Slashdot Mirror
US House Subcommittee Votes To Kill Net Neutrality
angry tapir writes "A US House of Representatives subcommittee has voted in favor of a resolution to throw out the US Federal Communications Commission's recently adopted net neutrality rules. The communications subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee voted 15-8 along party lines for a resolution of disapproval that would overturn the FCC's rules."
The argument goes that net neutrality stifles profits as telecom companies struggle to keep up with bandwidth demand and cannot impose much needed controls on their own network. Also, content providers lose out because they can't guarantee a high quality of service. Yes, the arguments are holier than Swiss cheese, but there it is...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Did you see where the summary said, "voted 15-8 along party lines"? How does that support your thesis that every politician comes from the same party?
Yeah, I was thinking the exact same thing. This retarded statement seems to be the now de facto Republican go to phrase. According to them, everything Democrats want to do will "cost jobs". Funny tho how the Republicans, who seem to be so knowledgeable as to how to go about creating jobs haven't DONE JACK SHIT to create any. All they've managed to do is make richer people richer.
The upside to this story is that any bill they pass will get rightfully killed in the Senate.
from TFA: "If the Republican-controlled House approves the resolution, it would then move to the Senate, where Democrats hold the majority. The Senate is unlikely to pass the resolution." summary fails to mention how this vote probably won't actually go anywhere.
Perhaps. But the folks who define science as witch-craft, speak in tongues and handle snakes (Mike Huckabee), think that if you're a good boy you get your own planet when you die (Mitt Romney), these people run things now.
The Senate will fall to these fools in time, and than it's all over.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Two competing parties and almost perfect "market efficiency", in that polling is so sophisticated that the parties have almost perfect knowledge of the electorate. Hotelling's Law says they they will end up being identical.
A corollary is that your vote is meaningless, since you have a choice between two sames. You cannot bring about change at the ballot box. The only ways to change things are:
DeReggi told lawmakers he may want to block services like Netflix because they take up too much bandwidth for WiMax-based broadband.
I think that about sums it up.
Let's take Comcast and Netflix. Comcast hates Netflix because Comcast is also a content provider. They want you to pay $6 to watch their on-demand movies. With Netflix I can watch tons of movies for $6, and Comcast has to carry the traffic. Without Net Neutrality, Comcast would tell Netflix "you use too much bandwidth. We're going to throttle you down until your movies are unwatchable unless you start paying us a fee. That fee will increase until we make as much money from people watching your movies as we would if they bought them from our service".
Netflix would have to increase prices until no one would pay, thus forcing them out of business and all you would be left with is Comcast, which then jacks up the prices for their on-demand movies.
Net Neutrality provides choice.
I would just like to point out something that I heard recently:
Most of those pensions and benefits are the results of unions bargaining in good faith with the government. Employees generally are taking those options instead of a short term pay raise, or in lieu of any raises at all. It's not like they were getting the same pay as the private sector AND these fabulous benefits. Instead they are told that there are financial difficulties or money is tight or some other excuse, and they are promised compensation LATER for lower wages NOW.
The First Amendment doesn't say anything remotely like "all voices must be equally loud". That's what Net Neutrality does.
Uh, what? I don't really get your analogy with volume. Just as the First Amendment prevents the government from stopping or hindering someone from saying something (legal), net neutrality prevents ISPs from blocking or throttling traffic.
The First Amendment simply says that the federal government won't get involved in regulating speech. ...Which pretty much shoots down Net Neutrality right there, come to think of it.
You need to re-read the Constitution, and the definition of net neutrality. Net neutrality has nothing to do with regulating speech.
The amount they pay is irrelevant. It's the percentage of income that's important. If I'm paying 25%-33% in taxes they should be paying at least that much if not more. But typically they pay less than 20%. Sorry, but that ain't right. Large corporations pay less than 5% of their profits in taxes. And they just keep getting richer and richer, and paying less and less.
And you know why 47% of people owed no federal income taxes in 2009? Because they were either broke or out of a job. The middle class is getting poorer and poorer, and once you factor in various credits your tax liability disappears. Of course this doesn't take into account how poorer people pay a significantly higher percentage of payroll taxes than everyone else, or how when you overtax people who already struggle to make ends meet they have zero income to contribute back to our economy. But yeah, let's just overlook that.
I don't mind that the poor pay less (or nothing), there is only so much you can wring from a stone. But when you're making billions and contributing a tiny percentage of that, and then COMPLAINING it's too much, sorry, that I can't tolerate. If you're going to use this country to become disgustingly wealthy at least have the common decency to pay it forward. But there is no decency in being rich. All they care about is getting richer, and they don't care who gets fucked as long as the money keeps rolling in. It's vile, and I really don't think We the People aren't going to put up with it for much longer.
Socialism is economic and political device. We have a population that's huge, larger than say, Sweden-- a country that is unabashedly socialist. Spending money to help those in need isn't socialism. Retirement money isn't socialism. Medicare isn't socialism. Medicaid isn't socialism.
You don't understand what socialism means. Nor do we spend more on social programs than the entire budget of any country on earth. Your arguments don't hold water, entirely, and in certainty.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Left wing = For the People
Right wing = For the Aristocracy
Originally the left wing were the supporters of the French Republic and the right wing were the supporters of the French Monarchy. Just like in the States the Conservatives (Tories) were for the Monarchy including after the Revolution appointing George Washington King and the Liberals were for a Constitutional Republic.
Now the right are for the established new aristocracy, namely corporations and the left are for the common person.
Both American political parties seem to be for corporations before people so both are right wing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Is there a site or something that gives the vote records for subcommittees? If these articles are saying it was along party lines someone must have a list. If we can put names to decisions that's a lot more useful than blaming the entire party.
Assuming this was strictly on party lines here is the site of subcommittees, but some apparently didn't vote.
For the lazy here is the table of members. Take note of whether your representative is on the naughty list.
Republicans
Greg Walden (OR) Chair
Lee Terry (NE) Vice Chair
Cliff Stearns (FL)
John Shimkus (IL)
Mary Bono Mack (CA)
Mike Rogers (MI)
Brian Bilbray (CA)
Charlie Bass (NH)
Marsha Blackburn (TN)
Phil Gingrey (GA)
Steve Scalise (LA)
Bob Latta (OH)
Brett Guthrie (KY)
Adam Kinzinger (IL)
Joe Barton (TX)
Fred Upton (MI)
Democrats
Anna G. Eshoo (CA)
Edward J. Markey (MA)
Michael F. Doyle (PA)
Doris O. Matsui (CA)
Jane Harman (CA)
John Barrow (GA)
Edolphus Towns (NY)
Frank Pallone, Jr. (NJ)
Bobby L. Rush (IL)
Diana DeGette (CO)
John D. Dingell (MI)
Henry A. Waxman (CA)
That list adds up to less than $14 million. Of the $388 million he raised. Less than 4%? Not really proving your point there.
The Return On Investment for political donations is amazing.
Here's the first relevant article I found while googling
There are plenty more articles that will say the same thing about companies across a wide spread of industries.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.