Slashdot Mirror


Republicans Create Rider To Stop Net Neutrality

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF writes "Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) submitted a rider yesterday to a bill on military and veterans' construction projects. The rider would, 'prohibit the FCC from using any appropriated funds to adopt, implement or otherwise litigate any network neutrality based rules, protocols or standards.' It is co-signed by six other Republican senators. We all knew this was coming after the last election removed most of the vocal supporters of net neutrality and supplanted them with pro-corporate Republicans."

11 of 528 comments (clear)

  1. Not pro-corporate by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To call those against Net Neutrality as "pro-corperate" is a terrible mistake, because a lot of large companies back net neutrality - including Google and Amazon.

    The reality is that companies want regulation passed that benefits that company - that is the point of lobbying after all. So that is why the only position you can possibly support if you are "anti-corperate" is no regulation at all.

    Seeing as that is the position the Republicans are taking, those who claim Republicans are acting on behalf of corporations need to think about who THEY are actually supporting through these accusations, and what we lose when the truly open internet becomes beholden to the whims of the FCC.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Not pro-corporate by spidercoz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'd take the whims of the FCC over those of AT&T and Comcast any day.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
    2. Re:Not pro-corporate by oGMo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The reality is that companies want regulation passed that benefits that company - that is the point of lobbying after all. So that is why the only position you can possibly support if you are "anti-corperate" is no regulation at all.

      False dichotomy; companies want regulation passed that benefits them, but this is not the only possible regulation. Therefore the only "anti-corporate" choice is not "no regulation." This is especially true since "no regulation" highly benefits another subset of companies (namely certain large ISPs like Comcast) who hold local monopolies, and already want anti-individual/customer/citizen measures which will raise prices and reduce quality.

      Indeed, regulation that benefits individuals is "anti-corporate," or at least corporation-neutral and anti-monopoly-abuse, which is the real purpose here. Knee-jerk reactions to anything labeled "corporate" (or "regulation") aren't the answer. Preventing the abuse of individual customers is.

      --

      Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage

  2. Re:You thought the GOP/TP represented regular peop by Surt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Who on earth thought GOP/TP represented regular people?

    --
    "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
  3. Pro big donor by spun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Republicans want absolutely no regulation of anything. Net neutrality is regulation. Without net neutrality regulations, the 'truly open Internet' becomes beholden to certain corporate interests. I would rather the Internet be beholden to the FCC, which is at theoretically accountable to US citizens, than to a few large media companies.

    Regulations are like guns. They are tools. They can be used to protect or to harm. They are neither evil nor good, in and of themselves. We should never seek to get rid of all regulations, only the bad ones. Without 'regulations' the little guy is at the mercy of the rich and powerful. I support the right of the little guys of the world to band together and enact laws to protect themselves from exploitation.

    You basically bring up the FCC as a sort of scary specter, "Ooga booga booga! FCC gonna getcha!" without saying what, exactly, you fear the FCC might do.

    Net neutrality regulations are necessary to keep the Internet open. It will either be regulated by the FCC, or it will be controlled by a handful of huge media conglomerates. It will not stay the unregulated, anything goes wild west it is today. Either the landlords will move in and Enclose the open Internet, or we, the citizens, decide that we do not want to let them wall off the Internet, and we pass laws to stop them.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    1. Re:Pro big donor by h4rr4r · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Bullshit, ask them about corn subsidies.

      Republicans love regulation, regulation that moves money into the welfare queen red states.

    2. Re:Pro big donor by mike449 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The Republicans want absolutely no regulation of anything. Net neutrality is regulation.
      While they are at it, they should un-regulate the right of Cox to dig my property (private and public). If they want free market, let me name the conditions on which they can lay their cables.
      So they actually want regulation, but only when it suits corporate interests and not public interests? This exposes them as shills and hypocrites.

  4. Still cant believe you guys have riders... by citylivin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    KENT BROCKMAN: With our utter annihilation imminent, our federal government has snapped into action. We go live now via satellite to the floor of the United States congress.
    SPEAKER: Then it is unanimous, we are going to approve the bill to evacuate the town of Springfield in the great state of--
    CONGRESSMAN: Wait a second, I want to tack on a rider to that bill - $30 million of taxpayer money to support the perverted arts.
    SPEAKER: All in favor of the amended Springfield-slash-pervert bill?
    FLOOR: Boo!
    SPEAKER: Bill defeated.

    Can't believe you guys haven't fixed this yet. How can a completely unrelated thing be tacked on like that? is it really just a congressmans whim? Everytime i hear the word "rider" in american politics, i think of that simpsons skit.

    --
    As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
  5. Re:You thought the GOP/TP represented regular peop by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Aye. Jeez, they openly joked and boasted about the wealthy being "their base".

    One guy a few days ago on a conservative talk show host said he was about to lose his unemployment benefits and with that, his house, car, probably family. Conversion story, right?

    Nope-- he felt he did the right thing on principle to slit his own throat, even tho the wealthy will be walking away with $100,000 in tax savings alone.

    It is going to take hard poverty to break these folks from the fox news and radio talk show host brainwashing. They literally identify with billionaires while they are losing everything and being tossed out to starve. When do they wake up and start voting in their own self interest?

    Or will they just bypass that step entirely and go straight to violence in a couple years.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  6. Don't Americans know when they're getting screwed? by kawabago · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't Americans notice the Republicans keep throwing wrenches into all the worthwhile legislation and promoting issues that are not in the interests of the majority of Americans? It goes beyond pulling the wool over peoples eyes, you have to be out right stupid not to see that they are not acting in the interests of the vast majority of the American people.

  7. Re:You thought the GOP/TP represented regular peop by Schadrach · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No, it's an almost completely different pack, because the pack that thinks the Democrats represent regular people simply won't listen to anything the Republicans say as a matter of principle, and the reverse is also true.