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.

Comments

Glad were stopping the evil socialists

[Billly Gates]

Clearly this means freedom for all users right?

Re:Glad were stopping the evil socialists

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah.

The polarized politics in this country has gotten so out of hand that the electorate shoots themselves in the foot over ideology.

Last year's election was a complete joke in my state (GA). Every Republican ran with this platform: A vote for a Democrat is a vote for Obama's policies.

If you ask a typical Obama hater exactly what policies they don't like and why, you inevitably got the media talking points. The only time I saw a reasonable dislike for one of Obama's policies was actually here - the person actually had a unique and quite thought out reason that I even agreed with; and I voted for Obama.

But that was the only time. I have a very low opinion of the electorate. Everyone bases their opinions on what they see and hear in the media with absolutely no critical thinking or skepticism. A media that over simplifies things to fit complex issues into 2 minute segments while making it understandable to your typical 8th grader.

Re:Glad were stopping the evil socialists

[Curunir_wolf]

But that was the only time. I have a very low opinion of the electorate.

Yea, no shit. Last week in Virginia, the voters re-elected a convicted pedophile, running from jail. But don't worry - he's on work-release so he can head down to the General Assembly to cast his votes... :/

I guess it's okay since he's a Democrat.

Re:Glad were stopping the evil socialists

[Curunir_wolf]

Did you read your own link? He has not been convicted of "being a pedophile" (being a pedophile is not a crime), his conviction was a plea bargain for a misdemeanor: "contributing to the sexual delinquency of a minor." It's unfortunate that something like that is illegal at all, but a misdemeanor seems about right given that she was seventeen, she insists that nothing happened, and if it did it was clearly consensual.

The fucker is 47 years old. 47!!! What version of "consensual" was it? The original charges were much worse, but after the parents realized their daughter was PREGNANT (like, how did THAT happen?), they decided they didn't want her involved in a protracted legal battle, so they allowed the plea bargain.

Or, like I said, you're okay with it because he was a Democrat.

Re:Glad were stopping the evil socialists

[Fire_Wraith]

Speaking as a Virginia resident, and someone who generally votes left-leaning, you're correct - though he's still a dirtbag.

The reason (as I understand) that he got reelected is that it was a special election for a state legislative office. This is the sort of race that doesn't get much attention even when it's a general election. Incumbency, and party identification, carry so much more weight than actual issues, because most people never hear about the issues. Heck, I consider myself reasonably involved and aware, and even I can't remember who my state senator is offhand (it's not this guy).

To bring this full circle, this is part of the exact problem. These races have tons of power, generally fly below the radar of most voters, and also are ridiculously easy to influence with outside money. Notice how so many state legislatures have been pushing agendas doing things like blocking municipalities from offering ISP service, all at the behest of the major incumbent providers (usually who sparked the municipal offering in the first place by refusing to upgrade service in the area to something remotely modern).

Re:Glad were stopping the evil socialists

[Uberbah]

Sorry, fucker, if I didn't give you the whole history of this.

He's wrong because you don't know the meaning of the word "pedophile" and went the full Fox News at the same time? Is anyone who calls Reagan a Republican or Warren a Democrat also a fucker? I don't think so.

You engaged in 10-pounds-of-bullshit-in-a-five-pound-sack willful dumbfuckery and are now whining like a bitch because you got caught.

Re:Glad were stopping the evil socialists

[Fire_Wraith]

You're making the mistake of taking a Manichean view. "Left leaning" can include a pretty wide spectrum of things. I state it that way because I'm not a member of the Democratic party, and there are issues and candidates that I don't and would not support them on. I would certainly agree that some sort of Marxist utopia is ridiculous, unrealistic; but at the same time, that doesn't mean we have to take the complete opposite approach. Unfettered and unrestricted capitalism is equally unworkable. I'd much prefer a society where people can compete and get ahead, but where failure isn't accompanied by a threat of starvation, homelessness, or anything similarly bad. I would prefer we do away with the Calvinist notions about work and productivity, and instead encourage people to work and create. I think something like Milton Friedman's idea about Basic Income would be a reasonable starting point.

As for Obamacare, I think it's a horrible Frankenstein's Monster of a law, that is a massive giveaway to the insurance companies... but that's what you get when one political party cares more about scoring points in the power game than in actually proposing solutions to the problems at hand, or just flat out denies the problems that most people would like addressed. One party legislation is bad, but the answer isn't just handing things over to the other party - that's just as bad, if not worse. I'd much rather see a sensible system put in, but I'm not holding my breath for anything remotely close at this point. Likewise with the ISP market, I'd rather we had reasonable proposals from both sides for solving the problem, because we'd likely get a better overall ending.

So yes, please, give us proposals for market based solutions! I'd love to hear them. I'd love to hear the Republicans putting forth actual measures to increase broadband ISP competition. That isn't what they've been giving us though - instead they give us steaming turds like the bill TFA describes, where they try and lock in the current anti-competitive situation and bundle it in Orwellian language.

I doubt the Republicans wrote it...

[bogaboga]

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).

Re:I doubt the Republicans wrote it...

[sumdumass]

Oh, that's right. it's because the line of argumentation which backs populist conservative/Republican talking points cannot understand that Constitutionality does not prohibit the regulation of public utilities, especially when such regulation is in alignment with even the most hardcore conservative defenders of free market capitalism.

Actually, it is unconstitutional to have laws enacted in ways other than the constitution proscribes. Leaving that aside, you have a serious problem here anyways. The constitutionality does require an act of congress to all the sudden include scopes of the economy into the regulation schemes that it previously was not in. Now think about that for a minute.

Can the US government with absolutely no legislative act making a change but by board or panel constituted under it- constitutionally declare pot illegal, Constitutionally revoke divers licenses for failing or refusing to take drug tests? Can these government boards require everyone to purchase a hand gun or pay a fine if they do not? Can these departments declare computers illegal unless used for work only? Can they do anything they want?

Of course the answer to that is no, no, NO. Any of those would specifically take an act of congress and unless it is specifically tied into the duties of congress, they would be unconstitutional. It's these unconstitutional laws, these unconstitutional regulations (that supposedly are equal to laws as you will still be fined, jailed, and perhaps have assets and your freedom confiscated if you ignore them) enacted by government entities outside of the constitution that makes complying with the government spying on everyone possible, It's the same that makes smoking pot illegal on a federal level which it still is on the states that "legalized" it. It will only take another administration to undo the executive order banning prosecution under the federal laws.

Here you are blabbering about die hard conservatives and free market and ignoring the problems of unconstitutional laws and unconstitutional regulation because you actually want them in place when you think you might benefit from the dictatorships of government. What you are failing to see is that those same dictatorship decrees can be used against you when someone else thinks it might benefit them. And you have absolutely no moral ground to stand on when complaining that some government agent is jerking off to your phone sex calls when you are out of town on business. Because you think those conservatives or free market capitalism is the problem and not the unconstitutional laws in place or the unconstitutional regulations. You might not like it, but you support the process that allows it to happen. Pathetic in my opinion.

Re:I doubt the Republicans wrote it...

[sumdumass]

Again, if you believe that, you should check your beliefs and positions moreso than mine.

Nothing I've said is not verifiable by independent sources outside of not having cable. But if you need to believe that is a lie, - well I'm repeating myself again.

Re:I doubt the Republicans wrote it...

[KDiPietro]

... it has to presume that the FCC has authority already over the internet. It doesn't...

Strange, the FCC doesn't have the ability to place ISPs under Title II? How did Kevin Martin (acting in his capacity as FCC Chair) get the authority to declare ISPs informational services? And given that ISPs now provide the pipes where many of our voice communications now travel, why is it that you don't think this is exactly what Title II (and the FCC) is supposed to regulate?

Re:I doubt the Republicans wrote it...

[MisterSquid]

Actually, it is unconstitutional to have laws enacted in ways other than the constitution proscribes.[...].

Can the US government with absolutely no legislative act making a change but by board or panel constituted under it- constitutionally declare pot illegal.[...]

Everything you say after the last sentence I quoted is a straw man.

Reclassifying ISPs under Title II is not a legislative act. On the contrary, it depends on the legislative Act known as Title II.

Here is a common-language explanation of the legality of using Title II to classify communications company as "common carriers".

You seem to think that classifying communications companies requires a legislative act when it does not. It simply requires a vote by the FCC and a reclassification of ISPs as common carriers under Title II would have consequences but the enactment of new legislation is not one of them.

Re:I doubt the Republicans wrote it...

[sumdumass]

Strange, the FCC doesn't have the ability to place ISPs under Title II? How did Kevin Martin (acting in his capacity as FCC Chair) get the authority to declare ISPs informational services?

It was actually put in the FCC hands by the courts which in ATTv Portland the 9th circuit said Portland could not regulate broadband internet access over cable because the "Communications Act prohibits a franchising authority from doing so". The FCC adopted the rule making process and comments period and then classified it as information services.

And given that ISPs now provide the pipes where many of our voice communications now travel, why is it that you don't think this is exactly what Title II (and the FCC) is supposed to regulate?

Where voice communications go to or from or travel is meaningless. They can go anywhere they want. If a car runs through your back yard, it doesn't automatically give some government agency the right to declare your back yard a road. The classification of internet services as an information service has went from being thrown on the FCC by the courts, to appealed and rejected by the courts, to validated by the supreme court.

To all the sudden say that all this court process (precedent) including the Supreme Court's ruling is BS and doesn't apply because a government agency by executive fiat is going to change the rules of the game without any legislative input is severely troubling as well as unconstitutional. And you will find this will end up as unconstitutional in the US supreme court because if they do change the classification, there will be court challenges out the ass and quite a few of them will include expectations of payment via the 5th amendment just compensation clauses.

Re:I doubt the Republicans wrote it...

[sumdumass]

If you somehow think that is double speak, you simply have not been paying attention.

The problem is the net neutrality agenda wants to invalidate these explicit access contracts so anyone can come on and compete with the profitable sections of towns. Cities will be able to build out their own service which will pretty much kill off any competition in the area so those outside the city limits will be stuck with whatever they have now until it degrades to the point it isn't usable.

No, I'm not against regulation if that is what you are trying to suggest. And yes, I do see where governments mandating access and companies service the unprofitable areas as a condition of servicing the profitable ones has helped the economy quite a bit. But you seem to be missing the boat on everything involved. Have you even bothered looking some of this shit up yourself instead of relying on what someone posts at slashdot? I mean the guy I was replying to thought government regulation was fantastic until it came to government regulating which is the entire reason I posted what you replied to.

Re:I doubt the Republicans wrote it...

[sumdumass]

Sigh.. There is absolutely nothing in law that allows the FCC to change the classification of anything it regulates and it certainly does not allow it to do so in order to escape a court order.

The FCC never even had power over the internet outside of encouraging it's adoption until a court case in the late 1990 which was appealed in 2000 thrust it on them. The FCC then classified it as an information service and several appeals later, the US supreme court confirmed the FCC's determination.

Now, after more than a decade, the FCC loses a battle with comcast in which a court said that the FCC does not have the power to regulate comcast's throttling users, they are inventing a way to circumvent the court rulings and all the precedence behind them including the supreme court ruling, and via executive fiat, change the classification of something in which there is absolutely no provision in law to do.

The timing of this is suspect - I have no doubt we're looking at political theater - but the FCC seems to be well within its charter.

The timing of this is suspect and it likely is political theater, but the only reason you think the FCC is within it's rights is because you are ignorant of the facts and seem to take other people's words for it rather than look it up yourself. The FCC already classified the internet when it was thrust upon them. This had survived appeals and the supreme court validated it. Reclassifying it has little to do with net neutrality as many would want you to think, it has to do with the FCC losing a court case and instead of getting congress to step up and fix the problem, they decided to manipulate and contort the law in order to avoid court rulings.

Re:I doubt the Republicans wrote it...

[KDiPietro]

If you somehow think that is double speak, you simply have not been paying attention.

The problem is the net neutrality agenda wants to invalidate these explicit access contracts so anyone can come on and compete with the profitable sections of towns.

Indeed they do. And as someone who lives in that section of town, I would really like to have an option overpriced crappy cable and dialup 2.0 (DSL). And you know what? That isn't going to happen with the way things are setup now, is it?

Cities will be able to build out their own service which will pretty much kill off any competition in the area so those outside the city limits will be stuck with whatever they have now until it degrades to the point it isn't usable.

I think you've got that backwards in many cities. What I see is the Fios being rolled out in the wealthy neighborhoods, typically rich suburban ones, while the inner cities are screwed.

But even if you were correct, why the heck would anyone want a monopoly system?

No, I'm not against regulation if that is what you are trying to suggest. And yes, I do see where governments mandating access and companies service the unprofitable areas as a condition of servicing the profitable ones has helped the economy quite a bit.

Where do you get this? Companies being mandated to serve low income neighborhoods? Do you see Verizon rolling out Fios in your low income neighborhoods? No? Me either.

In fact, with the exception of Google deploying FTTH in St Louis, do you see any low income neighborhoods with state of the art connectivity?

No, you don't and neither do I.

But you seem to be missing the boat on everything involved. Have you even bothered looking some of this shit up yourself instead of relying on what someone posts at slashdot?

Let's see, began a broadband only ISP back in 1999, co-founded an industry, non-profit trade group in 2004, acted as an industry spokesperson in the MuniWireless space for a couple of years - so, you thinking that I only rely on SlashDot comments is pretty funny.

Where exactly do you get your misinformation? Apparently, I need to dumb myself down.

I mean the guy I was replying to thought government regulation was fantastic until it came to government regulating which is the entire reason I posted what you replied to.

Has it occurred to you that government regulation built what was at one time considered to be the gold standard in telecommunications worldwide?

And now look at where we are, we glorify asking if you can hear me now.

Well, can you hear me?

Re:I doubt the Republicans wrote it...

[KDiPietro]

It was actually put in the FCC hands by the courts which in ATTv Portland the 9th circuit said Portland could not regulate broadband internet access over cable because the "Communications Act prohibits a franchising authority from doing so". The FCC adopted the rule making process and comments period and then classified it as information services.

So, what you just admitted is that the FCC does have jurisdiction in this matter. Thank you.

Now if you'd like to make the case that Chairman Wheeler needs to go to the NPRM process, I don't know if you've been under a rock for the last year or so but the FCC has received record breaking amounts of comments on this subject.

Where voice communications go to or from or travel is meaningless. They can go anywhere they want.

Really? So in cases of emergencies, say a Katrina or a Sandy, we don't need no stinking regulations?

You could possibly make the case that internet connectivity isn't crucial but voice communications are used to call police, fire and for medical help - in other words, critical infrastructure.

If a car runs through your back yard, it doesn't automatically give some government agency the right to declare your back yard a road.

Whoa there buddy, you've gone off the track and aren't really making sense on that one.

The classification of internet services as an information service has went from being thrown on the FCC by the courts, to appealed and rejected by the courts, to validated by the supreme court.

That explicitly means that the FCC also has the power to reverse that decision.

To all the sudden say that all this court process (precedent) including the Supreme Court's ruling is BS and doesn't apply because a government agency by executive fiat is going to change the rules of the game without any legislative input is severely troubling as well as unconstitutional

Bullshit. The SCOTUS ruled that the FCC does have that authority and you just admitted that.

And you will find this will end up as unconstitutional in the US supreme court because if they do change the classification, there will be court challenges out the ass and quite a few of them will include expectations of payment via the 5th amendment just compensation clauses.

I would agree that Title II isn't exactly tailored for the job, it's a holdover from the past. And to be quite frank with you, I would have loved to see Congress step up to the plate and do something for the American people for a change - but that's not what's happening here. Since Congress isn't going to do it, the FCC should impose Title II and then fix what doesn't work, even if that means having the courts argue over what works and doesn't. What we can see here is that Congress isn't fixing the problem, they are making it a lot worse.

Instead, we're handing control over one of our most critical pieces of infrastructure to monopolies who survive by using the public right of way as well as spectrum owned by the American people. I maintain that if any American wants access to that right of way, they have every bit as much right to do so as any large company. Further, if the voters in any municipality vote to roll out their own network, no one should be able to take that right away form them - unless you want to make a case that the local people shouldn't have that right of self-determination. Personally, I'd love to hear you make that argument.

Re:I doubt the Republicans wrote it...

[whistlingtony]

" absolutely nothing in law that allows the FCC to change the classification of anything it regulates"

Great! Then we already HAVE title II regulation! It was the FCC itself that reclassified broadband providers back in the day. Thanks to the great legal opinion of some !@#$ on the internet, they never HAD that authority, so we don't need to reclassify, because THEY NEVER COULD HAVE RECLASSIFIED IN THE FIRST PLACE.

I don't think you know the history of what's going on here. I don't think you know what you're talking about at all.

Re:I doubt the Republicans wrote it...

[sumdumass]

Sigh.. Who told you those lies?

The FCC ignored the internet or more precisely broad band internet until the court made them classify it as an outcome of the Portland case. The FCC argued until that time that the internet was an information service residing on a regulated network just as a channel line up would have been. The court case in which Portland Oregon's franchise board attempted to hold up the sale of a cable provider unless they opened up the internet portion to others lost in court with the final decision being that the FCC had jurisdiction not the franchise board. The FCC then classified cable internet which has since become known as broadband internet as an information service subject to title one. A consortium of cable providers sued and it went back and fourth in the courts with the Supreme Court of the United States siding with the FCC. The only time it was reclassified or classified other than as an information service is when a court incorrectly overruled the FCC. The FCC has never reclassified the broad band. It has never reclassified any other object or technology under it's control without an act of congress making it so.

Read this from the EFF

Here is another you should consider.

"I don't think you know the history of what's going on here. I don't think you know what you're talking about at all."

Explain this to a non-Americal please..

[goruka]

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?

Re:Explain this to a non-Americal please..

[Noxal]

The President is not a part of the lawmaking branch of government. Presidents can't pass laws.

Re:Explain this to a non-Americal please..

[sumdumass]

Well, sort of. The president signs a bill into law- no passing necessary unless the president vetoes the bill and it goes back to congress and the senate in which if two thirds still want it, they can vote again and make it law independent of the president.

A bill can also become law if the president does nothing and leave it sit for ten days or longer if congress is in session. It will automatically become law then. If congress is not in session, then it sort of disappears and does not become law.

Re:Explain this to a non-Americal please..

[WillyWanker]

Because we have a House of Representatives and a Senate which comprise Congress. Both work independently of each other, and each can be ruled by either party. The clincher is that both the House and Senate need to agree to pass a bill. If a bill doesn't make it thru both sides it dies. The deadlock we've been seeing for the past few years has come from the Republicans ruling the House of Representatives and refusing to pass any Democrat-proposed bill coming from the Senate, even tho the Democrats ruled there, and vice-versa.

Now that both sides are Republican I don't expect anything to change really. Since they are comprised of at least 4 warring factions amongst themselves (the tea party, moderates, extreme right wing faux-christians, and libertarians) it's highly unlikely both sides of Congress will ever agree on anything, and even if they do Obama has the power of veto to block any legislation that might successfully come out of Congress. Yes, Congress can override a veto with a 2/3rd majority vote, but that's extremely unlikely to ever happen. So essentially we will have another 2 years where absolutely nothing gets done.

Re:Explain this to a non-Americal please..

[duckintheface]

You ask a good question. Democrats could have passed a law in 2009 or 2010 when they controlled House, Senate, and White House. But they didn't, partly becasue they were busy collecting campaign contributions from these same ISPs. Obama has waited until after his personal last election and until after the next- to-last election under his presidency to propose rules that should have been in effect the whole time.

Aside from campaign contributions, there may be one other reason for the late start on Title II regulation. It is only recently that content providers such as Netflix and Amazon have started producing quality programming and distributing it on the internet rather than on the TV channels controlled by the ISPs. This has undercut the revenue stream of these ISPs and encouraged them to begin differential pricing based on content provider. Comcast now charges extra to Netflix even though Netflix customers already pay for their internet service directly to Comcast. So they are "double billing" for the same service. If allowed to get away with this, the ISPs can be expected to continue to ratchet up the cost of accessing third party content, becasue they control the pipes. But the pipes were developed at public expense and using public right-of-way and so should be treated as a regulated utility.

Re:Explain this to a non-Americal please..

[fahrbot-bot]

A bill can also become law if the president does nothing and leave it sit for ten days or longer if congress is in session. It will automatically become law then. If congress is not in session, then it sort of disappears and does not become law.

Pocket Veto (for those interested)

Re:Explain this to a non-Americal please..

[PixelScuba]

That's not really true. The Democrats only had a supermajority for roughly 4 months in 2009. With a protracted legal battle, the GOP kept Al Franken out of the senate until July of that year. Ted Kennedy would die later that year and Scott Brown won the MA election. The Democrats had exactly 134 days to pass any legislation before the GOP began filibustering.

"Free Market" religion

[duckintheface]

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.

Re:"Free Market" religion

[Anonymous Coward]

Like that wouldn't or couldn't happen under Title II?

Re:"Free Market" religion

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps...

The reason they ended up with Title II is because that is all that is left to them. If you read what the judge said when they got shot down last time. He said 2 things title II *might* work or congress needs to fix this. There is no guarantee that it will work. In fact it may make the situation worse. No one knows how it will burn down when you put it in front of a judge (any lawyer will tell you that). In fact the only one really bitching about being title II is at&t and comcast. The rest seem semi cool with it and have said so. As it does not really change anything as most are already working in the guidelines of title II. For example Verizion is an ISP AND a phone company (which is title II). Many of them already are title II.

Congress needs to fix this. Otherwise they will keep trying to twist laws into loops that are not meant for this. The democrats sat on this for 10 years.

Title II may be the right way. But it also needs to be updated to reflect our new landscape too. It was written in the 1930s. I am thinking a bit of tech has changed a bit here and there since then...

Re:"Free Market" religion

[roman_mir]

"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"

I take it it is not self evident to you that pursuit of happiness among equals means among people that are equal under law and nothing else? Yet here you are proposing that some are not equal under law to others, that there should be laws that apply differently because some, who are not you, built and are running services that you want to purchase, they have done so without any laws that you now want to see implemented to limit their freedom. You do not want tocompete with them, you want to enslave their work to your terms.

As far as I am concerned every single (without exception) thing that governments do end up hurting me because every single thing that governments do impede upon individual freedom for self determination and ability to attempt and improve individual conditions.

No, governments should not be able to violate laws, like private property rights. This means eminent domain cannot exist, this means government cannot be allowed to intervene between any parties signing a contract, this means there can be no business or labour or money regulations.

At most government can be allowed to police borders and search for murderers and rapists and isolate them. But even these functions lead to ever greater government with more and more power that it should not have.

It is not a religion, it is an ideology of individual freedom from tyranny and from oppression. 2 or more wrongs do not make a right. Destroying more freedom now, because other freedoms were already destroyed earlier does not make a better society. Instead government needs to be abolished, 99% of what it does need to be abolished.

The only way to get a wealthy and ready qnd able to withstand long term difficulties society is not to shackle individuals in it with the chains of the murderous will of the mob. Individuals are capable and smart and may even be brilliant in pursuit of their own happiness on their own terms but the mob is none of that. Decisions made by individuals have an impact on them and on a limited surrounding circle,decisions imposed by the mob have impact upon the entire society at the expense of brilliance, wealth, inventiveness, long term health of the society.

Governments must not be allowed to stand in the way of development of society but today many equate governments and society, while the reality is that governments steal power, wealth, health of society and the benefits of this theft are limited to very few very well connected individuals.

Being one of those connected individuals is great for them, but the society is diminished and empoverished because of unequal treatment.

Switzerland just cut its losses and depegged from Euro, basically it left the Euro zone unilaterally, well, this is the first correct move by a central bank (since 1981 Volker's 21.5% interest rate) in a long time. This is a call to action. Large governments fail and the larger the government the more spectacular the failure. It is an example that applies here as well. Yes, horrible things were done, eminent domain for example, but do not compoune the error, cut your losses and cut the reason of the problem, shut down most of the government, kill all business a d labour laws, kill income related taxes, yoh have to cut losses and return to the idea and ideology of individual freedom. It built the most wealthy manufacturer bases (I do not like the word 'countries' or 'nations', they imply group ownership as opposed to individual freedom), ever in history of humanity. It took a long time to destroy that wealth in the USA, the momentum was so great, momentum built in the 19th century and dissipated in the 20th.

If there is an ideology in the idea that free people in their own pursuit of happiness will build better anx wealthier societies than what is done in systems domina

Re:"Free Market" religion

[ArmoredDragon]

I'm in favor of free markets, but that's not what the status quo currently is. Right now incumbent ISPs have a monopoly on a lot of local rights of way and ordinances. If a competitor wants to move in, it's basically some local government that puts a stop to it (albeit at the behest of the incumbent ISP.)

I don't think Title II is necessarily the perfect answer (partly because of the New Deal era taxation that goes along with it) but it is better than the status quo.

Re: "Free Market" religion

[cyber-vandal]

Why are you quoting the words of slave owners in an essay about freedom?

Re:"Free Market" religion

[ShanghaiBill]

I'm in favor of free markets, but that's not what the status quo currently is.

Exactly. If the ISPs competed in a a free market, NN would not be necessary. NN is not a remedy for free markets, it is a remedy for de facto monopolies.

Re:"Free Market" religion

[phantomfive]

The way to counter this free market talk is to counter it with talk of free markets.

Talk about how many municipalities don't allow more than one provider. This is anti-capitalist, anti-free market, and not necessary (as has been shown by Google fiber). Get the Republicans focused on fixing that problem, and they will feel like they are doing something good AND they will be actually doing something good.

Re:"Free Market" religion

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be a dumb fuck. Under Title II, that couldn't happen, period.

You know why? Once it's all Title II, anyone can open up shop and offer services.

Gee - free market, lowest price wins!

Wow - we just get cheaper and better internet.

Today's market is anything but free.

Re:"Free Market" religion

[MadMartigan2001]

The problem is that markets have no way of determining the will of the majority of people.

A truly free market by definition is responsive to the majority (will) of the people. If the people like "A" over "B" in a free market, that is what they invest/buy/suggest/endorse etc.

Maximizing profits is not the same thing as determining what is best for society.

Really? Who determines what is "best" for society? You? Government? Corporations? In a free market the people decide what is important to them and that is the direction society goes. If the majority of the people choose to buy/use "A" then that is their choice and the will of the people will be the most profitable. You and I may not agree with it but if you truly respect your fellow citizen then you have to allow them their "Vote".

The belief that it is the same thing is what I call a religion.

Another definition of religion is when someone claims to know "what is best" for everyone else. You are exhibiting the exact behavior of those you are accusing.

Once society, through it's elected representatives, has decided on a course of action, truly free markets within a regulatory framework are the most efficient way to reach that goal.

You are 100% correct here, sir. Now, if you could just explain how you intend to ensure that those elected representatives are actually representing the will of the people. History clearly shows that representative government is a great idea that never works due to corruption. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume consolidation of power will result in corruption so power should be distributed as much as possible among the populace.

No solution is perfect, but I would argue that replacing selfish decisions due to corruption with selfish decisions due to personal interest is a step in the right direction. The decision may the the same or just as bad, but at least you are not contributing to the power structure of a select few.

Re:"Free Market" religion

[GLMDesigns]

Yes. It will make their life easier. A short term gain - at what price? Consolidating even more power in Imperial Washington and reducing the only real check and balance to the federal leviathan - the states. I'm not saying that states automatically do things better than the Federal Govt - they obviously don't. But continual chipping away at the power of states and placing it in Washington is something to be concerned about. And what are we doing it for - to make it easier for Google to lay fiber and gain more customers.

Re:"Free Market" religion

[whistlingtony]

Those bills weren't a product of Title II regulation, and you know it.

Forcing the ISPs to lease the lines out to other players, and hence creating actual competition and a plethora of mom and pop ISPs? That WAS a product of Title II regulation.

You sir, are a liar.

They can propose all they want

[davmoo]

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.

Re:Spin Wars

[fnj]

afraid of letting Obama get more power to control private companies

President Obama != the FCC. The FCC is an independent authority. It doesn't answer to any President, although it can be circumscribed by laws. The FCC is directed by five commissioners appointed by the U.S. president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate for five-year terms, except when filling an unexpired term. The president designates one of the commissioners to serve as chairman. Only three commissioners may be members of the same political party. None of them may have a financial interest in any FCC-related business.

Great Part of Republican-backed Industry Bill

[MisterSquid]

"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?])

Re:Great Part of Republican-backed Industry Bill

[duckintheface]

You are exactly right. The ISPs have always been short term in their thinking. Under Title II they will be providing better and cheaper content to thier customers which will result in more customers. There is a reason that Comcast has the worst consumer satisfaction of any US company, with Time Warner a close second. They try to milk their customers for every penny they can get with their predatory "promotional" pricing. And now they have begun to milk the third party providers of internet content as well.

Ironically, in the long run these ISPs will do very well under Title II becasue they will be forced to grow their user base instead of shrinking it as has been the case in recent years.

Getting around the court decision

[Amigan]

The FCC has tried once to enforce Net Neutrality. This was ruled illegal by the courts, see ruling .

Now by making the ISPs "common carriers", we will get all the innovation that we got under Ma Bell before the breakup in 1983 :-(

Re:Spin Wars

[fahrbot-bot]

Only three commissioners may be members of the same political party. None of them may have a current financial interest in any FCC-related business.

FTFY - judging from the revolving door at the FCC (and other agencies).

Re:Use that pen Mr. President!

[WillyWanker]

Oh please, stop with the Faux News bullshit. His EO and the bill that the Republicans attempted to pass were NOT equal in form or substance, namely, the EO was a delay that applied only to businesses while the GOP bill would apply to everyone, which would have resulted in a rise in premiums and lower enrollment numbers. And let's face it, the GOP bill is yet another thinly-veiled attempt at derailing the ACA, unlike the EO which was actually a bone toss to businesses to help them get onboard.

If you're going to bitch about something at least try to get your facts straight and compare apples to apples instead of oranges.

And apparently since you weren't paying attention the last time Faux News and the GOP made a stink about his EOs, it is 100% within the purview of POTUS to pass EOs that grant amnesty from any law he chooses. In this case it was nothing more than amnesty to businesses who did not enroll in the ACA. Really, it's not hard to understand. Enforcing the law also includes the ability to NOT enforce it when you see fit. It's done all the time from local DAs, to Mayors, to Governors, and right up the pipeline to President. All have the power to grant amnesty or to not charge someone for breaking the law. When a DA or Governor does it no one blinks. When the Black man does it, everyone starts screaming bloody murder.

The nature of 17 yo consent

[fyngyrz]

The fucker is 47 years old. 47!!! What version of "consensual" was it?

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.