Slashdot Mirror
Why Is the Internet Association Rewarding a Pro-NSA Net-Neutrality Opponent?
First time accepted submitter erier2003 writes The decision to give a major award to House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy is curious given McCarthy's many questionable stances on Internet-freedom issues. For one thing, the California congressman is an avowed opponent of net neutrality. In May 2014, as the Federal Communications Commission debated new net neutrality rules, McCarthy—then the House Majority Whip, the chamber's third-highest-ranking member—signed a House GOP letter to the FCC warning that Title II regulation represented "a counterproductive effort to even further regulate the Internet."
I don't know anything about this "Internet Association", but given that the name really doesn't mean anything at all, if they are anti-net-neutrality then maybe they're pro-network-business, and as such they're trying to profit from both ends?
Just a guess. After all, I can name any organization anything that I want, even if that name is Orwellian doublespeak for exactly the opposite of what it sounds like it should be.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
The Internet Association -- which counts tech giants like Amazon, Etsy, Facebook, Google, Reddit, and Twitter among its members...
Because these companies have no interest in internet freedom as it pertains to their cattle but as it pertains to fourth quarter earnings. The internet based on these companies is a cash-in-hand libertarian pelvic thrust of states that dont see a red-cent of sales tax on anything from a website, keep their warrantless surveillance quiet, and rubberstamp their patents with a smile. This isnt an award, so much as a dollop of warm grease on an open republican wheel. this group quietly gave an award to McCarthy, the second most powerful House Republican after Speaker John Boehner, because they have a PAC that hasnt donated yet and are making it known to anyone looking for upcoming election year bucks.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Actually no they do not. The new rules do not disallow taxes but that is not the same thing, and there is NOTHING in the rules that allow content control.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Woosh... xOra's point was, government's intervention causes harm.
And what you don't get is not whether government regulation is a bad or good thing, but what kind of effort do we put into *good* governance. You know, like what everyone else on the planet does, from countries to corporations. Ever hear about "corporate governance"? Ever think of countries as just large corporations? It's an over-simplification (by far) but I think it's the only way to illustrate the "all regulation is bad" idea as lunacy.
The way broadband is sold in this country, the legality of what ISPs do in their contracts are just shy of outright fraud.
But hey, all regulation is bad.
You people want to toss out everything and leave anarchy behind. Forget about good governance, let's just have more burning rivers, consumer fraud, and land-grabs using private armies.
--
BMO
I hate to comment without knowing the facts.
You must be new here.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Yes, this exactly. The golden age of the expansion of the commercial/consumer internet was when it was primarily run over the phone lines - dialup and DSL. The low barrier to entry allowed tons of new ISPs to enter the market, offering basic unlimited service for a flat rate. The incumbents at the time - AOL, Compuserve, Prodigy, and their ilk, were by and large ridiculously overpriced, not to mention did not offer any unlimited plans, with time-based metering. (To be fair they did offer additional services, but over time most people realized there were more/better free alternatives elsewhere on the open internet.)
Pretty soon everyone could get online, because everyone - even in rural areas - had landline phone service (not to mention electricity). Service was slow compared to today, but it was a limit of the current technology rather than any unwillingness of companies to invest or build out in a given area. Upgrades occured, up until about the point that dialup and DSL hit a wall where it was no longer feasible under current technology to increase bandwidth using the (government mandated Title II Unbundled) telephone lines.
Instead, most people were forced to switch to (proprietary bundled) cable lines to get high speed internet. Only recently have fiber lines been available for some lucky few, and most of us are still stuck at the mercy of our cable company. In the meantime, competition has all but disappeared, rates have shot up and service has become legendarily bad for many people.
So explain to me again why Title II is so horrible, because I'm really just not seeing it.