to vote Democrat. Those with college education are more or less evenly split (slight edge to Democrats but then this is one of the most liberal states so that's expected). Those with income under 30K are voting Democrat by 51-39 margin, those with 50-100K are again more evenly split (though again small edge to D) etc. The whole point is that while the blue states might be subsidizing the red states, it is not true that Democrat voters are subsidizing the Republican voters. Forgetting about the California for a second, if you look at the same stats nationally you will find that the opposite is true: Republican voters are more educated, more productive, higher earning and pay far more in taxes than Democrat voters, so the truth is the opposite from what you said.

Re:There it goes.

[T.E.D.]

Wait, the Republicans are dead-set against that too. Now I'm way confused...

That's really kind of a contorted way to look at things in order to make Mitt Romney-style health care setups look evil though.

I'm not a huge fan of the fine myself, but I think it makes sense. If you are not going to buy insurance at all, that means whenever you (or a certian percentage of folks like you) get really sick (which is more likely, since you'll be avoiding those full-price doctors), you'll end up at a really expensive emergency room, since they can't legally deny you treatment. Then you'll most likely declare bankrupcy when you get the >$10,000 bill, effectively sticking *me* and everyone else with insurance with your bill. It seems perfectly fair to me for there to be an extra fee on *your* tax bill to recoup some of the extra costs you will be incurring.

Re:There it goes.

[pitdingo]

but that is not what Fox News said...

Re:There it goes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it sadly appears that "the public" wants social issues regulated as well. Granted, that doesn't make it right, but there are a lot of people who would be perfectly happy to legislate both my religion and sexual preference for me. :(

Re:There it goes.

[YouWantFriesWithThat]

okay, then when a fetus (not a baby yet, go back to health class) files a restraining order against the mother it is entitled to protection.

Re:There it goes.

[Enderandrew]

It is a baby when it is conveniently labeled as such, and not a baby when it is inconvenient. Some states still allow third trimester abortions and partial-birth abortions, while at the same time you can be charged with murder for pushing a pregnant woman down the stairs and forcing her to miscarry.

There is no magical transformation where it goes from non-human life to human life. And even if there was some fantasy world where a magical transformation happened at a certain date (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 months?) we'd have a double standard by charging people for murder of a young fetus, but then allowing abortions in the third trimester.

Re:There it goes.

[Enderandrew]

And by your logic, I can murder you so long as you don't file a protection order. I'm glad you established that.

Re:There it goes.

[YouWantFriesWithThat]

partial birth and 3rd trimester abortions are done in the case of the mother's life being in jeapordy not as an elective procedure. but keep preaching the propaganda.

most people make the differentiation between fetus and baby when it is viable outside the womb, but i wouldn't expect an extremist to know that.

Re:There it goes.

[YouWantFriesWithThat]

and by your logic you equate the termination of a pregnancy by removing a one inch long bundle of still-developing tissue from a uterus to killing a fully developed adult capable of reasoning and asserting their rights. so who is the extremist again?

you immediately threaten someone who disagrees with you but i suppose that i should expect that from someone who sides with doctor killers.

Re:There it goes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, I wish I had a mod point.

Re:There it goes.

[Enderandrew]

There is a clinic in Kansas that continued to practice elective third trimester abortions even after it was made illegal. The District Attorney was bringing them up on charges, but then after an election, a new pro-choice DA droppped all the charges and publicly said they'd never support any limitations on abortion.

I'm not an extremist. I don't support murder I didn't realize that was an extreme view. And again, there are legal precedents of being charged for murder of a fetus even in the first trimester (mudering a pregnant woman and being charged with two counts of murder for instance), where as some states still allow third trimester abortions. Even if you pick a date when the fetus is viable outside the womb, there is a legal double standard.

My wife was very pro-choice and marched in Washington for that reason. She saw my younger sister deliver a premature baby 3 months early. After seeing that baby, she suddenly had a very different take, especially given that it would have been legal to abort that baby.

Re:There it goes.

[Enderandrew]

I never threatened you. You stated that someone deserves protection under the law only when they specifically request it. I thanked you for establishing that.

Establishing that someone doesn't deserve the right to live until they request it is an extreme view.

You're also insisting that in the first month, it isn't a human being, but it becomes a living human being later. When does this magical transformation occur? How does the pixie dust get in the womb? Is it the womb fairy?

And again, why is it that you can be charged with murder during the first trimester, but can kill the baby in the third trimester electively.

Anyone remember all the debate during the Presidential election about how Obama voted three times specifically against born alive bills that would recognize the rights of babies outside the womb? He fought to protect killing sustainable babies outside the womb. But again, you also insisted that doesn't happen, despite doctors testifying before the state senate how it was a shockingly common practice.

Just keep telling yourself that.

Re:There it goes.

[thetartanavenger]

What's more foolish? The Republicans? Or the fool who thinks the Democrats are any better? They aren't. They are both dicks.

No, one is a douche, and the other is a turd.

Re:There it goes.

[Late Adopter]

There is no magical transformation where it goes from non-human life to human life.

Except conception? I'm willing to concede that conception is a much better-defined state transition than birth, because of the new set of DNA, but still it's a little wild to consider a single cell equivalent to a breathing thinking person

None of the popular thoughts on abortion address the question of WHY it's wrong to terminate a human life. What is the goal behind prohibiting killing people? The answer to that might be instructive in determining what to do with abortion.

Re:There it goes.

[YouWantFriesWithThat]

since you have all this information at your fingertips i suppose you can provide some cites for the infanticide and elective 3rd trimester abortions, right? or didn't your hate group provide you with that along with all the propaganda?

you know what is an extreme view? the idea that to protect a fetus that is a inch or two long we should use the legal system to force an adult woman to be an unwilling vessel for what will at some point and time become a human. that won't concern you though, because at the root of all the anti-choice arguments is the fundamental idea that women matter less than the babies that they produce. if they didn't, then abortion would matter less to you then allowing the legal system to coerce women and interfere in their relationship with their doctor.

Re:There it goes.

[bill_mcgonigle]

It's about the local monopoly ISP not blocking your access to sites they don't like - such as rushlimbaugh.com or netflix.com

Because this has been such a big problem to date that it demands government action?

Re:There it goes.

[Mongoose Disciple]

Third trimester abortions are typically only legal in cases of serious danger to the health of the would-be mother, often confirmed by multiple unaffiliated physicians. Consider the serious restrictions on it in Kansas, since you bring it up. Do you not know this, or is this an inconveinient truth?

At some point, if you're going to insist that a woman carry a fetus to term even if it's likely to kill her, your position has become: Women deserve to die for the sin of getting pregnant.

Re:There it goes.

[Enderandrew]

Look up the testimony from Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act as just one example off recent memory.

I didn't realize wanting to protect human life meant I belonged to a hate group. What a horrid fate.

I have brought up repeatedly a legal double standard which makes zero sense, and one that you continue to ignore. How about this one?

From the moment I decide to have sex, I have assumed legal risks. If a child comes from that sexual activity, I am legally obligated to support that child for 19 years in Nebraska. I can't say six months later I changed my mind. Again, from the moment I decide to have sex I am assumed to have accepted the legal mantle of repercussions for that action.

Why doesn't this also hold true for women?

Re:There it goes.

[rworne]

I realize that a lot of people on the right have a hard time understanding things, but President Bush got 6 years of softball questions from the press, nearly a full year before anybody blamed him for anything.

Whaaaat?

Bush was attacked, by just about everyone, ever since that incident with the ballot counting in Florida. That was before he even took office. This continued up until 9/11 when the press was berating him for acting clueless in a classroom reading a book about a goat while the towers were falling. He only enjoyed the support of the press and the majority of the public after the speech he made shortly after 9/11 when the country was reeling and looked to him for some sort of guidance. This continued up until the Saddam government was toppled - because up until then, we were winning and everyone loves a winner.

Then came "Mission Accomplished" and everything went back to the way things were again.

Re:There it goes.

[Enderandrew]

I didn't suggest that. I actually support the compromise often suggested in that abortion should be legal in cases of rape, incest or the mother's life being in danger.

I'm pposed to conceiving a child and using abortion as retroactive birth control.

Re:There it goes.

[YouWantFriesWithThat]

because i can't be held responsible for the enforcement of bad laws since i am not a DA. in short, murder laws are fucked. people are charged with murder because they sat in a car outside a bank. people are charged with murder because their accomplice was shot by a security guard. i can't do anything about it, but what you see as a double standard could be changed through legislation.

i didn't say that you were the member of a hate group, but you are taking your bullet points from the propaganda that is published and disseminated by hate groups.

so what is human? a fertilized egg? 2 cells? 4? where do YOU draw the line? is the morning after pill "murder" then, since you are incapable of discussing abortion without calling it murder?

having to pay for the support of a child is one thing, and those laws are because it is the interest of society to have parents (not just men) be financially responsible for their children if the are able. however that is not anything like forcing a woman to bear a child from the moment of conception until 9ish months later because you have a personal aversion to abortion.

Re:There it goes.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are opposed to elective abortions then don't fucking have one. I am opposed to you being able to determine what everyone else gets to do

Re:There it goes.

[shutdown -p now]

Are you also opposed to "morning pills" (given that they take effect after conception)?

Re:There it goes.

[commodore64_love]

>>>>>It's MY body and I have a right to decide whether or not I wish to insure it
>>
>>That only works if you also sign out of any emergency services, and chose never to be treated in an emergency room.

Or: I could just pay the ER bill.
(duh)
I don't need to have insurance and Congress has zero authority to force me to buy it (they do not regulate intrastate commerce).

Re:There it goes.

[shutdown -p now]

They're called Libertarians.

I'm a socialist (by American standards). I fully support the freedom of citizens to own assault rifles, as well as the freedom to make any decisions about their body (which includes abortions).

Re:There it goes.

[commodore64_love]

>>>you must be the only /.er with a landline.

Not correct again. Lots of slashdotters have said they have DSL, which of course means they have the phone wire running into their hope. Others have gone on record that they don't use a landline, but keep it for emergency (i.e. when the power goes out and/or cellular gets overloaded).

As for government regulation: They do it with other monopolies like electricity, phone, natural gas, water, sewer, and we've not been screwed. There's no reason to think they'd suddenly be incompetent when they regulate the internet utility.

Re:There it goes.

[commodore64_love]

Comcast has been caught blocking websites multiple times and/or slowing-down traffic they don't like (netflix video and bittorrents).

So yeah it's been a problem and we need government to regulate the Internet monopoly just the same as they regulate the Electric, Phone, Water, Natural gas monopolies. Now maybe if it can be argued "no monopoly exists" there'd be no need for regulation (such as the cellphone market) but that's simply not the case. You either have a monopoly (comcast) or duopoly (comcast/verizon) and collusion.

Re:There it goes.

[commodore64_love]

>>>Then you'll most likely declare bankrupcy when you get the >$10,000 bill, effectively sticking *me* and everyone else with insurance with your bill.

You serious? You can't afford a $10,000+ ER bill, but you can afford that $25-30,000 car you own. (Twice - one for you and one for wife.) Really? I don't think any of us on this website are that poor we can't pay our own bills.

Also unpaid hospital bills don't get charged to taxpayers - it gets charged to the megacorp or HMO that owns the ER. So it's basically a burden on the rich, which is how it should be, rather than on the workers who are probably poor (else they'd have insurance).

Basically the Old way was better because the
new way screws the poor and helps the Megacorps.

Re:There it goes.

[bhv]

So your saying the FCC dosen't censor television? huh.....guess I learned something today.

Re:There it goes.

[commodore64_love]

>>>okay, then when a fetus (not a baby yet, go back to health class) files a restraining order against the mother it is entitled to protection.

Babies and toddlers can't file restraining orders.
Does that mean mom can trample their Right to Life and kill them?
No. Neither does it mean mom should be able to trample the fetuses' right to life.

I predict some future generation will probably view the Abortion the same way we view Slavery. We say, "How could the 1700s-1800s people be so dumb as to say blacks don't have rights, and are property not people?" Someday they'll say the same about our generation & human fetuses' rights.

Re:There it goes.

[YouWantFriesWithThat]

how does an inch-long mass of flesh with no brain have rights?

someday in the future people will look at the arguments you are parroting and wonder why edge cases like 3rd trimester abortions were used as justification to outlaw the roughly 80% of abortions that are done in the first 10 weeks after conception.

Re:There it goes.

[jhigh]

The only thing this does is tell ISPs that they cannot discriminate traffic based on the end points. Meaning they have to give the exact same QoS to Netflix Traffic as they do their own VOD service. They have to give the exact same QoS to Vonage that they do to their own VoIP product. STOP WITH THE FUCKING GOVERNMENT FEAR MONGERING.

And please explain to me how the FCC does this if it doesn't have the authority to do it? Net neutrality is the FCC assuming authority over ISPs. You can type in caps until your 12 year old head explodes. That doesn't change the fact that net neutrality is the FCC saying that they have the authority to tell ISPs how they have to treat content.

Re:There it goes.

[jhigh]

why didnt they do this before? Simple.

We had a Republican administration form 2000-2008 and they did not want it.

Before then Net Neutrality was not really even an issue here on slashdot much less in Washington.

As for government intervention, I agree with you about it to an extent. The problem is that we already regulate utilities (and I believe ISP's are quickly becoming a utility) because it is unreasonable to expect the market to be able to handle multiple competitors with the huge infrastructure costs as a barrier to entry.

Making it a utility is an entirely separate argument, though. We're saying it's not a utility, but government needs to intervene and regulate it. Frankly, I think that the Internet is critical enough as infrastructure that it's worth a conversation about whether or not it is a utility or should be treated as such. This back door method of handing the FCC authority that it's never had previously by scaring people into thinking that the big bad ISPs are going to control their access to content is just wrong.

Re:There it goes.

[jhigh]

Exactly. What are all of these people that are pushing net neutrality going to do when they wake up one day and can't access their favorite pr0n site?

Re:There it goes.

[Boronx]

As well they should, don't you see the danger of internet providers controlling content?

Re:There it goes.

[Boronx]

Just like they killed off the phone sex lines? The ongoing failure of net neutrality will lead to the end of your favorite porn sites since most will just get squeezed out of business.

Re:There it goes.

[Boronx]

For moral reasons? The little bundle of cells didn't choose to be conceived through incest.

Re:There it goes.

[jhigh]

As well they should, don't you see the danger of internet providers controlling content?

Don't you see the danger of the GOVERNMENT controlling content?

Re:There it goes.

[Neuticle]

Also unpaid hospital bills don't get charged to taxpayers - it gets charged to the megacorp or HMO that owns the ER. So it's basically a burden on the rich, which is how it should be, rather than on the workers who are probably poor (else they'd have insurance).

This is a nice class-warfare dream, but in reality, unpaid ER bills either get passed on to EVERYONE's bill, rich and poor (this just bankrupts the uninsured poor even faster) and/or offset by cutbacks in the ER budget (which means longer wait time for everyone).

The catch 22 is that people don't pay the bill because it is too expensive, but if everyone paid the bills, the price would come down.

/Emergency Departments are tremendously expensive to operate, so I doubt they would ever be cheap, but the % of patients who pay nothing is high enough to have a significant effect.

Re:There it goes.

[cheekyjohnson]

Because this has been such a big problem to date that it demands government action?

It's always nice to prevent something before it happens. Sadly, many humans seem to disagree. While I think we should be wary about either side, doing nothing will solve, well, nothing. Besides that, Comcast throttled the bittorrent protocol (and possibly a few other ISPs did as well, not sure).

Re:There it goes.

[Anonymous Coward]

23 states have laws banning partial birth abortions, all with the exception when the "life" of the mother is in jeopardy. In the remaining 27 states, elective partial birth abortions would still be permitted if not for the 2003 federal ban. No state or federal law bans having an abortion totally when the mother's life, not health, is in danger, but the federal ban forces the doctor performing the partial birth abortion to prove in a hearing before their state's medical board and show the procedure was necessary to save the life of the mother.

Extremists on any side of any issue often forget when they've "won".

Re:There it goes.

[grcumb]

If Bush's FCC was trying to push through net neutrality, then you'd have the Democrats saying they'll oppose it simply because it's Bush doing it (just as they opposed Eisenhower's Civil Rights Act in the 50s).

I really doubt that. I think they would have insisted on some sort of payoff to go along, but I think they would ultimately have gone along.

The 'Dixie' Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act were largely right-wing, reactionary, racist plutocrats who, even if they did believe it was the Right Thing, couldn't have supported the legislation without facing the real prospect of violent opposition when they went back home.

When Johnson signed the civil rights bill into law in the '60s, he famously said the Democratic party would lose the South for a generation. He was wrong. The 'Dixiecrats' still have not come back. In fact these constituencies are today considered the core of the Republican base.

These idiots don't have any loyalty to the Country.

Well finally, something we can all agree on! 8^)

Re:There it goes.

[dalani]

to take a back seat when showing no clear intention of contributing anything constructive. The GoP had no intention of implementing Health care reform. eg. Palin's contribution to the discourse: Death Panels??! and other such nonsense. Obama was being too nice in telling her likes to shut up and let grown ups do their work.

Re:There it goes.

[bill_mcgonigle]

Comcast has been caught blocking websites multiple times and/or slowing-down traffic they don't like (netflix video and bittorrents).

And is that still happening?

Now maybe if it can be argued "no monopoly exists" there'd be no need for regulation (such as the cellphone market) but that's simply not the case. You either have a monopoly (comcast) or duopoly (comcast/verizon) and collusion.

Why is it those monopolies exist? The worst thing we can do is patch bad policy with more bad policy.

Re:There it goes.

[s73v3r]

Or, you could learn some fucking history, and look into why. The FCC was given the authority to regulate "decency" on radio and OTA TV because those airwaves are scarce, meaning there are only a few channels/stations available in a given area. That's the only reason. They don't regulate cable TV or phone lines for content because they aren't. Since Internet isn't scarce, they can't regulate its content.

Re:There it goes.

[Brett Buck]

A couple of things, one the Republicans are not the Democrats. And the Democrats of today are not the Democrats of the 50s. Secondly, The Republicans have been fighting tooth and nail against whatever the President has wanted to do since their exile. It's got nothing to do with what's good for the country it's about screwing over the Democrats.

    Oh, bullshit. Republicans, or more accurately, Conservatives, have been fighting tooth and nail to stop virtually everything the Obama has done because we think it is very deeply wrong for the country. Read that again - I mean it and they mean it. I also note that the national Republican party is profoundly out of step with Conservatives and parasites like John McCain, Olympia Snowe, etc, are going along with the current hyper-leftist nonsense far too often. Witness their support for "immigration reform" AKA Amnesty. They, along with Obama and a fair bit of the remaining Democrats outside the liberal bastions, will be *swept away*.

      Shoving things like Obamacare, endless union paybacks, etc, down people's throats against clear wishes of the American voting public while repeatedly accusing us of racism and stupidity will get them quite a reward, and it's well deserved. Time for the adults to take over and try to fix this fucking mess. I know what the slashdot community will say - we are all stupid racist rednecks. I don't care, they don't care, we will take back this country.

        Brett

Re:There it goes.

[ciscoguy01]

Comcast has been caught blocking websites multiple times and/or slowing-down traffic they don't like (netflix video and bittorrents).

And is that still happening?

Yes, it's still happening. Comcast has been found to throttle bittorrent traffic.

Just this week Comcast charged Netflix' ISP to connect to their network and allow the Comcast customers who order from Netflix to get what they ordered.

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/11/30/0246235/Level-3-Shaken-Down-By-Comcast-Over-Video-Streaming Comcast's own customers. Data blocked at the Comcast network. Netflix' ISP, Level3, paid them, incredibly. A shakedown.
That's what congress should ban. Shakedowns.

Re:There it goes.

[ciscoguy01]

You've been seriously misinformed about what "net neutrality" actually means.

This is what the FCC thinks it is:

The key point being:

"Subject to reasonable network management, a provider of broadband Internet access
service must treat lawful content, applications, and services in a nondiscriminatory
manner."

Where:

"We understand the term "nondiscriminatory" to mean that a broadband Internet access service provider may not charge a content, application, or service provider for enhanced or prioritized access to the subscribers of the broadband Internet access service provider...We propose that this rule would not prevent a broadband Internet access service provider from charging subscribers different prices for different services."

Which still leaves a lot of holes - can an Internet access provider have both free peering and then ask CDN's for money?

The key there is "would not prevent a broadband Internet access service provider from charging subscribers different prices for different services."

Subscribers. Charge your own customers for the services they want. If you charge your own customers an extra $50 a month to deliver Netflix data to them, they can decide if they think that's fair. Vote with their feet, assuming the ISP doesn't have a broadband monopoly in the area. Which does happen.
No fair setting up toll gates for some content or websites that you don't like. That's what Comcast was doing.

Re:There it goes.

[Internetuser1248]

Are you guys doing an elaborate practical joke to prove a point? You are both making the same point that politicians are always disagreeing with each other for no good reason. Then you go ahead and disagree with each other about it.
Someone give these guys a +1 funny, it's subtle and quite clever. They even got everyone else in the thread disagreeing over something completely irrelevant to the topic. Point taken and noted.

Re:There it goes.

[commodore64_love]

Well I disagree.

I'd rather charge the bills to the rich (Microsoft, Ford, GE) then the poor. I'd sooner see the unpaid, uninsured ER bills come-out of the pockets of Aetna & other HMOs than levy a ~$1000 fine on poor people. The old way was better than this new "reformed" way.

Re:There it goes.

[commodore64_love]

>>>Why is it those monopolies exist?

Because local governments created them. And I agree those "exclusive franchises" should be revoked to allow a free market, but it's never going to happen. The local politicians have been bought by Comcast to protect the arrangement - plus many people still insist it's a natural monopoly and there's no other choice.

Hence the need for either State or Union level regulation of the monopoly(ies).

Re:There it goes.

[commodore64_love]

>>>how does an inch-long mass of flesh with no brain have rights?

A human fetus is not an inch long at 8 months old. It's practically the same size as a newborn baby (between 1-to-10 pounds). Why is it okay to say a baby has a Right to Life at 9.1 months (i.e. after birth), but the human fetus at 9 months (just prior to birth) does not? Is there any real distinction?

And what about premies, who are born premature at 6 months? They have more Right to Life than a 9 month old fetus? Really? I don't agree. If the premie has a right to life at 6 months after conception, so too does the fetus at 7, 8, or 9 months.

Re:There it goes.

[commodore64_love]

>>>I'm a socialist (by American standards). I fully support the freedom of citizens to own assault rifles, as well as the freedom to make any decisions about their body (which includes abortions).

But not completely.
If I fail to insure my body, you support the bill's ~$1000 fine
It's my body - they have zero right to punish me for what I do or do not do with my own body.

Re:There it goes.

[untouchable]

My googling fu is weak today. I can't find the lawsuit you're talking about. Mind providing a link or general timeline when this happened?

Re:There it goes.

[T.E.D.]

I'd agree with that too, if there was any way of keeping those same companies from turning right around and soaking the rest of us for the entire cost (plus fees). Sadly, there is not, and that's exactly what they do. That's why health care costs in this country are soaring along with the number of uninsured. It isn't a coincidence.

So the extra tax penalty is just a way to encourage folks to do something that will stop this vicious cycle. Without it, there's nothing at all dicouraging current trends from continuing.

If you really wanted to, you could look at any tax incentive the government puts in the code as a "government requirement to buy something", be it a house, electric cars, or more children. Nobody rails against the governement unconstitutionally "requiring" them to have children by making filers without children pay more, because that would be stupid. Yet somehow this moronicity gets a pass when its something you can attack Democrats with.

Re:There it goes.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Nobody is imposing fees on ISPs.

ESPN is.

Re:There it goes.

[shutdown -p now]

It's not a matter of freedom of doing something with your body. It's a matter of freedom of doing something with your money.

That said, your new healthcare system is still broken, because the state enforced insurance through private parties with no price regulation. It's pretty much the worst of both worlds. Those fines are BS, too. The proper way of handling it is to count it as a tax (or, better yet, simply cut the existing expenditures as needed - your public spending is notoriously inefficient for a democratic state) which everyone pays already, like income tax. Then you cannot "fail to insure your body". You can fail to pay your taxes, and that's dealt with in the same way it always was.

Yes, that's less "freedom from government" than libertarians want. That's why I don't consider myself one. My point was that you cannot pick two tangential points - such as gun rights and abortion - as a solid indicator of one's political position.

Re:There it goes.

[Golddess]

Ok, seriously, what exactly is your position on abortions, because I sure as hell can't tell anymore.

It's MY body and I have a right to decide whether or not I wish to insure it, just as a woman has a right to decide whether or not to carry a pregnancy to its end.

Re:There it goes.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand. How would you pass unpaid bills from the uninsured on to insurance companies without raising prices? If insurance is more expensive, more people get priced out of the market, and more people suffer.

The solution here is not to "stick it" to the rich so much as it is to lower costs for everyone.

Re:There it goes.

[geminidomino]

Ok, you got me, but you must be the only /.er with a landline.

Nope. He's not. I even have an old-style fax machine on mine. With REAL paper.

Re:There it goes.

[geminidomino]

Except conception? I'm willing to concede that conception is a much better-defined state transition than birth

Okay, maybe I parsed that wrong, but I'm pretty sure "birth" is pretty much concretely defined. How do you define it any better?

Re:There it goes.

[geminidomino]

how does an inch-long mass of flesh with no brain have rights?

Ask the 55-78 inch-long masses of flesh with no brains and funny hats.

Re:There it goes.

[geminidomino]

They don't regulate cable TV ... for content because they aren't

If that's true, I wish someone would *bleep*ing send another *bleep* copy of the *bleep*ing memo to those ass*bleep*s at Comedy *bleep*ing Central/MTV/whatever the *bleep* the mother ship is called. (I can't be *bleep*ed to give a *bleep* anymore, since the channel is un-*bleep*ing-watchable.

Re:There it goes.

[s73v3r]

Comedy Central is also the one that aired the episode of South Park where they said Shit like 150 times. Most of that bleeping is due to the network's own decency standards. Also, if you watch Comedy Central after midnight, they do swear. They still cut the shit demon out of Dogma, though.

Re:There it goes.

[geminidomino]

Here's the real question... if you KNOW you're going to be applying some ridiculous decency standards, why would you even AIR shit like Katt Williams' stand-up? Honestly, the show ends up more "bleeped" than english.

Re:There it goes.

[rhalstead]

While the FCC is voting on 'the "fairness doctrine" AND calling it "Web Neutrality" this seems to have turned into a pissing match between blaming Republicans and Democrats. The head of the FCC has publicly stated they expect to force "equal time" for opposing opinions using "Net Neutrality". He said nothing about what Net Neutrality was originally supposed to be such as preventing ISPs from blocking competitors, charging extra to carry specific types of content, and even blocking competition content such as I believe it's Comcast already blocking Netflix. Congress has already decided (which I disagree with), which makes the FCC's action contrary to congress who is supposed to have the power over the FCC. This means that what ever the FCC decides on their own, may likely be challenged possibly drawing the whole thing out for months or years. However ignoring the normal route for bills and regulation has been quite common for this administration. IOW is the two houses can not agree it ends up with a presidential decree that again ignores the proper channels for laws and regulations.

Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

What does the FCC have to do with this, again? Last I checked, internet was not transferred directly over the air like traditional television, so they have no more jurisdiction over internet than cable TV.

Re:Why?

[Steauengeglase]

All kinds actually. Cell phones, wifi; anything that takes up spectrum space is under the jurisdiction of the FCC.

Re:Why?

[blackraven14250]

Funny you mention that, since they have a gigantic amount of jurisdiction over cable TV.

Re:Why?

[pitchpipe]

What does the FCC have to do with this, again? Last I checked, internet was not transferred directly over the air like traditional television, so they have no more jurisdiction over internet than cable TV.

God damn there outta be an IQ requirement to post here! What part of "Federal" or "Communications" or "Commission" equates to only "over-the-air"?

Here is a formula for figuring out whether things will pass in the US: Does it pander to a moron's sense of morality? pass Does it benefit only the super-rich? pass Does it look like it benefits the middle class but really does nothing or actually just benefits the super-rich? pass Does it do something to really strengthen the US? fail

Ask yourself: what does not having net neutrality do? It benefits the super-rich. Net neutrality laws will fail. No matter what you do. No matter what you think. No matter how many "middle class" do-gooders you have on your side. It will fail. The super-rich will somehow convince the silent majority (morons) that it is somehow in their best interest that net neutrality does not succeed. Don't believe me? Just watch.

Re:Why?

[VGPowerlord]

What does the FCC have to do with this, again? Last I checked, internet was not transferred directly over the air like traditional television, so they have no more jurisdiction over internet than cable TV.

Where did you get the idea that the FCC only regulates over-the-air signals? Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter I, Section 151 describes the purpose of the FCC, and includes the words "by wire and radio."

Re:Why?

[rezalas]

Funny you mention that, since they have complete jurisdiction over cable TV.

FTFY.

Re:Why?

[Monkeedude1212]

I hate that attitude. It's an "I'm either right, or its a good thing that I'm wrong" with a bit of a "There's nothing I can do" mixed in.

When people adopt this attitude, the super rich have already won. They get content knowing the outcome of things even when it harms them. All that matters is being right, right?

Have you never heard the song Raise A Little Hell?

Don't ever "Just Watch"

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish to hell you were wrong. You're not. But man do I wish you were.

Re:Why?

[RevWaldo]

The general reason why the FCC has jurisdiction over wires that handle info is because those wires make serious use of "the commons" - poles, tunnels, manholes, junction boxes in the middle of the sidewalk, etc. etc. Without some mutual agreements as to how best use those commons there'd be a chaos- or monopoly-inducing free-for-all. The people (and by extension businesses) get the government to establish those mutual agreements i.e. regulations and create a regulatory body to oversee it all. Hence the FCC handles both wires and spectrum. It's a dirty job, but somebody has to do it.

Which isn't of course saying that the regulation or lack thereof they impose always puts them on the side of the angels.

.

Re:Why?

[sintral]

Sad but true. Whenever a member of the silent majority ventures to speak out (on any issue, not just NN), the media steps into to generically label them as a zealot, terrorist, political rogue/dissident, loose cannon, or some other closed-minded activist bent on hindering progress before said sheep has a real chance to build support and amass like-minded supporters. I'm kinda ranting off-topic here, I know, but this does seem to be the current trend. American media --a revenue/data stream controlled by the rich-- acts as a sort of zeitgeist police keeping the silent majority, well, silent and carefully informed.

Re:Why?

[DragonWriter]

What does the FCC have to do with this, again? Last I checked, internet was not transferred directly over the air like traditional television, so they have no more jurisdiction over internet than cable TV.

As you are perhaps unaware, the FCC's jurisdiction is not limited to broadcast transmissions; it also has jurisdiction cable, among other things.

"The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable." (About the FCC)

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, I agree with you. Net neutrality will fail because there is WAAAAAAYY too much money to be made when it fails. Those with the potential cash cow will pay big $$$ to make sure it fails.

Re:Why?

[s73v3r]

You forget about phone lines and telegraph lines, too. The FCC has jurisdiction over those.

And, might I add, phone lines have been mandated neutral for most of their existence. Yet, somehow, the phone companies still decided to continue giving service instead of shutting down due to an "unfavorable business climate".

Re:Why?

[Steauengeglase]

Just to be clear it makes it sound like I only mean that RF is covered by the FCC. Anything used for communication or possibly interfering with communication short of smoke signals, carrier pigeon and the daily mail are in their jurisdiction. If a particular brand of microwave oven caused your TV to turn off and your garage door opener to explode, the FCC might have something to say about it (though the FDA would probably act first).

This is a far sight better than having Congress make these decisions as they would probably force everyone to communicate via microwave oven.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

REALLY wish I could disagree with you here.

Re:Why?

[Stellian]

What does the FCC have to do with this, again? Last I checked, internet was not transferred directly over the air like traditional television, so they have no more jurisdiction over internet than cable TV.

God damn there outta be an IQ requirement to post here! What part of "Federal" or "Communications" or "Commission" equates to only "over-the-air"?

The original mandate of such governmental agencies is to regulate the airwaves, a finite natural resource that does not lend itself to the laws of free market and can't be owned by anyone. So we, as a society, mandate the government, our representative, to oversee that resource is put to good use.

On the other hand, if Susie and Joe build a cup phone and start talking, that's an entirely private issue. The government, as your elected representative, has no natural prerogative to control private communication, just like you have no right to tap your neighbor's phone line.

We can argue that, since the real-world telecommunication market tends to form oligopolies (few choices for the end user), regulation such as net-neutrality is required. I can accept that on economic grounds, if you can prove it will lower the cost, improve the quality and availability, just like regulation of the electricity and gas companies. But again, it has nothing to do with the service being a "communications" one, it's an interference from the state who tries to 'fix' the market. As always results may vary.

In any case, I wholeheartedly reject the commission's right to regulate how I use a copper wire that's my property running over my back yard to my friend's house.

Re:Why?

[blackraven14250]

Not really. They have no jurisdiction over my township-run channel.

Re:Why?

[feidaykin]

I essentially agree with the content of your post, but this comment makes me want to post some off-topic and pedantic remarks:

God damn there outta be an IQ requirement to post here!

That might not help a whole lot. IQ doesn't really measure intelligence, but rather the capacity for it. A person can have an extremely high IQ but know next to nothing about certain topics, or be just plain wrong about a lot of them. A good example of that is Bobby Fischer, a chess genius with an IQ of 180, but he wasn't immune to xenophobic paranoia. Personally, I've taken two IQ tests and was in the 130 range both times, well above average, but there are a lot of things I know next to nothing about. For example, even though I have the capacity to understand it, I never learned much advanced mathematics because I simply lacked the motivation. An above average IQ doesn't make a person immune to other mental pitfalls. IQ also does not measure experience. I wouldn't tell a plumber or electrician how to do their job, since I lack the expertise they possess. Something that makes Slashdot discussions interesting is the fact that people have a variety of expertise here, and it's not uncommon to find people employed in whatever topic the article is discussing. It would be a mistake to discount the insight of those people if they failed to meet some arbitrary cutoff.

Anyway, I'm sure you weren't really serious and it was just a flippant remark, but I thought I'd comment anyway.

Not even there's to legislate.

[Chaymus]

So the same governing body that allows me to be forced to a single ISP now wants to tell me what "Free" really means. They need to let a free market determine what should be supplied instead of protecting the monopoly.

Re:Not even there's to legislate.

[wurble]

The FTC handles monopolies, not the FCC. The fact that you are forced to a single ISP is either due to a poor choice of location (e.g. some place only one provider is willing to spend the money to give access) or due to local government enforcing a monopoly (e.g. most towns in New jersey which enforce cable monopolies). None of these are the FCC.

Re:Not even there's to legislate.

[girlintraining]

They need to let a free market determine what should be supplied instead of protecting the monopoly.

Free markets led to the Great Depression. Unregulated capitalism leads to mass exploitation, poor working conditions, and boom/bust cycles. A completely unregulated market is a disaster waiting to happen. You need a hybrid system where critical economic infrastructure is protected from wild fluxuations in price, and where there is government oversight to prevent any corporation from monopolizing such infrastructure. We deregulated the financial sector and look what happened - subprime mortgages and a huge housing bubble which later crashed and caused a global recession. We didn't have sufficient oversight on offshore drilling and now the Gulf of Mexico is an ecological disaster.

Free (unregulated) markets don't work. And even if they did, this market was artificially created and now has a few corporations monopolizing the vast majority of the resources, the cost of entry is exorbinant, and there would be no return on the investment for years, possibly decades, once you factor in all the legal challenges and bartering with the thousands of municipalities which have to approve the contracts for new infrastructure to be built. You cannot, after creating such an unbalanced system, simply step back and say "Oops. Well, I'm outa here!"

A more sound economic approach would be taking away the municipalities rights to negotiate said contracts and mandating it be at the county, or state level. This would sharply reduce the number of middlemen at the bargaining table and greatly lower the cost of entry into the market. As well, the federal government could pass legislation mandating that service providers and carriers be separated, allowing anyone to purchase contracts to gain access to the so-called "last mile". And hopefully they won't screw it up like they did with xDSL this time.

Bottom line: Once the government has created a monopoly, either by action or inaction, it needs to step in and dismantle it so that the market returns to equilibrium. This does not happen on its own by simply returning it to an unregulated status, at least not in any reasonable timeframe.

Re:Not even there's to legislate.

[pitdingo]

Yes the same body you voted into office...the same body you are responsible for electing. Either you voted for people who created the franchise laws, or you voted for people who are not tearing those anti-competitive, innovation stifling, laws/ordinances up.

Re:Not even there's to legislate.

[commodore64_love]

>>>So the same governing body that allows me to be forced to a single ISP

What the hell are you talking about? The FCC is part of the national government, and it's your *local* city or county government that gave Comcast a monopoly. Wakeup man. We live in a federalist system which means power lies at different levels.

You can't blame the national FCC for something controlled locally. Go to your townhall meeting and bitch at them about the monopoly they've created.

Re:Not even there's to legislate.

[Dishevel]

If it moves, tax it.
If it keeps moving, regulate it.
If it stops moving, subsidize it.
Ronald Regan.
He understood how the government likes to do things.

Re:Not even there's to legislate.

[commodore64_love]

>>>You need a hybrid system where critical economic infrastructure is protected from wild fluxuations in price, and where there is government oversight to prevent any corporation from monopolizing such infrastructure
>>>

Hey Mussolini! Is that you? Yep. We should have private corporations but under the control of government, to order them when and what to build. AKA national socialism, aka fascism. Preach it man.

>>>Free (unregulated) markets don't work.

Damn straight. What we need is an ANTI-choice market. Everything controlled by government because the People are too damn dumb to make their own choice. Govt-run public or private monopoly is the way to go. What do people need 10 grocery stores or car makers or ISPs for? 1 is enough. No choice but the approved choice. /end sarcasm

Re:Not even there's to legislate.

[0123456]

Free markets led to the Great Depression.

No, government imposed central banking running artificially low interest rates in order to make people thing 'you've never had it so good' in order to keep them voting the usual suspects back into power led to the stock market boom and bust, and then the government created the Great Depression by raising taxes when the economy was tanking.

Free (unregulated) markets don't work.

The free market is what people do when some guy isn't holding a gun to their head to force them to do something else. Obviously it 'works' because otherwise we'd still be living in caves and fighting over yak bones.

And even if they did, this market was artificially created and now has a few corporations monopolizing the vast majority of the resources, the cost of entry is exorbinant, and there would be no return on the investment for years, possibly decades, once you factor in all the legal challenges and bartering with the thousands of municipalities which have to approve the contracts for new infrastructure to be built.

Bingo. The problem is that the government created many of these big corporations (typically by building the infrastructure using the powers of government to force access to people's land or simply take it at gunpoint and then selling off the infrastructure to private companies) and now they prevent access to new competitiors.

So why are you arguing for more government interference when it's clearly been a disaster?

Re:Not even there's to legislate.

[ryantmer]

The free market is what people do when some guy isn't holding a gun to their head to force them to do something else. Obviously it 'works' because otherwise we'd still be living in caves and fighting over yak bones.

We've just changed what we live in and what we fight over. Does that truly indicate that it works?

Re:Not even there's to legislate.

[rezalas]

Cable franchise monopolies are partly enforced to reduce overbuild infrastructures from smothering communities in a sea of coax. Mind you the city itself has the majority of the power in a franchise agreement (unless they're stupid and give it away) but frequently neglects to exercise that power. A good franchise agreement also doesn't prevent similar businesses from entering the area, but instead simply prevents other cable providers from doing so. Thus, an FTTH provider could come in and overbuild a cable provider in a town and there is nothing that the cable provider can do about it except try to provide a better service. All of this weighs heavily on the franchise license however, which (for various reasons, partly corruption) doesn't always end up being in the people's best interest. A strong community however that is active in local politics will usually have really good restrictions (including the right for the city to fine an operator for poor service). Though I have seen some cities that settle for petty crap instead and give the farm away with the milk. A medium sized MSO I worked for negotiated with one city for services and all they wanted was new projector equipment every year (negotiated at $1,000 value) and a single channel reserved for their local broadcasts. They pretty much let us have our way with the rest of the contract which didn't go so well for them.

Re:Not even there's to legislate.

[Chaymus]

Internet != Cable.

Re:Not even there's to legislate.

[Anonymous Coward]

The FTC handles monopolies, not the FCC.

The Bell System begs to differ.

Re:Not even there's to legislate.

[Binestar]

Or he didn't vote, or he voted for the person who lost, or he just moved there and hasn't been eligible to vote yet. (Have I missed any?). Why assume only 2 options there?

Re:Not even there's to legislate.

[wurble]

You are confusing the regulation of the business itself with the regulation of their status as a monopoly. The FTC handles monopolies or rather it would be more appropriate to say it handles anti-trust law (not all anti-competitive behavior is from monopolies and not all monopolies are anti-competitive). The Bell System was a government sanctioned monopoly, and it's business was regulated by the FCC because it was a communications business. Had Bell System been a government sanctioned pharmaceutical monopoly, it would have been regulated by the FDA. It still would have had nothing to do with its monopoly status and everything to do with the type of business it dealt with. Furthermore, the government sanctioned the Bell System monopoly in 1913, whereas the FTC did not exist until 1914. So it's a poor example.

Re:Not even there's to legislate.

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn right he did! Why "tax and spend" when you can borrow and spend instead? Thousands of college freshmen with their first credit cards can't be wrong!

Re:Not even there's to legislate.

[DragonWriter]

The FTC handles monopolies, not the FCC. The fact that you are forced to a single ISP is either due to a poor choice of location (e.g. some place only one provider is willing to spend the money to give access) or due to local government enforcing a monopoly (e.g. most towns in New jersey which enforce cable monopolies). None of these are the FCC.

Actually, cable franchising agreements, to the extent that they are within the jurisdiction of a federal regulatory agency, are within the jurisdiction of the FCC. (see, generally, 47 U.S.C. chapter 5 subchapter V-A.)

Re:Not even there's to legislate.

[Anonymous Coward]

Free markets led to the Great Depression. Unregulated capitalism leads to mass exploitation, poor working conditions, and boom/bust cycles. A completely unregulated market is a disaster waiting to happen.

I love how you failed to address this part (you know, because you can't) and instead resorted to your typical response of calling girlintraining a liar liar pants on fire.

Re:Not even there's to legislate.

[cforciea]

The free market is what people do when some guy isn't holding a gun to their head to force them to do something else. Obviously it 'works' because otherwise we'd still be living in caves and fighting over yak bones.

When you get down to it, the reason a completely free market elevated us beyond "fighting over yak bones" as you put it is that it allowed individuals to consolidate power and exert control to get a group of people to work together. The problem is, the consolidation continued for hundreds of years and led to all of the old hereditary dictatorships and the like that have been responsible for everything from virtual enslavement of the lower class to outright genocide. It worked in the sense that it helped us get out of caves, but we're not a bunch of individuals living in caves trying to invent civilization anymore, so it is no longer the right tool for the job.

Re:Not even there's to legislate.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are confusing the regulation of the business itself with the regulation of their status as a monopoly. The FTC handles monopolies or rather it would be more appropriate to say it handles anti-trust law (not all anti-competitive behavior is from monopolies and not all monopolies are anti-competitive). The Bell System was a government sanctioned monopoly, and it's business was regulated by the FCC because it was a communications business. Had Bell System been a government sanctioned pharmaceutical monopoly, it would have been regulated by the FDA. It still would have had nothing to do with its monopoly status and everything to do with the type of business it dealt with. Furthermore, the government sanctioned the Bell System monopoly in 1913, whereas the FTC did not exist until 1914. So it's a poor example.

That's better, and you're correct that it was a poor example. (History is full of less-than-perfect examples; it's darn short on good examples.) In any event, it was the FCC and not the FTC that sounded the alarm about ATT's anti-competitive practices.

Re:Not even there's to legislate.

[s73v3r]

No, not even close. The Federal Government has absolutely nothing to do with regional monopolies. That's the fault of either your State, or your local municipality.

Re:Not even there's to legislate.

[s73v3r]

So he's saying that purely unregulated markets don't work, and you take that to mean he wants the other extreme?

Re:Not even there's to legislate.

[mcgrew]

Hey Mussolini! Is that you? Yep. We should have private corporations but under the control of government, to order them when and what to build.

So, having laws is facist? By your reasoning, your government is in control of you since you're not allowed to murder or rob people, and corporations are under government control because they're not allowed to sell you tainted meat, pollute the air and water, or kill their workers?

WTF? Why do you believe that people should have to obey laws and regulations but people don't? Or are you just an anarchist?

why havsn't Obama called out the republicans yet

[vxice]

This is one of my major problems with our president. He barely calls out republicans for stuff like "House Republicans have already promised to oppose any solution put forth by FCC chairman Julius Genachowski." They are not looking at the issues they are rejecting it without looking at it. Not that dems have never ever done this but Obama ran on a platform of ending this kind of thing and only seems to bend over backwards continuing to let republicans to run him over.

Wait...

[lordDallan]

I always hear that the Democratic Party is as much "in the pocket" of big business as the Republicans. But isn't the FCC part of a Democratic Party led executive branch? Am I missing something? Is Hollywood or some other big Democratic Party contributor pro-net-neturality?

Re:Wait...

[geekoid]

Yes,, your are missing the point that the Dems aren't obstructionists.

Currently attitude:
Pubs idea of bipartisanship is 'you're more then welcome to do what we want, or we will stop as much as the government as possible.'

The current attitude an behavior of the pubs is shameful, unamerican, and disgusting.

Also, the Dems want to help the citizens, the the pubs want to let corps do what they want.

Re:Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

They belong to the "Say one thing, then do the opposite" business. At least the repubs are sticking to their guns about opposing everything, even if that is a pants-on-head-retarded position...

Re:Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes,, your are missing the point that the Dems aren't obstructionists.

Ah, yes, the same dems who stalled procedure until it was time to adjourn so they wouldn't have to vote on several bills they didn't want to risk passing?

Seriously, once they get into congress, repubs and dems are the same. It isn't about what's "right" and what's "wrong" or what's "good" and what's "bad," it's about preventing the other side from getting what they want.

Re:Wait...

[robot256]

"Sticking to their guns"? Haven't you heard all their carrying-on about reducing the deficit and in the same breath killing all tax increases? That they want to do reduce the deficit by cutting spending by [billions] and cutting taxes by [trillions]? That sounds like saying one thing and doing the opposite to me, or else their pants-on-head-retarded position prevents them from counting zeros properly.

It's amazing how cognizant everyone in Congress is of their own hypocrisy--when Stephen Colbert trolled Congress, the only laugh he got was for saying "I trust that [...] both sides will work together in the best interests of the American people, as you always do."

Re:Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

I always hear that the Democratic Party is as much "in the pocket" of big business as the Republicans. But isn't the FCC part of a Democratic Party led executive branch? Am I missing something? Is Hollywood or some other big Democratic Party contributor pro-net-neturality?

Google.

"Net neutrality" has been perverted to mean ISPs can't charge content providers for allowing their bits to pass their networks.

Because Google and other content providers want that money for themselves.

Google has a private jumbo jet, not Verizon.

Re:Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you heard of the Laffer Curve? Now, would the cuts in spending and taxes get it right? Probably not, we're talking about politicians here. But the concept that such things could balance out is at least supported by theory.

And yes, I think their pants-on-head-retarded position prevents them from counting at all. If you never read something and just oppose it because a dem put it forward, what's there to count?

Not that the dems are any better, it just sickens me that the party I associated myself with for years is acting like this (I'm still a conservative, I just refuse to call myself a republican because of morons like these).

Re:Wait...

[s73v3r]

You realize there are two sides to the Laffer Curve, right? And that one of those sides says that you increase revenue by increasing taxes? How do you know we're not on that side?

i can see it now

[mikeru22]

"if you would like to view live stenographer's report online the cost is $0.10/kb. HD Video will be $0.50/min, otherwise with the free option you will experience 28.8kB/s download speeds..."

Re:i can see it now

[Cornwallis]

And I see a ripe opportunity to re-open my old dial-up BBS.

Re:i can see it now

[Anonymous Coward]

And I see a ripe opportunity to re-open my old dial-up BBS.

Fuck Ice-Zmodem, time to invent a new kick-ass compression protocol!!!

Re:i can see it now

[KlomDark]

That'd be fun. I miss those days! :)

So why?

[rakuen]

Are the Republicans promising to vote it down because they're opposed to Net Neutrality, or because they're opposed to a Democrat? Serious question.

Re:So why?

[M. Baranczak]

Mostly the latter. If a Republican administration did the same thing, then a few of them would complain, but they'd go along with it.

Re:So why?

[chemicaldave]

Probably a little of both. They're against govt. regulation and pro business. Of course this will hinder potential profits for telecoms, but they don't have the foresight to see the damaging effect this will have on any new Internet businesses in the future. And when they have to stand-up for their actions the inevitable answer will be

"Well, the American people don't want government regulation and I am required to abide by their wishes instead of actually making a sensible decision. Besides, these friendly telecom funded studies have informed me of the dangers to our fragile economy that this new regulation will surely impose on the hard-working middle class American people.

Re:So why?

[JackieBrown]

Why didn't he do this during the past two years if you believe it was that important? Surely they can walk and chew gum at the same time?

Did it occur to you that they waited until they knew it would fail to bring it to vote?

Re:So why?

[FictionPimp]

Well if they really said "oppose any solution put forth by FCC chairman Julius Genachowski" then that means they must simply be opposed to a Democrat.

This is the problem with a party system.

Re:So why?

[commodore64_love]

No mostly the former. Republicans believe Net Neutrality is simply a new name for an old idea: Fairness Doctrine. And they oppose the Fairness Doctrine completely and totally, because they think it means Rush Limbaugh (or Glenn Beck) will be yanked off the air and replaced with Rachel Maddow, per the requirement of the Fairness Doctrine. They also think the doctrine violates Amendment 1 (your station can say anything it wants w/o restriction).

So anyway - they oppose FD therefore they oppose NN, because they consider them the same.

Re:So why?

[commodore64_love]

>>>They're against govt. regulation and pro business

So too are the Democrats. How else do you explain the D White House yanking websites? Or pushing COICA in the congress? Or running-around the world and demanding countries sign the ACTA? Or supporting 3 Strike Laws w/o a right to trial? Obviously: To protect their business friends in Hollywood and crush those teenagers who dare download Britney Spears.

D or R - it matters little. They're both a-holes. Both shills of their corporate masters.
The fact you (and many others) can't see it, I find very troubling.

Re:So why?

[Microlith]

they oppose FD therefore they oppose NN, because they consider them the same.

So I suppose this goes to an earlier poster's point about ignorance, doesn't it?

Re:So why?

[MadUndergrad]

The only Republicans who believe that are the same ones who find peekaboo fascinating and confounding. If that includes any in office, and there may be a few I'll admit, then we've slipped more than even I thought. I doubt that's the case though. It would be strange, even for them, to be hung up on something that was banned 25 years ago. Out of curiosity, where did you get that notion?

Re:So why?

[commodore64_love]

>if that includes any in office

John McCain. He believes Net Neutrality is just an internet version of Fairness Doctrine.

Most republicans do, and I suspect a lot of Democrats also think NN==FD which is why they support it (Dems love that doctrine). See recent Democrat Congressmen's comments about yanking FOX News and MSNBC off the air and/or requiring them to be government-regulated to ensure balance in their reports.

Re:So why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for saying "if". On any political issue, I don't trust a third party's characterization of what somebody else said. But strangely, every political story I read on slashdot lately seems to be founded on some third party site rather than link to original source material.

Re:So why?

[s73v3r]

Only idiots think that. There is nothing in any Net Neutrality proposal that does anything close to that. If you are parroting those ideas, you're either an idiot who had them told to you, or you're just spreading FUD to defeat something the Democrats are trying to do.

Re:So why?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is nothing in any Net Neutrality proposal that does anything close to that

Well, not in any real Net Neutrality proposal, sure.

Too bad the Democrats aren't supporters of actual Net Neutrality and are instead misusing the buzzword for proposals that are, in fact, an Internet version of the Fairness Doctrine. Seriously, read what they're saying, they're using incredibly vague language on purpose to confuse net neutrality supporters into supporting something completely unlike what they want.

An ounce of prevention

[Ichijo]

If it's already the government's job to break up monopolies, then why is Net Neutrality needed?

Re:An ounce of prevention

[Fallen Kell]

Because the monopolies have too much power to get broken up by the government, so some of the government bodies that are not entirely in their pocket are trying to do something about it since the parts that should be dealing with it are bought and paid for by the monopolies.

Re:An ounce of prevention

[pr0f3550r]

In order to break up an monopoly you will have to prove that they are a monopoly or that practices were done that were monopolistic. Part of the aim for net neutrality is to define what this monopolistic behavior is for an industry that did NOT exist when the antitrust laws were created.

Re:An ounce of prevention

[dwandy]

Net Neutrality is a bit of a red-herring: as long as the last-mile is owned by the retailer there will never be competition in the market.
With true competition there would be no need to discuss net neutrality as those that offered unimpeded access to the web would be the ones people would use. More specifically, there would always be a competitor who offered up neutral access for those of us who cared.
Like streets, communication access is a natural monopoly (oligopoly at best) and should be either directly state owned (like our streets) or set up as a non-profit stand-alone with a mandate to maintain and upgrade the wires. Retailers would then connect and be charged for connection + (time-of-day?) bandwidth. Retailers would be free to make price plans as they see fit.
Fighting for net neutrality is working on symptom and failing to cure the problem.

Want a free/libre internet? Take back control of the last mile.

Re:An ounce of prevention

[HeckRuler]

Does Microsoft have a monopoly?
Does Microsoft perform anti-competitive practices?

I highly doubt anyone could ever establish a monopoly on the Internet, or even any Internet service. But that sure as hell doesn't mean that the wonderful and cherished Internet, which currently has an incredibly open and free market, is somehow inherently immune to anti-competitive practices. Such practices that would make it less open and less free.

Like contracts between ESPN3.com and ISP directly, bypassing the users altogether. Or discriminating against specific protocols like bittorrent. Or boosting one service over it's competitors. Or blocking access to competitors sites. Or chopping up the Internet into tiered network channels like CableTV.

Re:An ounce of prevention

[haapi]

Why do you think you ever had control of the last mile? Where did you live where that was true? What percentage of any population lives in such a place?

Re:An ounce of prevention

[commodore64_love]

You know, prior to government regulation (i.e. late 1800s and early 1900s), people had choice among many electricity providers. Wires were running everywhere and you could choose which company you wanted. Then the city or county government stepped-in, picked their favorite company, and gave said company a monopoly.

Your belief that government does not like monopoly is mistaken. Governments LOVE monopoly and if local governments stopped giving "exclusive franchises" to Comcast, we'd probably be able to choose from Comcast or Cox or Cablevision or ATT or Verizon or AppleTV or..... There'd no longer be any restriction to who could enter your neighborhood and sell you service.

But government doesn't want that.

Re:An ounce of prevention

[Anonymous Coward]

What world are you living in? The major companies, banks and retailers keep getting busted for collusion and why do they keep doing it? the cost of the fines is kept low enough by their lobbyists to still keep it profitable. IT'S BULLSHIT

Re:An ounce of prevention

[Anonymous Coward]

Wires were running everywhere

Creating a huge, ugly mess. Citation, Modern Marvels (I'm sorry, I forget which episode).

Re:An ounce of prevention

[Ichijo]

Wires were running everywhere

Creating a huge, ugly mess

There must be a better way prevent huge, ugly messes than to support monopolies.

Re:An ounce of prevention

[zQuo]

Totally agree! Net Neutrality is needed only because of the lack of competition in the last-mile. Regulation is almost mandatory because, like a gas company or electric utility, the internet provider has a near-monopoly position for each individual customer.

Re:An ounce of prevention

[tirefire]

There must be a better way prevent huge, ugly messes than to support monopolies.

There is! Off the top of my head, here are a few ways for a municipality to remove monopolies without creating a mess:

a. Buy the last-mile infrastructure from the local telco/cableco. Then rent this infrastructure to any ISP who wants to do business in the area.
b. The city gov't builds its own data infrastructure independent of the telcos/cablecos, laying fiber or copper underground. It then rents this to any ISP who wants to do business in the area.
c. The city creates temporary tax breaks to encourage wireless ISP startups. Or the city creates its own wireless internet service.

None of these options are perfect. All of them are somewhat vulnerable to litigation attempts by existing ISPs (especially "b" and "c", since these directly compete with existing ISPs). Still I can't help but think that major metro areas like NYC would reap huge financial benefits by providing a public internet infrastructure to its residents. And they'd certainly have the legal muscle to deal with the ISPs dragging their heels in court.

Re:An ounce of prevention

[Anonymous Coward]

What municipalities are SMART ENOUGH to deny "content" to the last-mile providers?

IOW -- the connectivity provider is denied any permission to provide Cable, Internet, or Telephone SERVICE, but is free to re-sell to any and all comers, provided that there is no business interlock, shared nor derivative ownership, etc. They'd also be able to sell local connectivity (e.g. site-to-site private "wire"), and if they did it cheaply enough, a whole new business of "neighborhood networks" would pop up to compete with wireless ISPs.

Not the best answer -- because then when something goes wrong, there's all that finger-pointing.

But, does anybody have a better answer?

Some towns and cities have laid their own fibre, and leased usage on it back to telcos and ISPs. But it's getting hard to find any up-to-date reports on how it has gone.

So, does anybody know about...

City of Coquitlam in British Columbia / Vancouver?
Was it Lusk, Wyoming in the 1990s?
Cape Town, South Africa?
Stockholm, Sweden?
Durban, South Africa?
Johannesburg, South Africa?
Pattaya, Thailand?

Others?

Re:why havsn't Obama called out the republicans ye

[bunratty]

What do you want Obama to do about it? It's up to the people to not vote for politicians that pull those stunts. Obama agreed to work with Republicans, but if they dig their feet in and say they refuse to cooperate, what can he do? At least when the house and senate had Democratic majorities he could simply ignore them, but apparently that wasn't the right thing to do either.

Greedy People who Run Things

[digitaldc]

Greed is the driving force behind politics, the economic mess we are in, and now anti-consumer measures like the tiered-internet that companies like Comcast are proposing.

Does anyone else think that the relentless pursuit of money-at-all-costs mentality is greatly hindering science, freedom, innovation and technology?

Re:Greedy People who Run Things

[Anonymous Coward]

Greed is the driving force behind being alive. Every single person is greedy to an extent.

It's not specific to politics.

Re:Greedy People who Run Things

[Antisyzygy]

Yes.

Re:Greedy People who Run Things

[TheGratefulNet]

what's your point? seriously, life is not a disney movie. life is mostly about bad people abusing their power and the not so bad guys having to deal with the brunt of it.

this is how humankind has been forever; its not a new phenomenon.

lose the fairy tale about concepts such as freedom and justice. life is not about that. at the core, its about power and those who have it vs those who do not. all else is decoration for show.

Re:Greedy People who Run Things

[digitaldc]

I guess my point is that as our country continues to implode due to unabashed and unrestricted greed, no one even seems to care and no one is ever held accountable.
It seems that in the past, people were actually held accountable for ripping people off. Now, it is the new way of doing big business.

Re:Greedy People who Run Things

[Vetruvet]

I agree completely, but that's nothing new...

Re:Greedy People who Run Things

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone else think that the relentless pursuit of money-at-all-costs mentality is greatly hindering science, freedom, innovation and technology?

No, not in any way. In fact, greed is most likely the reason *for* innovation. Great innovation very, very rarely comes at the direction of the government. It is almost solely driven by an individuals acting in their own rational self interest...or at least that's what Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman says...which he borrowed from Adam Smith.

Do you think that government just pass a bill and *make* people innovate? No, but they can provide incentives and get out of people's way...something elected officials rarely do.

Milton Friedman succinctly refutes your argument against Greed in under 2 minutes on Phil Donahue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

Re:Greedy People who Run Things

[Antisyzygy]

Well, revolutions were fought over these ideas, most turned out crappy, but one turned out pretty awesome for about 200 years. Thats the US. We used to have a lower disparity in wealth. There used to be a middle class that could buy homes with savings. Now there is only super rich, rich and a bunch of lower middle class to poor people. Since everyone is either like you or in a position of power nothing gets done about it. The real problem is people that gave up on achieving ideals.

Re:why havsn't Obama called out the republicans ye

[Monkeedude1212]

I hear its because he's been behind closed doors dealing with The Gregory Brothers to get the sound JUST right - so that when he makes such an announcement it can easily make the next "Auto-Tune the News" Episode and go viral in mere seconds.

All in Congress' hands now...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully Congress will vote before December 21 to actually grant the FCC the power to actually govern communications as originally intended... you know they are Federal Communications Commission, its got the word in its name...

Re:why havsn't Obama called out the republicans ye

[Anonymous Coward]

You actually believed Obama's promises?

Did you forget that Obama is a politician?

Do your worst

[Dyinobal]

I'll start my own internet with black jack, and hookers.

Re:Do your worst

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact, forget the Internet and blackjack!

Re:Do your worst

[someSnarkyBastard]

But how is that any different from the internet we have now?

Re:Do your worst

[BJ_Covert_Action]

It's called Craigslist, and it already exists. ;)

Re:Do your worst

[Anonymous Coward]

That's pretty much all the current one is for anyways.

Re:why havsn't Obama called out the republicans ye

[gstoddart]

Not that dems have never ever done this but Obama ran on a platform of ending this kind of thing and only seems to bend over backwards continuing to let republicans to run him over.

No matter what he ran on, Obama can do nothing but set and example, and show his willingness to work with them.

It's not like he can just tell the Republicans to play nicely. And, if as you suggest, he "calls them out", then all he's going to do is piss them off even more, and they'll work with him even less.

I don't see how Obama can actually make them do anything.

Re:why havsn't Obama called out the republicans ye

[dkleinsc]

And this sort of thing is why I'm a Groucho Marxist:

I don’t know what they have to say,
It makes no difference anyway --
Whatever it is, I’m against it!
No matter what it is or who commenced it,
I’m against it.

Your proposition may be good
But let’s have one thing understood --
Whatever it is, I’m against it!
And even when you’ve changed it or condensed it,
I’m against it.

(watch Groucho sing it)

tl;dr

[digitalsushi]

That was the shortest article I've ever seen. I had more information in my 4th grade "Weekly Reader" pamphlets.

Re:why havsn't Obama called out the republicans ye

[JackieBrown]

He is still trying to figure out how to fit it into his "car in a ditch" metaphor.

Yet more blatent hypocrisy from the Republicans

[l0ungeb0y]

For as much as they rile up their constituency about how America has lost all it's jobs, the economy being in the tank and how China is taking over, they do their best to constantly oppose new job creation and assist large corporations in stifling competition and innovation. Opposing Net Neutrality shows that the Republican party is against innovation, against American competitiveness and only seeks to put more money in the hands of their friends and contributors, the Nation and the people be damned.

But hey, when your core voter base is a bunch of pisswater guzzling, bible-banging, NASCAR fans who get their news from Glenn Beck and social opinions from Reality TV, I guess you don't even need to attempt to hide your hypocrisy since the majority of retards who voted for you are too dumb to think.

Net Neutrality assures more jobs, more innovation and continued competitiveness in an open marketplace. Opposing it will only benefit Comcast, Verizon and AT&T while preventing new startups who can't pay the extortion fees if they aren't blocked all together for daring to compete with their own "premium services"

America is already falling far behind in internet infrastructure. Asians can get Gigabit lines for what we pay for standard DSL, yet AT&T and Comcast are still stumbling around dragging their feet with IPv6 and it's taking an act of Congress to FORCE them to get internet access speeds to 1/10 of what Japan has today by 2020! Yet they have spared no expense suing municipalities who wanted to offer free wifi services and opposing Google's plans for municipal WiMAX offerings. Opposing Net Neutrality will only insure this situation grows exponentially worse.

Re:Yet more blatent hypocrisy from the Republicans

[Ryanrule]

i agree. fuck republicans in their fat saggy white asses.

Re:Yet more blatent hypocrisy from the Republicans

[Anonymous Coward]

Opposing Net Neutrality shows that the Republican party is against innovation, against American competitiveness and only seeks to put more money in the hands of their friends and contributors, the Nation and the people be damned.

But hey, when your core voter base is a bunch of pisswater guzzling, bible-banging, NASCAR fans who get their news from Glenn Beck and social opinions from Reality TV, I guess you don't even need to attempt to hide your hypocrisy since the majority of retards who voted for you are too dumb to think.

Actually, I find it far more likely that they're just anti-democrat, since that was their campaign platform. This isn't hypocrisy, this is sticking to their guns of opposing everything the dems put forth. Which, as is shown by the latter part of my quote, is a position held by the ignorant, biased, foolish masses on both sides. It's not either side's fault we're in the position we are in. It's both side's fault for being that freaking stupid.

Re:Yet more blatent hypocrisy from the Republicans

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod the parent "Fucking Obvious", not "Insightful".

Re:Yet more blatent hypocrisy from the Republicans

[D Ninja]

But hey, when your core voter base is a bunch of pisswater guzzling, bible-banging, NASCAR fans who get their news from Glenn Beck and social opinions from Reality TV, I guess you don't even need to attempt to hide your hypocrisy since the majority of retards who voted for you are too dumb to think.

Wow. If that isn't blatant typecasting if I have ever saw it...

Time for a true story...
The night that Obama was elected into office, I was downtown in a major US city. The moment that it was announced, a woman working a local convenience store turned from the TV she was watching and shouted, "Obama is elected! Everything is going to get better now!" Her coworkers cheered. She then proceeded to go back to her TV and cigarettes and not worrying so much about doing a good job. You see, the problem with your typecasting is that it can work both directions. In my case, I saw someone who was relying on another person to fix their life for them. It made me sad, actually. I ended up not even buying what I wanted to get because I just wanted to get out of there.

The fact of the matter is, there are a lot of smart people and a lot of dumb people living in the US, and a lot of people in between. However, we're all just human, and classifying a group of people as you did does nothing to actually solve the problems of this nation that we live in and only exacerbates the divide between political lines.

Or maybe I just don't know what I'm talking about. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go back to swilling a Bud while I read 1 Corinthians and yell at the driver's on TV (and hope for a good crash).

Re:Yet more blatent hypocrisy from the Republicans

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

I wouldn't fuck them with your dick.

Re:Yet more blatent hypocrisy from the Republicans

[Antisyzygy]

To be fair, the US is a lot larger than most other countries with the infrastructure you speak of. However, that aside I agree with most of what you said. Its amazing that Republican people (like the pisswater guzzlers you speak of) continue to vote for politicians who don't give a shit about them and support/oppose measures that would actually benefit them the most. I think one major problem is the Baby boomers like my grandmother. She continues to believe this crap spouted out by Fox news and Glenn Beck, and supports anything Republicans say to her detriment. This will sound really bad, but I will rejoice the day the last Baby boomer is dead as they seem to be causing the majority of the problems these days, as they are a large voting population and they also are our politicians many times. I love my grandmother but god she is stupid when it comes to politics.

Re:Yet more blatent hypocrisy from the Republicans

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. If that isn't blatant typecasting if I have ever saw it...

seen it

yell at the driver's

drivers

Still got the message. True too. Can't help myself on fixing grammar and spelling.

Re:Yet more blatent hypocrisy from the Republicans

[Ryanrule]

i was thinking...pineapple.

Re:Yet more blatent hypocrisy from the Republicans

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a republican and I'm black.

Fuck you.

Re:Yet more blatent hypocrisy from the Republicans

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

I was thinking 40mm high explosive. :)

Re:Yet more blatent hypocrisy from the Republicans

[Too Late for Cool ID]

Yep, the path toward innovation is giving the government the power to make sure that things stay the way they are now.

Comcast's overreach might help the cause

[GodfatherofSoul]

The timing *could* be right since they've just tried extorting content providers.

Re:Comcast's overreach might help the cause

[Richard_at_work]

Except that Slashdot overreacted to that story, in typical Slashdot style - the Comcast-Level3 issue was not net neutrality related, it was a case of Level3 exceeding their already existing peering relationship with Comcast by taking on Netflix CDN traffic (replacing Akamai), and turning down Comcasts offer to include it under the same terms as offered to Akamai.

It was Level3 trying to position this as a net neutrality story when infact it was a breach of already existing commercial peering arrangements - Level3 expected Comcast to take more traffic than formally agreed to and Comcast said "no".

Re:Comcast's overreach might help the cause

[TheSync]

Except that Slashdot overreacted to that story, in typical Slashdot style - the Comcast-Level3 issue was not net neutrality related

That's fine for you to say, but the FCC is investigating the L3/Comcast issue.

"Net Neutrality" will unleash all kinds of government controls on the Internet. I work in TV (previously in the ISP space), and I can assure you that you don't want your every business or technical decision made based on FCC rules (or what they are threatening to do but are unwilling to finalize rulemaking.)

Re:Comcast's overreach might help the cause

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't Comcast threten to block Netflix traffic because of the dispute? The neutral way to do it is to block all L3 traffic after L3 go over the amount specified in their peering agreement.

how does that square with govt censorship?

[Anonymous Coward]

Such as we have seen recently taking over DNS queries for 80 sites? Is that the same govt that we're supposed to trust with "neutrality"?

I'm in favor of neutrality, but I have zero faith the US govt will accomplish that without a ton of special interest influence, corruption, and graft.

Re:how does that square with govt censorship?

[robot256]

So you would rather have your Internet connection controlled by one corrupt special interest than a corrupt organization merely influenced by many competing corrupt special interests? I'm just sayin'...

Re:why havsn't Obama called out the republicans ye

[geekoid]

Obama mentions it all the time.

Perhaps you should choose a different media outlet thata ctually talks about all the issues for your news?

I suggest your local NPR stations.

And no, NPR isn't biased. Contrary to what the morons here think.

Not his style.

[wiredog]

He's too cool (in several senses of the word) for that.

An ex-pat's view

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

The American people are getting the government they deserve, and I hope they fucking choke on it.

Re:An ex-pat's view

[digitaldc]

The world is getting the government they deserve, it is a global economy run by a relative few individuals and there is nothing you can legally do about it.

Re:An ex-pat's view

[AcidPenguin9873]

How did this get a positive moderation? This is absolutely nothing more than anti-US flamebait - something that's becoming Slashdot groupthink du jour.

Re:An ex-pat's view

[jpapon]

I can make enough money to buy a sailboat and a lifetime Iridium data connection, bid the world fuckin adieu and set off to spend the rest of my l

Re:An ex-pat's view

[Antisyzygy]

Wait to generalize all of us. You are an ass hat. I guess its popular to hate America, but the world population that hates American people are a bunch of twats. Thats no different than me saying "African people are all smelly and they are stupid too, they deserve malaria outbreaks". There is a subset of us that really do not like what is happening and we vote and campaign against it, but nothing happens because people in power have 1. Made our education system a joke (so people do not have a brain to vote smart) 2. Stolen all of the money (and loaned it back to us) 3. Monopolized important parts of the economy 4. Made the US a police state with a perpetual war. Its the failure of our grandparents that we are paying for right now. Go eat shit.

Re:An ex-pat's view

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

Go eat shit.

I left the United States so that I could stop eating shit and start eating decent food.

Re:An ex-pat's view

[thijsh]

[CARRIER LOST] Connection terminated for not complying to mandatory net neutrality asset check.

Re:An ex-pat's view

[Anonymous Coward]

No one misses you here

Re:An ex-pat's view

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

Is that supposed to break my little basaltic heart?

What's in a name ...

[PolygamousRanchKid]

FCC chairman Julius Genachowski. . . Sarah Palin : "I'm against any legislation from a legislator whose name I can't pronounce. And you, North Korea, and South Korea get your names sorted out, and stop confusing us! Oh, and I am also looking at you, Dakotas!"

"Wait, Carolina, too? And why would someone find West Virgina, like kinda west of Virginia? I'll get back to you on this."

At least Sarah Palin can pride herself with not having any dirt flung at her from all those WikiLeaks.

Bye Bye Net Neutrality!

[Anonymous Coward]

21st December? Right before Christmas holidays?
Too many laws, bad laws, passed in that time of the year in past years.

Natural monopolies are tougher to break up.

[wiredog]

A natural monopoly being one where actual physical things, like cable, have to be invested in on a large scale.

Re:Natural monopolies are tougher to break up.

[Antisyzygy]

Seems to work for energy and phone companies who share the same cables.

Re:why havsn't Obama called out the republicans ye

[pitchpipe]

He barely calls out republicans for stuff like "House Republicans have already promised to oppose any solution put forth by FCC chairman Julius Genachowski."

Good hell! He won't call out Republicans for the hypocrisy of how they won't extend unemployment benefits because they'll add to the deficit, but want to extend the Bush tax cuts to the rich without any mention of the deficit.

Not that dems have never ever done this but Obama ran on a platform of ending this kind of thing and only seems to bend over backwards continuing to let republicans to run him over.

I think that you have the way he bends opposite of the way he really bends, and I think that you have the length of time that Republicans spend on top of him and what they do there wrong. Hint: it doesn't involve lube, although it should.

Re:why havsn't Obama called out the republicans ye

[rotorbudd]

Do you happen to remember when democrats had a large majority in the House and a super majority in the Senate for 2 years?
Democrats could have passed anything they damn well felt like passing without a single republican vote

Obama didn't have to "make" the other side do anything.

  Meet the new boss, same as the old boss - - - Pete Townsend

Re:why havsn't Obama called out the republicans ye

[vxice]

but what he can do is say "look I am trying to work with republicans they wont have any of it."

Re:why havsn't Obama called out the republicans ye

[HeckRuler]

vxice: He should call them out.
bunratty: What do you want him to do about it?
Perhaps he could, oh I dunno, Call them out on it! It usually involves pointing out the congressmen that simply refuse to even look at the issue and ask them why they reject it all out of hand. Ask them to simply stop obstructing all progress and maybe consider the possibility of working together. Just maybe.

And if they ask him to, oh I dunno, cut taxes, kick out the immigrants, or defend our longtime ally or N. Korea, he could respond that he's simply going to block the whole affair out of hand... Until they actually take a look at the FCC's proposal.

It's, you know, political hardball. Not exactly his sort of thing, but he could do it.

Re:why havsn't Obama called out the republicans ye

[Culture20]

And no, NPR isn't biased. Contrary to what the morons here think.

Your ad hominem has me convinced.

I am always disappointed that with such things...

[eepok]

I am always disappointed that with such things, the decision to move one way or the next is left up to people who don't understand the topic. The founding fathers were educated men and philosophers. They wrote books on concepts and engaged in intellectual discourse regarding those concepts.

Congress, in its short history, has been almost entirely a political game, however. Money interests and personal bias determines how important decisions are made.

Have there been congressional debates guest-starring important people on the topic? Have actual academics and their research been given at least equal priority and importance to industry power house CEOs?

Both

[MDillenbeck]

It is true we are becoming more politically polarized as a nation, with less willingness to find a common ground or consensus on difficult issues. Negotiation between Democrats and Republicans is mostly dead, both between the representatives in office and the individual citizens who voted them in.

However, there are two major reasons I see Republicans opposed to Net Neutrality. First, it is increasing government regulatory power - and the Republicans often campaign on a platform of deregulation. Second, Republicans often are seen as pro-corporate/free market. They would argue that if the market doesn't support the pay-for-tiered access model then those businesses that adopt it will be unprofitable and thus be removed from the market. Undoubtedly, Net Neutrality is most likely perceived as a form of Socialism in their eyes - that is, the State forcing a redistribution of wealth by making corporations treat all users of data equally.

Net Neutrality is something I am mostly in support of, but not entirely. After all, if a telcomm wants to prioritize credit card/ecommerce/banking transactions, would there not be a benefit in speed of transaction processing? What if they want to prioritize medical data? What if they want to increase the cost to these users for the priority since they will need money to develop the technology (and harm their income by removing priority from their other customers)? I recently saw the article that 20% of prime-time data usage is Netflix. What if the telcomm realizes that Netflix is driving their services and wants to offer them a discount on internet volume - allowing Netflix to lower their monthly costs for streaming and attracting more customers to the broadband services needed to access Netflix? Thus I am not 100% convinced yet.

Re:why havsn't Obama called out the republicans ye

[clarkkent09]

They don't think FCC should regulate the Internet, full stop. What difference does it make what the proposal by Genachowski contains?

Re:why havsn't Obama called out the republicans ye

[pitchpipe]

Do you happen to remember when democrats had [...] a super majority in the Senate[...]?

The Democrats have never had a super majority in the Senate, that would almost be impossible. For the big 'D's (should be 'P' for pussy) to have a super majority in the Senate they'd need to hold 100 seats, and only then would it be a super majority if the Vice President was a Democrat as well. Well, that and ALL of the fucking lobbiest had decided to take a vacation.

Re:why havsn't Obama called out the republicans ye

[sjames]

If somebody has already made up their mind to kill you any way they can, it hardly matters if you make them mad, you might as well kick their crotch and get something done.

The problem is that for several years the Democrats have been unable or unwilling to overcome the Republican's underwhelming minority, so people voted them out for being do-nothings.

Re:why havsn't Obama called out the republicans ye

[commodore64_love]

>>>only seems to bend over backwards continuing to let republicans to run him over.

Not correct. The Republicans only had ~40% of the congress and zero power to stop anything. It was the Blue Dog DEMOCRATS that have been opposing Obama. They are the ones that were blocking health reform and opposed single payer. They also demanded Obama write an XO forbidding the funds be used for abortions.

Obama had problems these last two years, but those problems existed *within* his own party, since many Dems are quite conservative & not agree with Obama's agenda.

Re:why havsn't Obama called out the republicans ye

[gstoddart]

Do you happen to remember when democrats had a large majority in the House and a super majority in the Senate for 2 years?

Is that in any way related to the OPs suggestion that Obama "call out" the Republicans for their current behavior? Or is it a parallel set of circumstances?

Would that two year period of time have had any bearing on a vote which is happening on December 21st?

In short ... have you said anything on topic? Or thrown out some random and unrelated items? (Honest question, I'm confused.)

The idiots are confusing this

[haapi]

with the Fairness Doctrine, dead since Reagan.
Gah, you gotta read the comments over in the Yahoo! pages on this.

"I feel a strong stupidness in the Force."

Re:why havsn't Obama called out the republicans ye

[N1ck0]

Anyone in congress who blanket refuses to look at matters that a Chairman of an government agency recommends is not doing their job. Yes I understand that their opposition is just a letter from a committee saying they do not like the FCC's approach to Net Neutrality. But the fact is they are objecting before the FCC has even discussed the matter yet. The real thing to do is wait till the FCC has a proposal and then the committee should discuss and provide a detailed critique of the individual rules in the plan that they need revisited. Representatives and Committees are defying the oath of their position every time they stick their fingers in their ears and shout 'La La La I am not listening to this branch of government La La La'.

Re:why havsn't Obama called out the republicans ye

[commodore64_love]

It's difficult to compromise when the choice is between enslavement with chains around your neck, or a plush felt collar. The latter IS a better compromise but the end result is still Anti-choice and Anti-freedom.

Obama keeps pushing ideas that would take away freedom of choice, and leave us as Wards of the new Lords... like serfs. He who holds the money, holds a monopoly and the citizens are left with no options.

At the behest of the free market...

[Anonymous Coward]

At the behest of the free market. Yes, the banks themselves demanded less regulation and artificially low interest rates from the Federal Supply.

The free market only works if the company is open and honest. If you think you've found one, you're mistaken.

The problem is that the government is being told by idiots like you to let corporations be the government you cannot vote out.

So you don't love your children?

[Anonymous Coward]

So you don't love your children? After all, the driving need of everyone is, apparently, greed. And love isn't greed, so it can't be the motivator.

Or was that post of yours just arrant bollocks?

Answers on a postcard...

Re:So you don't love your children?

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, because greed and love are mutually exclusive feelings that cannot both exist in the same person.

Or you're a moron.

Re:So you don't love your children?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't have children, thank god.

That said, having children is a form of greed. The need to pass on your genes or to have someone to take care of you when you are old. They are all self-serving reasons.

Re:why havsn't Obama called out the republicans ye

[hweimer]

What do you want Obama to do about it? It's up to the people to not vote for politicians that pull those stunts.

Yes, but how should people know about this when even the political opponents do not talk about it? Why should the media cover the Republican obstructonism when even the Democrats seem to have no problem with it?

Re:why havsn't Obama called out the republicans ye

[MBGMorden]

It's up to the people to not vote for politicians that pull those stunts.

The thing is, partisan politics have totally screwed up the ability for people to truly vote in representatives that do what they want.

I can vote in a Republican who wants to grant mega-corporations the right to extort each other (and us by proxy).
Or I can vote in a Democrat who wants to take my guns away (in addition to promoting a welfare state).

There's no balance in issues. Closest thing to a sane party I've found is the Modern Whigs, but they're not going to win an election in my lifetime. Being presented with two choices, both of which you detest, isn't an opportunity to "do something". It's just teasing the voter and reaffirming the powerlessness.

Re:why havsn't Obama called out the republicans ye

[vxice]

>>>only seems to bend over backwards continuing to let republicans to run him over.

Not correct. The Republicans only had ~40% of the congress and zero power to stop anything. It was the Blue Dog DEMOCRATS that have been opposing Obama. They are the ones that were blocking health reform and opposed single payer. They also demanded Obama write an XO forbidding the funds be used for abortions.

Obama had problems these last two years, but those problems existed *within* his own party, since many Dems are quite conservative & not agree with Obama's agenda.

those dems disagreed on specific issues like as you mention no money for abortion. The difference is they actually read the bill before saying we won't even consider it. repubs flat out as a party refused to discuss any issue related to the matter. and yes repubs did have the power to stop the bill by saying they would not support it in any form, that required a higher percentage of dems to go along with it. the goal of democracy is an agreeable medium not one side happy at the others expense. of course not everyone will agree perfectly with anything and I disagreed with many aspects of the insurance reform bill, repubs knew they only had to drag their feet long enough and get a few dems to disagree on some point or another and blame the failure on the dems. only one repub seemed the least bit interested in the content of the bill, sen. snowe.

Where does phone service run on powerlines?

[wiredog]

The same poles, yes, but not the same cables.

Re:why havsn't Obama called out the republicans ye

[robot256]

I love this song! We need to kidnap John Boehner and make him sing it for youtube. The more straight-faced and atonal he does it, the better.

Re:why havsn't Obama called out the republicans ye

[robot256]

"Cannot start car with this cargo. Please remove purchases from out-of-plan retailers or upgrade to the premium vehicle plan for only $89.99 additional per month."

Re:why havsn't Obama called out the republicans ye

[commodore64_love]

>>>repubs flat out as a party refused to discuss any issue related to the matter.

The fact the Republicans met with Obama in late 2009, brought copies of the healthcare bill, and discussed with the president which *specific* sections they liked or did not like, disproves your assertion. Would you like me to post the video? The Republicans demonstrated a willingness to be open-minded and work with the president, but he shot them down almost every time they opened their mouths by saying, "No sorry I'm not willing to change that section."

So your comment that Repubs refused to read or meet or discuss the Bill is wrong, wrong, wrong. The reason the Health bill barely passed was because of opposition *within* the Democrat party. Else it would have passed easily with ~60% (the number of democrats in the Congress) and not needing one single R vote.

I asked a republican. . .

[havardi]

A good guy too. His response to the Comcast/Level 3/Netflix thing was "The middlemen always get their cut". The netflix bits on the wire have a higher "value" or "profit potential" than other bits, and therefore the people carrying those bits should be entitled to a cut of that profit. I asked if shipping companies do the same thing regarding the content and value of the boxes they move around and he suggested they do. He was totally cool with the concept.

I guess this is basically the idea that businesses need to maximize profits using any means. This is actually really great-- instead of profits being tied to your own operations, i.e, shipping more packages at minimal cost-- now you can "piggy back" on the success of other companies. The more successful another company becomes, the bigger your cut can become!

I feel dirty now.

Re:I asked a republican. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Next ISP business plan one step further on: "we've intercepted an overdue e-mail from you to the IRS. It seems really really important for you to send this e-mail in time. At the moment it's stuck in our queue, but for a tiny extra fee we'll give it priority"

We could call it the "Dick Turpin internet prioritisation algorithm" or something.

captcha: buttocks

Re:why havsn't Obama called out the republicans ye

[orthancstone]

but what he can do is say "look I am trying to work with republicans they wont have any of it."

The people he'd be trying to convince wouldn't care anyway. It'd be a complete waste of his time.

Re:why havsn't Obama called out the republicans ye

[Anonymous Coward]

"The Republicans demonstrated a willingness to be open-minded and work with the president..."

By far the funniest thing I've read all day, thanks for the laugh.

Re:why havsn't Obama called out the republicans ye

[TheSpoom]

So, do you vote for the Modern Whigs?

Re:why havsn't Obama called out the republicans ye

[commodore64_love]

>>>morons here

NPR has trained you well. Repeat the NPR mantra after me: "Libertarians? Morons. Constitutionalists? Morons. Pro-small-government? Morons. We shall do everything we can to marginalize or just plain ignore these anti-government persons... including firing our one and only Libertarian off the staff for something he said while off the clock."

Well done Citizen.
NPR admits Liberal Bias - http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200311/ai_n9317144/

Re:why havsn't Obama called out the republicans ye

[Mongoose Disciple]

Do you happen to remember when democrats had a large majority in the House and a super majority in the Senate for 2 months?

FTFY. The actual time with Congress in session with 60 senators was not a long one, and even then it's only 60 if you counted the Independents that caucus with Democrats.

Not that you can't (or shouldn't) be able to get something done in 2 months, but let's try not to rewrite history, especially when it's such recent and well-documented history.

Scheduled for the 21st???

[Maltheus]

I'm still not sure where I stand on net neutrality, but if it's scheduled right before Christmas, then I know America is screwed. Scheduling legislation for then is the political analog of pulling out a tube of lube with an evil grin on one's face. In fact, I'll probably know which way I should have stood on the issue after the vote. This is the kind of crap that gave us the federal reserve.

Here's why I oppose net neutrality, as proposed

[ffreeloader]

The highly visible parts of net neutrality such as those discussed ad nauseam here on /. daily I have a no problem with at all. Why I oppose it is because the FCC wants to include a revival of the Fairness Doctrine as part and parcel of their net neutrality policy. Why do I oppose something that has such a positive sounding name? Because of what it actually results in when put into practice. It results in the suppression of free speech, which is nothing other than another attack on our constitutional rights as citizens.

I won't write out all my reasoning, but will give you a link to a page that spells out my reasons much more clearly than I could.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1993/10/em368-why-the-fairness-doctrine-is-anything-but-fair

I will say this. I'm not willing to sacrifice my constitutional rights for monetary advantage. The current administration has already taken away our right to life--the President can have any one of us assassinated with no due process and all he needs to do is make an unsupported accusation. No evidence is needed. The current administration has also taken away much of our pursuit of happiness because the FTC can shut down any business, at any time, for any reason, with no explanation and never be held accountable in any way as it can do this without having to release any information at all. All FOIA requests are denied as a matter of law, and the business owner/s is/are placed under gag orders. They cannot speak publicly about what happened. This allows the government to take away your means of supporting yourself at any time, for any reason, without you being able to say boo about it. Now comes this attack on free speech by the same administration. This administration has shown itself willing to destroy all of the inalienable rights in our Declaration of Independence(DoI). This administration is attacking the very foundations of our country.

Obama ran on a platform of change. Well, what we are changing into is something much less than what we have been. What principles, what ideas could be greater than those expressed in our DoI and the specifics of those ideas spelled out in our Constitution? Read the following and tell me what can be a greater foundation for liberty than what we already have? I would encourage you to read the DoI in its entirety, which includes the reasons we, as a people, revolted, for I am only quoting the first couple of paragraphs. Look at what we revolted against, and look at what we are changing into. Look for similarities between then and now. We need to take our country back for what we were given by our founding fathers is not what we have now.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn

Re:Here's why I oppose net neutrality, as proposed

[PLai]

Good point. Labels can be very misleading, and the devil is in the detail. Are the rules to be voted on available on-line?

Re:Here's why I oppose net neutrality, as proposed

[locallyunscene]

Why did you link to the fairness doctrine in a thread about network neutrality?

Re:Here's why I oppose net neutrality, as proposed

[ffreeloader]

I take it you commented on what I had to say without actually reading my post.

Re:Here's why I oppose net neutrality, as proposed

[locallyunscene]

I did read your post and while my response was a bit trite it cut to the heart of the matter. Equating Network Neutrality to Fairness Doctrine is mistaken at best, deliberately obfuscating the issue at worst.

Republicans = Cunts

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, you heard it here first!

The Force is strong with this one...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is just like SW episode 2.
Does this mean Obama is really a Sith Lord?

Re:why havsn't Obama called out the republicans ye

[rokstar]

Did we watch the same meeting? This was the one that was televised right? None of the republicans that I saw were pointing to specific sections of the bill or offering alternatives. The resounding chorus from that meeting was "Scrap the bill and start over" from the republicans, not "lets see if we can work out the problems we have with this bill."

Re:why havsn't Obama called out the republicans ye

[commodore64_love]

I saw several Republican congressman READ directly from the bill, followed by explanations of why they think that section needed to be modified, as Obama listened. Why you missed that is beyond me, unless you fell asleep or are so filled with anti-Republican hate that you refused to hear what was going on.

Recently the UK government came-up with the idea of taking people's paychecks. Completely. And then handing-back an allowance to the citizens. I suspect that's what Obama truly desires which is why he said, "The Republicans should sit in the back and keep quiet." Does that sound like a president desiring to have open exchange???

Of course you'll now claim you never heard Obama say that, but that merely demonstrates you are not informed. I've seen the video on TV and aired on radio, multiple times. Obama is the one who was close-minded.

Dems or Repubs. They are both fuckign dicks.
Why you people continue to "defend" the Dems/Obama Bush/Repubs makes no sense to mer.
You are fucking fools. WAKE UP people.

Re:why havsn't Obama called out the republicans ye

[s73v3r]

Call them out on it. Don't let the Republicans control the message. At every press conference, we should be hearing how the Republicans are obstructing progress, and how they are fighting against the interests of the people they represent.

Re:why havsn't Obama called out the republicans ye

[s73v3r]

But at least by calling them out, they're not controlling the message, and people are hearing that it is the Republicans that are blocking everything. What he's doing now is letting them control the message, and letting them bitch that the President isn't working with them, meaning that he has to bend over backwards for them.

Re:why havsn't Obama called out the republicans ye

[s73v3r]

and a super majority in the Senate for 2 years?

No, I don't. You know why? Because it didn't happen. When Democrats took office, they only had 59 seats due to the Minnesota Senate election being contested. When that got sorted out, then Sen. Kennedy died, thus leaving them with 59 seats again.

Re:why havsn't Obama called out the republicans ye

[s73v3r]

Bullshit. They *may* have done this with Obama, but when on TV, or in every townhall meeting, all they said was "DEATH PANELS! SOCIALISM!", thus dragging the national discourse down even further so that we couldn't have a decent debate on the topic. That is all on them.

Re:why havsn't Obama called out the republicans ye

[Dammital]

It wasn't "House Republicans have already promised to oppose any solution", it was "Energy and Commerce Committee Republicans are preparing a letter to the agency expressing disapproval". (Why so shrill?)

Typical...

[Kazoo the Clown]

Translation: "We don't care if the idea is any good or not, we oppose it in any case for political reasons." Is it any wonder why this country is so screwed up?

Facts Fail

[medv4380]

You are grossly miss informed. The FTC only deals with monopolies if they are not "natural" monopolies. Power, Water, Cable and Phone services are considered natural monopolies since it would be impractical to have multiple competitors in an area. Imagine having two cable lines to every house and in every city just to accommodated two cable providers or how many you'd need to satisfy the capitalist ideal of having a large number of competitors so people can pick and choose providers. Since phone lines were considered natural monopolies they were put under the FCC since that is it's natural regulating body for all Communication and Electronics the FCC has always been in control of them and not the FTC. The FTC actually has nothing to do with ether the Cable or Phone services since they are natural and allow the FCC and local governments to control them as they please. Good old "Ma Bell" was broken up by the FCC and is controlled and regulated by the FCC. If you can't grasp how from there the FCC is also the regulating body for the Internet in the US since the Internet is just a bunch of Cable lines, Phone lines, and interconnected electronic equipment meant and intended for Communications then you'll never understand it or even a more abstract concept like Net Neutrality. Next thing you now you'll be blathering about how the FCC shouldn't exist and how it should be your right to beam any old frequency into any airwaves as your freedom of speech.

Re:Facts Fail

[wurble]

The FTC governs anything that involves anti-competitive practices. The FCC govern communications. It is not the FCC's job to determine if a particular entity is engaging in anti-competitive practices, however it is not barred from doing so. The FTC however is given the responsibility of identifying such violators and curbing that kind of behavior. So while nothing is stopping the FCC from identifying the anti-competitive practices of a communications company, they don't have to. The FTC however has to. It is true, not all monopolies are anti-competitive. Sometimes a monopoly is a monopoly because there's simply only one agent willing to engage in that particular business in that particular region.

That's all beside the point though. He was talking about the fact that he has only one ISP available to him, and my comment still stands. It's either because no other company wants to come in there, or his local government is actively preventing (either directly or through taxes and fees which make it cost prohibitive) competitors from coming in there. Neither of these are the FCC's fault.

Re:Facts Fail

[medv4380]

Incorrect, the FTC really has nothing to do with this because it's dealing with Phone and Cable. This has been the job of the FCC since it was created in 1934.

The stated purposes of the Act are "regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States a rapid, efficient, nationwide, and worldwide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges, for the purpose of the national defense, and for the purpose of securing a more effective execution of this policy by centralizing authority heretofore granted by law to several agencies and by granting additional authority with respect to interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio communication, there is hereby created a commission to be known as the "Federal Communications Commission", which shall be constituted as hereinafter provided, and which shall execute and enforce the provisions of this Act.

This is why the FTC never has anything to say when Phone companies merge in the US but the FCC must always give it's blessing. If I knew where to find them I'd point you to the FCC rules the allowed all the Dialup ISPs to exist in the 90's and the rule change that caused only 1 to 2 broadband providers to be in any area, but I don't have the time to search or the memory to remember the exact chapter and verse. The FTC has absolutely nothing to do with this issue ever.

Re:why havsn't Obama called out the republicans ye

[rokstar]

That should have been "and offered alternatives" in my original comment. I heard over and over again in that meeting that the billed need to be scrapped and they needed to start over again. Plenty of people went in there with copies of the bill but it was used as a political prop more than anything else. Also you'll note that I said nothing about Obama's roll in the meeting nor did I defended his actions. He may have not come with an open mind for compromise but it incredibly dishonest to say that the republicans did either. The rest of your post would seem to indicate to me that you may agree on that last point.

Re:why havsn't Obama called out the republicans ye

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you like me to post the video?

Given your history of trolling, the only conclusion I can come to for why you didn't post it in the first place is it doesn't actually exist. Therefore you are lying and we will not believe you.

Also, if you choose to reply to this and your reply still does not provide the link, that is just more proof you are a liar.

Re:why havsn't Obama called out the republicans ye

[MBGMorden]

If I ever saw them on a ballot, I would. Usually they don't even get that far.

Re:why havsn't Obama called out the republicans ye

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because everyone votes for them.

No really.

If, say, the Green party starts pulling critical votes away from the Democrats, the Democrats start having to adopt more Green Party policies.

Vote for who you want. They'll notice.

Re:why havsn't Obama called out the republicans ye

[T.E.D.]

This surprises me. There has actually appeared on one of your ballots the name of a Democrat who wants to take away guns from Law-abiding citizens who already legally own them? I know the Republican noise machine (the folks paid to keep people voting for those mega-corporation lovers you bemoan) likes to claim all Dems are that way, but they'd say anything, wouldn't they? I've never had such a person appear on any of my ballots. I'd certianly be unlikely to vote for them if they did.

Re:why havsn't Obama called out the republicans ye

[MBGMorden]

Twist the meaning of it if you like, but any and every politician who voted for the original AWB of 1994, and all who have tried to get it reenacted are guilty of trying to restrict my firearms rights. It took YEARS after I was able to buy my first handgun (came of age during in the middle of the ban) before I could get a proper 15-round magazine for it. I also was unable to get ahold of an AR-15 in my present configuration (yes, it's got an evil carry handle and a bayonet lug - and it's never done anything but punch holes in paper).

Just look at the spread as far as partisan support for that law went.

Even as to your original claim about taking them away, there's the famous quote regarding firearms from Dianne Feinstein (I guess I don't have to tell you that she normally sports a big D beside her name):

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them -- Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in -- I would have done it."

She's still in office by the way.

Re:why havsn't Obama called out the republicans ye

[IICV]

Yes, it was the "Blue Dog" democrats who opposed Obama, all of the Republicans were totally supporting him!

Oh wait, the Republicans were voting against everything, and throwing filibusters in on top of it; the "Blue Dogs" were just icing on the Party of No's cake.

Oh crap no !

[nu1x]

The Eve of the Festival approaches ...

Meanwhile...

[Anonymous Coward]

Comcast is bullying Netflix into paying more for their video streaming service in addition to planning on acquiring NBC Universal. NBC Universal is also the majority shareholder of the competing video streaming service Hulu. This is why Net Neutrality must continue to exist.

You forgot one aspect

[ThatsNotPudding]

most federal and state prisons (and their fat payrolls) are located in the most rock-ribbed, reddest states/counties. Remoting the mostly minority prisoners far, far away from their families is just a nice, racist bonus.

Thanks for the trash

[ATXMCRider]

I came here to read about possible Net Neutrality legislation. Instead of information, nothing but Rep-Dem bashing from a bunch of juvenile shut-ins. Comments that are simply sound bites from your respective media packets. I'm sure the respective National Committees will be glad to know their 'message' is being received. Don't you get enough poli-slam during your WOW time? There must be a political flame forum that you political 'experts' can lurk? Twenty minutes of wading through your crap comments, not one word about regarding the proposed legislation for Net Neutrality. Thanks for wasting my time.

Re:why havsn't Obama called out the republicans ye

[T.E.D.]

I'm not "twisting the meaning" of anything. You said "take your guns away", and near as I can tell that law didn't take a gun away from anyone.

I hope I did not wake up in some bizzarro-world where insisting on factual accuracy is "twisting the meaning", whereas the origianal inaccuracy is somehow not.