Republicans seek to quash 'net neutrality' rules

Feb 17, 2011
Republican members of the US Senate and House of Representatives are seeking to quash rules approved by US telecom regulators designed to ensure an open Internet. House majority leader Eric Cantor, a Republican from Virginia, pictured in 2009, said the resolution is intended to "debunk the FCC's harmful and partisan plan to regulate the Internet."

Republican lawmakers Thursday rebuked US telecom regulators for implementing a "net neutrality" policy aimed at guaranteeing open Internet access.

The House of Representatives passed an amendment that would prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from using funds to implement the rules, which bar owners of high-speed lines and airwaves from favoring their own services over those of competitors.

"We all want an open and thriving Internet. That Internet exists today. Consumers can access anything they want with the click of a mouse thanks to our historical hands-off approach," said Representative Greg Walden, a sponsor of the measure.

"I am pleased that my colleagues in the House accepted my amendment to ensure the FCC does not have the funds to implement the controversial Internet regulations."

A similar resolution was introduced in the Senate by Republicans aimed at quashing the "net neutrality" effort, criticized by some as unneeded regulation.

The five-member FCC, in a vote split on party lines, agreed in December to the rules aimed at safeguarding "network neutrality," the principle that lawful Web traffic should be treated equally.

Supporters have argued that the rules are needed to ensure an open Internet but opponents have decried them as unnecessary government intervention.

House majority leader Eric Cantor, a Republican from Virginia, said the resolution is intended to "debunk the FCC's harmful and partisan plan to regulate the Internet."

US carrier Verizon Communications filed a legal challenge to the FCC's rules last month, calling them an "assertion of broad authority for sweeping new regulation of broadband networks and the Internet itself."

The rules are a balancing act by the FCC between support for consumers and the cable and telephone companies that are the main US Internet service providers.

The FCC drafted the rules after suffering a legal setback in April when a court ruled that it had not been granted the authority by Congress to regulate the network management practices of Internet service providers.

The issue has taken on urgency with the emergence of streaming video and TV shows from companies such as Netflix and Apple, which use large amounts of bandwidth. Cable and Internet firms could in theory degrade the quality of those feeds to harm competition, say backers of net neutrality.

Explore further: China a likely factor in North Korea cyber prowess: experts

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Net neutrality rules face mounting GOP opposition

Oct 05, 2009

(AP) -- Republican opposition is mounting as federal regulators prepare to vote this month on so-called "network neutrality" rules, which would prohibit broadband providers from favoring or discriminating against certain ...

FCC loses key ruling on Internet 'neutrality'

Apr 06, 2010

(AP) -- A federal court threw the future of Internet regulations into doubt Tuesday with a far-reaching decision that went against the Federal Communications Commission and could even hamper the government's plans to expand ...

Recommended for you

N. Korea suffers another Internet shutdown

5 hours ago

North Korea suffered an Internet shutdown for at least two hours on Saturday, Chinese state-media and cyber experts said, after Pyongyang blamed Washington for an online blackout earlier this week.

Sony's PlayStation 'gradually coming back'

5 hours ago

Sony was still struggling Saturday to fully restore its online PlayStation system, three days after the Christmas day hack that also hit Microsoft's Xbox, reporting that services were "gradually coming back."

Chattanooga touts transformation into Gig City

5 hours ago

A city once infamous for the smoke-belching foundries that blanketed its buildings and streets with a heavy layer of soot is turning to lightning-fast Internet speeds to try to transform itself into a vibrant ...

Uber broke Indian financial rules: central bank chief

5 hours ago

India's central bank chief lashed out at Uber, already under fire over the alleged rape of a passenger, saying the US taxi-hailing firm violated the country's financial regulations by using an overseas payment ...

User comments : 79

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

JRDarby
4.3 / 5 (27) Feb 17, 2011
"The Internet did not become the explosive driver of communications and economic growth it is today until we turned it over to free enterprise"

The use of "free" is a bit of equivocation there, no? Free enterprise allows for anything but freedom in a corporatist-fascist state. And I'm not surprised that the Republicans would rather see megacorporations benefit from increased profit margins than the people of the nation benefit by increased freedom of access.
lgscott5053
3.5 / 5 (13) Feb 17, 2011
I concur with JRDarby.MegaCorp's are the new masters of the Supreme Court and the GOP as witnessed by their actions.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (28) Feb 17, 2011
"rules approved by USrules approved by US telecom regulators "
Who were ALL democrats who violated the intent of Congress and the Courts.

increased freedom of access.

When Netflix and Youtube and and other HD video take up all the bandwidth and the 'megacorportions' don't have the profits to invest in upgrades, your freedom of access won't mean much as you won't have much to access.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (32) Feb 17, 2011
Congress is following the law. The US voters elected more Republicans to Congress than democrats.
The Obama regime is one branch of the govt and does not have absolute authority to do what it wants, like violating a court decision that nullified Obamacare.
Congress is also addressing the EPA's ruling that the gas all living things exhale is a pollutant and must be controlled and taxed by the regime.
Elections have consequences and given the path now being taken by democrats, more republicans will be in office in 2012.
lebooo
4.5 / 5 (22) Feb 17, 2011
are there any consumers who want to end net neutrality or is it only corporations?
Mesafina
4.6 / 5 (29) Feb 17, 2011
@ryggesogn2 You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. The corporations will STILL always make enough money to cover their costs because they will charge flat monthly rates that allow them to pay the bills. What net neutrality seeks to prevent is them charging different amounts for different content (like say, access to a competing website). Your insinuation that somehow if net neutrality is not stopped these 'megacorporations' will fail and we will lose access to the internet is idiotic. They will have the profits to pay for upgrades if they raise their monthly prices to appropriate levels. After all, that's exactly how they have been doing it, and it's worked out just fine so far.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (30) Feb 17, 2011
Fast growing businesses need to do more than cover their costs if they are going to compete. They need to invest in new technology to accommodate the rapid growth of data.
All data is not the same and should not be treated the same if bandwidth is limited.
it's worked out just fine so far

Then why do the democrats want to control the internet?
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (27) Feb 17, 2011
"Net-neutrality proponents contend that they want to use regulation to increase competition and innovation, but their remedies would have the opposite effect. The growth in demand for bandwidth-intensive applications, such as streaming video, multi-player online gaming, and telemedicine, will require vast capital investments. Broadband providers will not invest in such projects, however, if there is not a good chance they will be able to recoup their costs and turn a profit."
"Organizations like MoveOn.org, the American Civil Liberties Union, and a number of liberal bloggers have come out in favor of such legislation," (net neutrality)
http:/www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/net-neutrality-or-government-brutality/
ekim
4.5 / 5 (26) Feb 17, 2011
All data is not the same and should not be treated the same if bandwidth is limited.

All data is the same, it is a stream of one's and zero's. The only thing that changes is the amount. Charge by amount not content.
Cable companies will have a monopoly on video by restricting streaming video. Phone companies will have a monopoly on calls by restricting services like Skype. Regulation will lead to greater innovation by preventing these monopolies on information transfer.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (25) Feb 17, 2011
"Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., a senior Energy and Commerce member, argued that by voting for the amendment, "you give control to the Broadband Barons ... and then you will see an inevitable decline in innovation, in investment, in the private sector, in the new products, the new technology, the new applications, these new devices, which are basically invented by hundreds and thousands of smaller companies in our country.""
That's rich. Markey supporting free markets?

Sure, data is all the same. The information in that data in not all the same. Meaning information/byte is much lower for HD video than say a Project Gutenberg book or email. HD video and telephony have a time component that results in less information/unit time as well.
How well will Skype work when everyone is trying to watch on-line HD movies?
When have govt regulation ever led more innovation in any market?
SurfAlbatross
4.6 / 5 (18) Feb 17, 2011
When have govt regulation ever led more innovation in any market?


Regulation isn't about spurring innovation. Its about protecting consumers.

e.g. Anti-trust laws and the price of a railroad ticket circa 1800s/EPA regulation and not drinking mercury with your morning coffee from polluted water sources
ekim
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2011
Sure, data is all the same. The information in that data in not all the same. Meaning information/byte is much lower for HD video than say a Project Gutenberg book or email. HD video and telephony have a time component that results in less information/unit time as well.

The time factor can also be factored in. Charge by bytes/time versus charging for information.
How would a company determine information/byte being sent to a customer? Sending a person a set amount of 1's and 0's in a given time is different than decoding those bytes to determine the nature of the information contained within.
StandingBear
3.2 / 5 (17) Feb 18, 2011
Republicans and their brothers, soul-less monopolies, often talk of 'competition' and 'free enterprise' as a cover for predatory practices hidden from the public like the stolen elections of 2000 and 2004 that produced two reeepublikan presidencies and the tossing of our Constitution into the dustbin of history after first soaking it in the blood of torture victims. One day, those involved will be tried for war crimes. For now they sit in our House and Senate carping at us for being free.
Pyle
3.9 / 5 (19) Feb 18, 2011
Is there really somebody that is against net neutrality on this board? Oh, just the troll. Go figure...

Everyone should be letting their congressmen know that net neutrality is a must. Any congressman that votes in opposition to net neutrality should be voted out of office. The lack of opposition to Comcast's NBC acquisition was irresponsible. Not passing net neutrality is criminal.

Information should not be controlled by the moneyed few. Everybody should be talking about this with their friends and writing their congressmen.
KillerKopy
2 / 5 (20) Feb 18, 2011
let me teach all you democrats a simple life lesson. More government = less freedom. Less government = more freedom. Using that as a guide, here is a noble thought. If you don't like your internet provider restricting access, Switch, or better yet cancel all together if you can handle your worthless life without internet for a bit. Were not slaves to the corporations, we have choices and freedom to choose where to spend our money. The internet companies will not restrict access if we switch to companies who don't. Grow a pair of balls and stop letting the government do all our bidding. If the government was a business it would be bankrupt over and over again.
AkiBola
4.4 / 5 (12) Feb 18, 2011
If the government was a business it would be bankrupt over and over again.


The government is a business and it is bankrupt. However, they can print money to devalue our property (inflation) and take what they want from you (taxes).

The current internet delivery system is not that great, or else why do we have about the most expensive internet in the developed world? A few large providers control the overall market, and there isn't much competition in any individual market. We need to open up the physical connection to more providers, as has been done with the electric utilities in many places. Pay a separate cost for the connection versus the information service. Then net neutrality is a non issue because you will have choices of providers with different cost structures for the access you want.
elbeasto
4.8 / 5 (17) Feb 18, 2011
IMO you guys should stop bashing each other for being republican or democratic and focus on the topic without using snide remarks like

"Republicans and their brothers, soul-less monopolies,"

I read all of your posts here and on forums and I can't even decide what argument you are trying to make because I am too busy filtering through the useless information.

I would be very interested in hearing both arguments "for and against" because a lot of you know a lot about what the net neutrality really means but none of you can stop the flaming long enough to make any clear and impacting points that makes the other group go "oh I see...".

I mean isn't that why you post? Aren't you trying to convince the other group that your belief is what will move this country forward in the best way?
bloodyanarch
4.5 / 5 (14) Feb 18, 2011
This biggest issue I see here is that you now have companies who own internet bandwidth and also own media. That is where the problem lies. How can innovation like Hulu and Netflix even have a chance when companys that own Cable are trying to make sure you don't get your media from the internet.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (21) Feb 18, 2011
Information should not be controlled by the moneyed few.

It should be controlled by the government! MORE net 'neutrality'!
Charge by bytes/time versus charging for information.

That's how satellite ISPs work. But the 'liberals' are not proposing this. Why?
Regulation isn't about spurring innovation. Its about protecting consumers.

Where is the evidence internet consumers need protection? By the time the govt gets around to 'protecting', the market has already solved the problem and moved on.
soul-less monopolies

What are theses? Oh, you mean the govt, a soul-less monopoly on power.
gblaze41
2.8 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2011
I concur with JRDarby.MegaCorp's are the new masters of the Supreme Court and the GOP as witnessed by their actions.
Well the FCC and like most governments are in bed with large companies, they typically are one and the same. Free enterprise if it wasn't for Government is an amazing thing and 100% the reason why we have had such technical growth in the 20th and 21th century.
gblaze41
2 / 5 (8) Feb 18, 2011
"USA: land of the free home of the brave"
s-a transformat in
"USA: land of the unemployed home of the bum"


Not really, for the next 100 years the U.S will be the one free place in the world, be thankful about that.
jamesrm
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 18, 2011
More government = less freedom.
Less government = more freedom

A simple memes to please a simple mind
MrsButterworth
1 / 5 (7) Feb 18, 2011
Hey fella's, don't git your panties in a bunch over this. It doesn't matter what they do. You dumb monkeys ran out of cheap energy and most of you are going to die anyway (with or without internet access). BRB the mail lady is here with my 250,00 seeds.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (18) Feb 18, 2011
I concur with JRDarby.MegaCorp's are the new masters of the Supreme Court and the GOP as witnessed by their actions.
Well the FCC and like most governments are in bed with large companies, they typically are one and the same. Free enterprise if it wasn't for Government is an amazing thing and 100% the reason why we have had such technical growth in the 20th and 21th century.

I don't blame the corporations like the socialists here do, I blame the govt for taking more power. Corporations pay off the govt to 'kill' competition by drowning them in regulations.
The govt CAN say NO and the US Constitution requires the govt to say NO.
Eikka
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2011
Charging for internet access according to the amount of data transferred is pointless and only serves to drive up the price of access, not prevent problems inherent in limited bandwidth.

It's like driving along the highway at 4 am. There's nobody else there, so it really doesn't matter how much road you take. Do the same at 4 pm and you will cause a gridlock.

Likewise, even if you do pay for every byte, nothing prevents you from trying to download those bytes at the same time as everybody else, and the network is jammed no matter how much you pay for your ones and zeroes. Nothing is solved - only the telco benefits from selling more ones and zeroes.
wealthychef
5 / 5 (10) Feb 18, 2011
Fast growing businesses need to do more than cover their costs if they are going to compete. They need to invest in new technology to accommodate the rapid growth of data.
All data is not the same and should not be treated the same if bandwidth is limited.


No, to a telecom provider, all data is the same. If someone is sending a lot of data out, then charge them more based on usage, but charging based on content is dangerous and should be disallowed.
wealthychef
5 / 5 (4) Feb 18, 2011
Charging for internet access according to the amount of data transferred is pointless ...even if you do pay for every byte, nothing prevents you from trying to download those bytes at the same time as everybody else, and the network is jammed no matter how much you pay for your ones and zeroes. Nothing is solved.


It makes sense to charge for the heaviest usage. Your argument seems insane. The only reason that driving at 4PM causes gridlock is that there are a lot of other people using the resource at that time. Building more roads costs money. Either you charge all drivers equally, in which case a guy that uses them more often is getting away cheaper than say a bicyclist, or you charge based on some other criteria. If you argue that roads are a public good, then nationalize them and provide them for "free" or regulate and require equal fees for all. We have chosen to nationalize our roads and education. Maybe we should do the same for internet bandwidth.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Feb 18, 2011
charge them more based on usage,

Content drives usage.

The technology now exists to have a 100% toll road system with flexible tolls based upon time of day, road, and vehicle type.

Central planning collapses without accurate feedback loops that are provided by price data.
We have chosen to nationalize our roads and education. Maybe we should do the same for internet bandwidth.
And obtain the same 'quality' of service as our failing schools and crumbling roads?
geokstr
1 / 5 (11) Feb 18, 2011
"Net Neutrality" is just another Orwellian-named (that's for you, SH) stalking horse for eventual control of content, which the leftlings here are just hunky-dory with because they believe that only their content is right, and fair, and just, and other such drivel. Opposition content is not to be allowed in their dream world of creating the New Man, who will joyfully give to the Collective based on his abilities, and only take based on his needs.

Oh, and I didn't see any articles on this "unbiased" "objective" "non-partisan" "post-political" "science" site about the Dems introducing legislation to give the Pres (as long as it's another D, probably) an internet "Kill Switch" so that all internet communication can be cut off in "emergency" situations, like, maybe, hey, this election isn't going our way.

I'm sure it's most likely potentially somewhat more-or-less just a coincidence (probably), though.
epsi00
5 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2011

I don't blame the corporations like the socialists here do, I blame the govt for taking more power. Corporations pay off the govt to 'kill' competition by drowning them in regulations.
The govt CAN say NO and the US Constitution requires the govt to say NO.


really? a government bought by corporations cannot say no to them. If you don't understand this, then you don't understand anything about the US government. A government by the rich, for the rich.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Feb 18, 2011

I don't blame the corporations like the socialists here do, I blame the govt for taking more power. Corporations pay off the govt to 'kill' competition by drowning them in regulations.
The govt CAN say NO and the US Constitution requires the govt to say NO.


really? a government bought by corporations cannot say no to them. If you don't understand this, then you don't understand anything about the US government. A government by the rich, for the rich.

And it all began with the 'progressive' Teddy Roosevelt.
The WI state govt is now saying NO to govt unions and the 'progressives' are acting quite uncivilly.
This issue is power to take money from those who earn it.
apex01
5 / 5 (4) Feb 18, 2011
I don't understand why this is even debatable. If you go over your minutes on your cell phone then you will naturally be charged extra. Nothing is free. The more you use the more cost there is.
epsi00
4.5 / 5 (4) Feb 18, 2011

I don't blame the corporations like the socialists here do, I blame the govt for taking more power. Corporations pay off the govt to 'kill' competition by drowning them in regulations.
The govt CAN say NO and the US Constitution requires the govt to say NO.


really? a government bought by corporations cannot say no to them. If you don't understand this, then you don't understand anything about the US government. A government by the rich, for the rich.

And it all began with the 'progressive' Teddy Roosevelt.
The WI state govt is now saying NO to govt unions and the 'progressives' are acting quite uncivilly.
This issue is power to take money from those who earn it.


I would simply add that in the US, you really don't have free elections. you have auctions. Whoever pays the most for the seat takes it. Even the US supreme court just recently removed the last barrier in the path of corporations to buy all the seats and even the presidential office.
Kingsix
1 / 5 (1) Feb 18, 2011
Not really, for the next 100 years the U.S will be the one free place in the world, be thankful about that.

Wow, I never thought I would see first hand the naivety that the American education system instills in a small percentage off the US population first hand!
Did you know that America invented democracy!
krundoloss
5 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2011
I think the point is: We need to say what ISP's cannot do. What if Blockbuster made a deal with Time Warner to block Netflix in favor of Blockbuster online streaming? Is that fair to the consumer? So with free market functions, the consumer just switches to another ISP right? What if there is no alternative ISP in the area. Then you have unfair business practices that harm the consumer and create tiny monopolies. We need to create laws to prevent this. . . .
wiyosaya
3 / 5 (2) Feb 18, 2011
Too bad they had to post a political article here.

My take: Once the people who voted all the newbies into various offices realize what they really got for their vote, they will all get voted out again.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 18, 2011
Whoever pays the most for the seat takes it.

Then we should have had a president Perot and Jerry Brown should not be gov of CA.
winthrom
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 18, 2011
Since Internet (cable company/TELCO) access is a utility (like electricity, water, gas, etc.) and since it is owned and controlled over state lines (like telephone, air travel, etc.) then the access is federally controlable. Insofar as the utility attribute of cable/TELCO internet ISP access is monopolistic (few folks have more than one choice of ISP) the FCC action was warranted. If the ISP function is treated like power companies are now starting to do (local power company owns power lines and equal access power sellers compete to sell energy on those lines to subscribers paying the line owner "rent" like fees) then competition works for the user. If the communication lines (Cable/TELCO internet) are restricted to the communication line company alone, then the monopoly must be regulated. Solution: Cable/TELCO companies get paid by independent ISPs that users subscribe to, and the cable ISP can compete also. Users win, physical plant providers win. WIN - WIN
epsi00
5 / 5 (3) Feb 18, 2011
Whoever pays the most for the seat takes it.

Then we should have had a president Perot and Jerry Brown should not be gov of CA.


Oh well, you can't pick and choose. make a big table of all seats, senate, governors and presidents... and show what they spent to get elected and where the money came from. That table will show you everything and you will come to the conclusion that in the US, you have auctions, not elections.
Au plus offrant.
I know the american people think they have a democracy and true elections and that they really elected Obama. But the simple truth is that he was bought by wall street and is working for them.
Auctions not elections ( with one or two exceptions that confirm the rule ).
fleem
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2011
No megacorporation should be given control of the Internet. That's why giving it to the largest megacorporation in the world (The U.S. Federal Government, Incorporated) is bad. Oh wait, its unfair to call the U.S Federal Government a megacorporation because, unlike boycotting Haliburton, boycotting the Federal Government results in their thugs being at our doors with guns drawn.

People, the U.S. federal government is by far the most profitable business in the world and has nothing to do with defending the people. Do you honestly think having two candidates placed before us by the system is "democracy"? Do you honestly think the name of a bill (like "Patriot Act") has anything to do with whats in the bill? Finding data to prove these things takes only a few seconds, yet so many people look at the federal government as if its the people's defender. The politicians KNOW we are sheeple, and use that to their advantage.

toyo
4.3 / 5 (8) Feb 18, 2011
Didn't the Internet arise from DARPANet? Weren't the first users (and developers) all scientists and techos?
Who, other than a Government (the mega-corporation that according to some here would always go bust) would dare invest money in such a risky venture? (By the way, if you think the US's technological advantage is NOT funded by tax dollars I suggest you have a good look at how research IS being funded.)
No, ladies and gents, there IS a need for Government-led initiatives because your oh-so-precious profit motive would NEVER initiate risky projects that require billions to bring to fruition.
So where does that leave us?
Mega-corporations are profiting from the initial tax-funded Internet (and rightly so) but now they want to restrict use of their upgrades to the Internet to those that can pay.
I say good, that's democracy!
However, let's be sure that their changes don't degrade the service to everyone else.
That would NOT be democracy.
Question is, can they do it?
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 18, 2011
Didn't a govt regulate Minitel?
VOR
4 / 5 (8) Feb 19, 2011
to side with repugs u r either ignorant or brainwashed by Fox. The tired argument that we need less regulation is worthless nonsence. We need all the good regulation we can get, and we need to get rid of all the bad regulation we can. There is nothing intrinsically bad about regulation. There is everything intrinsically bad about no regulation. (corp abuse). But as long as the ignorant and greedy exist, we will have this wastefull debate. In other words, we are doomed to suffer it indefinately.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (13) Feb 19, 2011
We need all the good regulation we can get, and we need to get rid of all the bad regulation we can.

How do you plan to accomplish this?
Define 'bad' and 'good' while you are at it.
wwqq
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 19, 2011
When have govt regulation ever led more innovation in any market?


All the time. One obvious example is minimum standards on refrigerators and freezers efficiency imposed in California; which manufacturers fought kicking and screaming. When the law went into effect there was very rapid increase in fridge/freezer efficiency in order to stay ahead of the requiremetns and it even turned out to be cheaper(could get away with a smaller compressor and that's the most costly component).
wwqq
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2011
How do you plan to accomplish this?


I'm afraid the US may have gone too far into the abyss and it is going to take something of the scale of a few million peaceful demonstrators marching into washington, shutting the city down until there is change.

The housing bubble was caused by fraud on a massive scale and nobody goes to jail. It's even worse of course, the banksters who engaged in fraud were kept in place and their companies bailed out; no bonuses clawed back.

They even legalized accounting fraud(by suspending mark-to-market; rather than report the worth of assets at the value you can sell them for in the market you can just extract a number from your arse)

Define 'bad' and 'good' while you are at it.


Good regulation accomplishes some useful goal that the majority finds laudible(e.g. see Glass-steagall), bad regulation is either designed to favour special interests(e.g. strangling small start ups by imposing large, fixed cost) or fails to accomplish a goal
umbragetaker
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 19, 2011
Not that we really needed any reminder that The GOP is a wholly owned subsidiary of Big Business.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (14) Feb 19, 2011
Not that we really needed any reminder that The GOP is a wholly owned subsidiary of Big Business.

Wall Street owns the democrats. Check their donations.
GE donated heavily to Obama and the CEO of GE has been appointed to an Obama committee.
The US Chamber of Commerce, hardly a fan of 'big business' typically supports Republicans.
mrlewish
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 19, 2011
Let them take away net neutrality.. Then the companies that believe in it should feel free to just not pass any traffic from anti-neutrality sites.. like Republican websites or FauxNews/Newscorp sites along with many other neocon sites.
MorganW
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 19, 2011
I think the point is: We need to say what ISP's cannot do. What if Blockbuster made a deal with Time Warner to block Netflix in favor of Blockbuster online streaming? Is that fair to the consumer? So with free market functions, the consumer just switches to another ISP right? What if there is no alternative ISP in the area. Then you have unfair business practices that harm the consumer and create tiny monopolies. We need to create laws to prevent this. . . .

Fine - then prosecute that when you see it. We don't need the equivalent of Stalinism before it's even happened.
Once again, this is just a bunch of smoke and mirrors to divide us and keep us from realizing who's REALLY controlling the content: government (working hand in pocket with politically-motivated media organizations).
geokstr
1 / 5 (11) Feb 19, 2011
The housing bubble was caused by fraud on a massive scale and nobody goes to jail.

In your dream world perhaps.

The housing bubble was caused by government forcing banks to lend to millions of people who should never have gotten mortgages in the first place, with no down, no credit or employment history, no jobs, food stamps counting as income. All in the name of "fairness" and "equality". Progressive spread-the-real-estate wealth at work.

It was this tremendous increase in faux government-sponsored demand for housing that forced real estate prices to be artificially inflated.

Derivatives and CDS were created to try to spread the risk of this worthless paper. They didn't "cause" the bubble to pop.

Bottom line - no millions of mortgages to poor credit risks, forced by government against proven sound business practices - no bubble - no pop.

Being a leftling means never, ever having to say you or your policies were wrong, doesn't it?
Skeptic_Heretic
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 20, 2011
The US Chamber of Commerce, hardly a fan of 'big business'
Wow, just wow, Marjon. This is stupid even for you.
The housing bubble was caused by government forcing banks to lend to millions of people who should never have gotten mortgages in the first place, with no down, no credit or employment history, no jobs, food stamps counting as income. All in the name of "fairness" and "equality". Progressive spread-the-real-estate wealth at work.
That's not accurate. The housing bubble and the prior tech bubble both originated with bank lending practices instituted by the banks, not via government regulation. The crash in home prices is directly tied to the packaging of bad mortgages into "A plus" securities and sold as polished turds to investors. When the first loans started to default it caused a chain of failure that took former borderline loans into the negative index due to bankrupting the retirement securities of those who were treading water, who affected the next tier, etc
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (9) Feb 20, 2011
Now the problem here is that no one has gone to jail for this action. If you had taken the heads of Chase, Citi, and GS and stuck em in Federal prison, (not the country club prison but the anal rape, hardened criminal prison) I guarantee you'll never see this happen again.

The problem here, with both parties, is the corruption and major tie in to the banks. As a federal servant, are you going to put a guy in jail for life who is offering you a 2,000,000 dollar a year job with bonuses on top for once you get out of office? Probably not, unless your ethics are top notch. That being said, find me a government official from either party who has those sort of ethics. It's a rarity, and they typically don't last long in the cesspool of Washington D.C.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Feb 20, 2011
"Issa's probe of the now-defunct lender's controversial home loan program is an attempt to expose all lawmakers or other government officials who might have received sweetheart deals from the firm. The subpoena to Bank of America, which now owns Countrywide, marks a significant expansion of an investigation into Countrywide launched in the preceding Democrat-controlled Congress. "
http:/www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/17/AR2011021702556.html?hpid=topnews

Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (7) Feb 20, 2011
Issa is a suspected arsonist, suspected insurance fraudster, and convicted car thief. He's exactly the man to investigate corruption...../sarcasm
Parsec
5 / 5 (7) Feb 20, 2011
So many people arguing about this are in the dark about what net neutrality means and what the new rules are.

The idea isn't that HD video for example shouldn't be charged more than say text or smaller downloads. Service providers can always charge more for higher bandwidths or charge depending on how much data is streamed into your home. Costs to service providers are a function of the bandwidth and download rates, so cost to customers must be reflected in that.

That isn't what net neutrality is about at all. It is the idea that a service provider (Comcast for example) can charge more for the same amount of data from NetFlix (for example) then they charge their own content providers.

Its like if a newspaper owned a bunch of commercial
enterprises, then charged different rates for advertising those businesses than the rest of their advertisers. It is inherently anti-competitive.
Parsec
5 / 5 (8) Feb 20, 2011
@geokstr

The housing bubble was caused by government forcing banks to lend to millions of people who should never have gotten mortgages in the first place, with no down, no credit or employment history, no jobs, food stamps counting as income. All in the name of "fairness" and "equality". Progressive spread-the-real-estate wealth at work.

Part of the American Dream is to own your own home. I can hardly fault Bush for pushing policies to make this dream available for more people. However, no one in government ever pushed fraudulent lending practices on anyone. So called 'liar' loans were more a function of the vast amount of money available for investing and the greed of private institutions. The current administration (the progressives) have moved aggressively back to the policies of the Clinton era, where this activity really would result in jail time.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Feb 20, 2011
"CRA loans are loans
targeted to low and moderate income borrowers and neighborhoods under the
Community Reinvestment Act of 1977.
"The securitization of these affordable mortgages allows us to redeploy capital back
into our communities and to expand our ability to provide credit to low and moderate
income individuals," said Jane Henderson, managing director of First Union's
Community Reinvestment and Fair Lending Programs. "First Union is committed to
promoting home ownership in traditionally underserved markets through a
comprehensive line of competitive and flexible affordable mortgage products. This
transaction enables us to continue to aggressively serve those markets."
The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac and have an
implied "AAA" rating. First Union Capital Markets Corp. is the investment banking
subsidiary of First Union Corporation."
October 20, 1997 Wachovia Press release.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 20, 2011
Issa is a suspected arsonist, suspected insurance fraudster, and convicted car thief. He's exactly the man to investigate corruption...../sarcasm


Geithner, the boss of the IRS is a tax cheat.

"Now, this criminal is Barack Obama’s campaign adviser. Only one member of Congress, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, received more kickbacks from Raines’s Fannie Mae cronies than did Barack Obama–over $120,000 in bribes."
http:/hennessysview.com/business/franklin-raines-criminal-enterprise-and-barack-obama-his-accomplice/
Skeptic_Heretic
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 20, 2011
Geithner, the boss of the IRS is a tax cheat.
Yeah, that guy should be in jail. Unlike you, I don't owe anyone my loyalty because they check the same party affiliation.

If you did want to go by party affiliation, you'd still be on the losing end.
draa
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 20, 2011
It seems anything the Republicans propose their miinions will go along with it. Just look at some of the 19th century laws they have begun to pass in America. Right down to stripping citizenship from it's own people. I guess destroying 2 countries completely and the economy of this one, they still follow blindly complaining of those evil Liberals. Sad bunch.
Daein
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 20, 2011
Net Neutrality is bad for the net and should be stopped. It takes the freedom you current have on the net away. Also the government should not have a say about which data you or a company can have flow through their computer. If you don't want certain data on your computer you shouldn't be forced to allow it. That is what net neutrality does.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Feb 20, 2011
Geithner, the boss of the IRS is a tax cheat.
Yeah, that guy should be in jail. Unlike you, I don't owe anyone my loyalty because they check the same party affiliation.

If you did want to go by party affiliation, you'd still be on the losing end.

I don't see many 'progressives' or 'populists' doing anything critical of Obama or democrats.
It is those from the tea parties, whom you condemn, that are actually taking a stand for liberty and prosperity.
Your critique of Geitner comes off as less than genuine.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 21, 2011
I don't see many 'progressives' or 'populists' doing anything critical of Obama or democrats.
Take your head out of your ass and your viewpoint may be able to see more clearly.
It is those from the tea parties, whom you condemn, that are actually taking a stand for liberty and prosperity.
TEA Party Incorporated (funny name for a grass-roots movement) released their balance sheet. Surprise surprise. 50% of their funds were funneled to establishment republicans. Explain that.
Your critique of Geitner comes off as less than genuine.
Your opinion of my stance is meaningless You're a liar, a fraud, and you've tossed your view in with a bunch of neo-nazis on another post. You don't have a leg to stand on here. Better take a seat.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 21, 2011
(funny name for a grass-roots movement)

Required by govt regulations.

I don't know what you mean by 'establishment' republicans.

You're a liar, a fraud, and you've tossed your view in with a bunch of neo-nazis on another post.

I need to be more skeptical and support your fantasies.
Your opinion of my stance is meaningless

Given your response, I must be spot on.

"Tea Party Patriots, Inc. operates as a social welfare organization organized under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. Contributions to Tea Party Patriots, Inc. are not deductible as charitable contributions for income tax purposes.
"
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 21, 2011
"You will find Tea Party Incorporated is not your average beverage site. "
http:/www.teapartyinc.com/Home_Page.php
Yes, this is not a grass roots organization. It is a business.
randith
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 21, 2011
It all boils down to which you trust more: corporations, or the federal gov?

I trust corporations more because the gov is a monopoly. If you try to boycott it (e.g., by refusing to pay taxes) you get thrown in jail.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 21, 2011
It all boils down to which you trust more: corporations, or the federal gov?

I trust corporations more because the gov is a monopoly. If you try to boycott it (e.g., by refusing to pay taxes) you get thrown in jail.

And I go in the opposite direction. It is easier to change government than to change corporations.
J-n
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2011
1. Most Americans live in places that there is only 1 high speed internet service provider.
2.

Without net neutrality it will not be long before we will have reduced access to media not owned or licensed by our particular internet provider.

If your ISP wanted to they could limit or restrict your access to items that they did not deem proper, or profitable for them. If your ISP was owned by a large pro-muslim company then you would not be able to view anti-muslim websites. If your ISP was owned by atheists or anti-gun nuts you might not be able to view the vaticans website or the NRA's website.

How about if Fox news discovers something about the company that owns your ISP that your ISP would rather you not know about? They could easily block all sites that refrence FOX, the report that they dont want, or anything else t

Of course you could switch your ISP, but if you're like most americans you would not have any other options than the one or two ISPs in your area.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 21, 2011
not have any other options than the one or two ISPs in your area.

And why is that? Cities limit access.

Why would SH want to change the present socialist regime? It satisfies his statist desires.
Corporations, if not protected by the govt, must adapt to the market or go out of business. IBM and Xerox are very different companies now then when they started.
Mesafina
4 / 5 (4) Feb 21, 2011
not have any other options than the one or two ISPs in your area.

And why is that? Cities limit access.


Please show me where and how exactly 'cities are limiting access'. Thanks!
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 21, 2011
not have any other options than the one or two ISPs in your area.

And why is that? Cities limit access.


Please show me where and how exactly 'cities are limiting access'. Thanks!

"Verizon today announced the 100th franchise agreement in the state of Massachusetts for FiOS TV. The Easton Board of Selectmen on Monday granted a cable franchise to Verizon to begin wiring the town of 23,000 with fiber optic service. "
http:/stopthecap.com/2009/09/01/verizon-fios-wins-franchise-in-easton-mass-marks-100th-fios-tv-franchise-agreement-in-the-state/
Why do cities need to approve in the first place?
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 21, 2011
If I were building a sub-division or a large apartment building, I would take the 7-11 approach and have every residence wired to receive any cable provider.
knikiy
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 21, 2011
The housing bubble was caused by fraud on a massive scale and nobody goes to jail.

In your dream world perhaps.

The housing bubble was caused by government forcing banks to lend to millions of people who should never have gotten mortgages in the first place, with no down, no credit or employment history, no jobs, food stamps counting as income.


Now you are having your little dream. I think you are imagining that Federal regulation was the cause of banker's greed. The ABSENCE of Federal oversight was what contributed to this.
Mesafina
not rated yet Feb 21, 2011
I agree with you that laws restricting competition are very harmful and I don't support arbitrary government restrictions of competition (via licensing agreements or whatever). Those laws need to be changed by the residents of those cities if they want a more open and free internet in their areas. However the fact that this is going on in many places has nothing to do with net neutrality. No ISP should be allowed to charge different rates for the same amount of bandwidth, just because it came from a different source. In addition, anyone should be free to lay cable on private land and sell bandwidth if they choose. With both of these things you'd have a much better environment for doing business on the internet, one that is favorable to startups and large established enterprises alike by offering consumers equal access to data from any source, and a large number of ISP's to choose from for their access.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Feb 21, 2011
not have any other options than the one or two ISPs in your area.

And why is that? Cities limit access.


Please show me where and how exactly 'cities are limiting access'. Thanks!

"Verizon today announced the 100th franchise agreement in the state of Massachusetts for FiOS TV. The Easton Board of Selectmen on Monday granted a cable franchise to Verizon to begin wiring the town of 23,000 with fiber optic service. "
http:/stopthecap.com/2009/09/01/verizon-fios-wins-franchise-in-easton-mass-marks-100th-fios-tv-franchise-agreement-in-the-state/
Why do cities need to approve in the first place?

So you're saying Verizon shouldn't have to agree to pay the citizens for use of their tax payer funded telco lines to provide a service for profit? Why are you against property rights of citizens?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2011
Why should any city restrict cable, internet choices for its citizens?
Why shouldn't everyone have a choice in wired cable provider like they do with satellite TV?
geokstr
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 23, 2011
50% of their funds were funneled to establishment republicans. Explain that.

The Tea Parties as such have only been around two years. The other two parties have built farm systems over the last century, where promising candidates are brought up through local and state government to run for the Big Show in DC.

Tea Parties do not yet have such an organization, so they for the most part have to choose from one of the two existing parties. Let's see now - the TPs want limited government, much lower spending, lower taxes, more individual responsibility and freedom. Hmmm...which of the two parties at least pays some lip service to those principles. The Democrats?

You'd better believe that the Republicans were put on notice in 2010 too, which is why you see some of them developing spines all of a sudden.

If only 50% of their donations went to "Establishment" R's, where'd the rest go? Democrats? To real conservative R's, that's where, who beat the old-line R's in many primaries.
Eikka
5 / 5 (1) Feb 24, 2011

Now you are having your little dream. I think you are imagining that Federal regulation was the cause of banker's greed. The ABSENCE of Federal oversight was what contributed to this.


Both parties are at fault. Who do you think lobbied for the decisions and whose interest was it that there was no oversight? Who was the incompetent/corrupt party that let all this happen without a second thought?

The separation of government and business is as important as the separation of church and state, and that goes both ways. Governments should not mess with business, and business should not mess with government.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.