Slashdot Mirror
Republican Bill Aims To Thwart the FCC's Leaning Towards Title II
SpzToid writes U.S. congressional Republicans on Friday proposed legislation that would set "net neutrality" rules for broadband providers, aiming to head off tougher regulations backed by the Obama administration. Republican lawmakers hope to counter the Federal Communications Commission's vote on Feb. 26 for rules that are expected to follow the legal path endorsed by President Barack Obama, which Internet service providers (ISPs) and Republicans say would unnecessarily burden the industry with regulation. Net neutrality activists, now with Obama's backing, have advocated for regulation of ISPs under a section of communications law known as Title II, which would treat them more like public utilities. The White House on Thursday said legislation was not necessary to settle so-called "net neutrality" rules because the Federal Communications Commission had the authority to write them.
"which Internet service providers (ISPs) and Republicans say would unnecessarily burden the industry with regulation." - Except it IS NECESSARY, DUMMIES.
Clearly this means freedom for all users right?
http://saveie6.com/
U.S. congressional Republicans on Friday proposed legislation that would set "net neutrality" rules for broadband providers, aiming to head off tougher regulations backed by the Obama administration.
That sentence should have read, U.S. congressional Republicans on Friday proposed legislation authored by industry lobbyists, that would set "net neutrality" rules for broadband providers, aiming to head off tougher regulations backed by the Obama administration. (additions mine).
There is something I don't understand here..
During all Obama's presidency, did Republicans manage to keep being the ruling party somehow? because it seems even with a Democrat president Obama can't pass any law without going through them.
Or is all this democrat/republican thing just theater and Obama pretends to be the good guy failing to fight to the bad guys?
Or something else going on?
And why would anyone be afraid of letting Obama get more power to control private companies, communications and write up more regulations where he can add additions "rules" like he did for healthcare, the IRS, the NSA and well everything else in our lives. "net neutrality" is a good thing, but both sides have no intent of helping us. And you thought all these anti-Republican hit posts on Slashdot were from unbiased independents too! HAhahaha! American politics is pure cancer.
Does anyone think the sponsors of this legialation have serioulsly considered the issues of user access and cost? Of course not. As in so many areas of public life, Republicans have adopted the mantra of "free markets". Which is another way of saying on behalf of large corporations, "Let the Wookie win". Let the big strong arm-ripping behemoth have its way. This disregards the needs of the majority of the population and lets corporations take the profits resulting from public investment and tax dollars.
The internet has never been about "free markets". The internet was developed by the government and universities (with public funding). As far as the big ISPs are concerned, most of them, such as Comcast and Time Warner, make use of public right-of-way to carry thier signals to their customers. Most of this right-of-way was obtained either through imminent domain (for the public good) or for other purposes entirely (to carry power lines). This has resulted in a protected monopoly for these ISPs. They have no competition, the exact opposite of a free market.
Title II will treat the ISPs as utilities so that their rates will be controlled and their fiber optic cables will be available to all content providers under competitive conditions. This is really a free market in content, rather than the coroporate oligarchy envisioned by this Repucblican legislation.
"He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
Republicans in both the House and Senate can propose this legislation all day long. They can even vote to pass it. But ti still can't get around a Presidential veto, and in their wildest dreams the GOP does not have the votes to override a veto.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
VETO!!!
"which Internet service providers (ISPs) and Republicans say would unnecessarily burden the industry with regulation." - Except it IS NECESSARY, DUMMIES.
Given where US broadband is even in major metropolitan areas like San Francisco, New York, and Chicago, regulation as Title II is EXACTLY what US ISPs need to get their acts together. I mean 12 mbs down and 5 mbs up for $50/month in 2015. Give me a fucking break.
The great part of this Republican-backed shill bill? Obama is going to VETO it.
Suck THAT you plutocratic, money-grubbing, technologically-illiterate enemies of the United States. (Yes, I'm talking about the so-called "honorable" representatives who are backing this bill, whatever their political stripes may be. [Though we all know exactly what those stripes are, right?])
blog
Now by making the ISPs "common carriers", we will get all the innovation that we got under Ma Bell before the breakup in 1983 :-(
"Software is the difference between hardware and reality"
Were given large sums of money as part of "lobbying"(bribing) by the big ISPs ?
There is a video you might interesting called How a Bill Becomes a Law. Under the USUS Constitution, the chairman of the FCC doesn't write law, and the president doesn't write law. The Congress does that. The President's role is, in the words of his sworn oath, to "faithfully execute the law". Here "execute" doesn't mean kill, though you might get that impression from watching Obama.
That lame duck couldn't regulate my colon.
The current regulations have resulted in a few giant providers against whom other companies can't compete. That's great for those few providers, but terrible for anyone else who wants to make money providing broadband. So the industry already is burdened by regulation. The Republicans are arguing in support of regulation -- the current, burdensome ones -- under the guise of arguing against regulation. A very common situation with them.
Obama is proposing a change in the regulations. It looks like it will produce a better market for almost everyone, except those few giant providers. That's a good thing. If you're going to have regulations, have ones that help the most people.
If the Republicans were truly against regulation, they would try to abolish the FCC. That is what telecom deregulation would really be. It might sound infeasible, but when Somalia was in anarchy, ruled by a patchwork of warlords, the telecom industry exploded. The warlords protected the telecom infrastructure (for their own use), and prices plummeted while service rose. Obviously, in the United States that level of "regulation" could easily be covered by state law enforcement and the FBI. And we wouldn't have self-appointed moral guardians filing thousands of complaints about content (which, incidentally, burdens the broadcast television industry by disallowing it to provide content similar to what cable providers like HBO can).
I sure do think so.
Yes, leave it to Illiberals to criticize free markets. Government take-over did so well for railroads, public transport, and telephone-service, what could possibly be wrong about adding Internet to the mix?
Yes, an earlier mistake of our government letting corporations have monopolies (of cable TV) still needs to be dealt with. But the price-control you are advocating in the next paragraph only makes things worse. Because the incumbents are much better versed in dealing with the government regulators, than a newcomer will ever be.
And, while you are accusing Republicans of baby-eating, it is the Democrats who are owned by the Big Cable.
So, free market in content is a good mantra, but free market in service provision is bad? Or did you change your mind by the end of typing your post?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
She was 17. It is your position that a 17-year old could never give informed consent? That's pretty much the law's position (and it is demonstrably stupid, and almost always harmful, and so out of touch with reality it's almost frightening.) If you're going with "age line in the sand" to define 17 year olds as incompetent by definition in such matters, then you are all those things the law is, and we're done -- take your torch and pitchfork and have at it.
Get here? Ok, then I presume that is not your position, and that you agree that at least some 17 year olds can indeed give informed consent. So the next question is, is it your position that such a a 17-year old can give informed consent if the partner is also 17, but not if the partner is 47? Because I have to tell you, that kind of thinking can only arise from magical bullshit, and I'm fresh out. Anyway...
I shouldn't have to even ask this, but given the twisted, peculiar nature of your post, I presume you agree that the 47 year old can give informed consent, yes?.
Also, at least get your terminology right. A pedophile is someone with a sexual interest in children. Which is horrific and creepy, because children aren't sexually mature and so sexuality, by its very definition, isn't part of their normal and customary worldview. And putting it there, or trying to, is abusive, in the fundamental sense of the term. You know, child abuse. Because they're children.
An ephibophile, on the other hand, is someone with primary or exclusive sexual interest in mid-to-late adolescents, often described as ages 15 to 19 (but perhaps much more accurately defined by the single criteria of being physically a sexually mature human being. 15 is not a magic number, no matter what your astrologer has been telling you.) Note that if this is not your primary or exclusive interest, then you're just a typical person. Because sexually mature bodies are typically of normal and healthy sexual interest to most who are sexually active. Which is not to say that the first word out of a teenager's mouth might not send most 47-year-olds running away screaming, but that's really not the same issue.
Also note that for many teenagers (I want to say all, but I have not met them all) sex is pretty much the #1 subject on their mind. Learning about it, having it, exploring it, and so on. The whole shebang, as it were. And this is precisely correct behavior from the POV of the body's various clocks. Socially, we have to deal with the hangover of superstition and Victorian insanity, but the fact is, many teenagers (definitely including the 17 year old demo) are having great, happy sex all the time and the vast majority of those so engaged are both glad of it and not even fractionally interested in any contrary opinion of yours thereof.
Sometimes sex is about relationships and all of that. Complex, interrelated, even a matter of power or submission. Which can be wonderful. Rah, rah. But sometimes it's just sex. Hot, steamy, bouncy, hanging-from-the-chandeliers physical activity with a bang. Or several. Ahem. In such a case, and in the instance of informed consent, I see absolutely no barrier to sex between a 17 year old and a 47 year old, any more than I see a barrier between a 17 year old and a 47 year old that should prevent them from playing tennis, or chess.
Here in Montana, the age of consent -- below which "sex without consent" can be charged -- is sixteen. It's still stupid as there will be (mostly) exceptions on either side of the rule, but the point is, were that guy here, no one would even blink, legally speaking.
Seems to me that you put your Outrage Panties on a little too tight this morning.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
My local rep is Fred Upton. A number of years ago he was sitting chair of the house telecommunications subcommittee which includes Internet. At that time he was publically in favor of rolling back the '96 telco reform act provision that forced the LEC - the government mandated local monopolies from the breakup of the Bell system (Verizon, Ameritech, etc) - to share their lines because, as he worded it, the bells have no interest in updating their telco system to faster broadband as they were forced to share their lines with competitors. There was even a nice front page newspaper write up praising his wise leadership in helping speed up the Internet. If the Baby Bells could stop worrying about others using their lines they would gladly make things faster. He got his wish when Powell's son running the FCC did just that. Guess what... the baby bells didn't decide to miraculously speed things up. Upton is still in office, guess who's fully backing the legislative answer to this problem? Biggest contributor? Comcast
A free market would permit everyone to operate freely on equal footing, where the biggest players don't automatically get a cut on top of what they already charge.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
...of Comcast in their mouth. Nice.
FTA: "Restricting the FCC's Section 706 powers could also interfere with the commission's plans for preempting state laws that prevent cities and towns from building broadband networks." http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...
So their masters were worried about cities building their own fiber network.
- Except it IS NECESSARY, DUMMIES.
No it's not, Bigger Dummy.
Wow, anti-intellectual arguments are fun!
Otherwise, RCA and Marconi will use their monopoly power to take over the Internet!
So, are we starting a pool on how long it takes the govt. to make encrypting your personal communication on their newly regulated network illegal?