Conservative Groups Accuse FCC of Helping Net Neutrality Advocates File Comments 283
jfruh writes Conservative groups opposed to net neutrality have a beef with the FCC, claiming the commission helped pro-net neutrality advocates file comments on the subject without similarly helping opponents. In other news out of this camp, it turns out American Commitment, an advocacy group with ties to the Republican billionaire Koch brothers, sent out 2.4 million letters to Congress opposing net neutrality but only collected about 814,000 signatures. The group then generated three letters to Congress for each person signing the petition, one letter to each of the signer's two senators and one to each signer's representative.
Conservatives crying "no fair"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't that their whole ideology, that the world isn't fair?
Re:Conservatives crying "no fair"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but it's only supposed to be unfair in their favour. Anything else is "Against God's Will" or "Against the will of the Market".
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
To quote Oakland Raiders coach John Madden, "All I want is my unfair advantage."
Sums up just about everyone, really....
Re:Conservatives crying "no fair"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Their ideology that the world is perfectly fair how it is, and if you want to change anything, then you hate capitalism and America.
Re:Conservatives crying "no fair"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Correction, how it was. The world was perfectly fair in some mythological world that they believe existed before the liberals and blacks and feminists got hold of it.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course you're right, but not because liberals believe the world is "fair as it is".
The main difference I see between current Democrats and Republicans is the excuses they give for the policies they push, which are mainly the same (at least the really important ones). Republicans claim they want to "set the private sector loose" and it causes more income inequality. Democrats say t
Re:Conservatives crying "no fair"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do you think they single out unions so consistently? They do not seem to mind small groups in positions of power leveraging their bargaining position, but somehow when workers get together and say 'hey, we have skills you want so here are our terms' it becomes communist and evil.
Re:Conservatives crying "no fair"? (Score:5, Interesting)
Unless you are a wealthy company, in which case it is your right to try to change things.
It is not that simple. The Democrats can be just as pro-big-business, depending on the business. For instance Democrats tend to like big companies with unionized workforces, and pushed through the GM bailout in the face of mostly Republican opposition. For more complicated reasons, the Democrats voted for the bank bailout, while most Republicans opposed it.
There is nothing inherently liberal or conservative about net neutrality. I just happens to be the way the chips fell. The big media companies in Hollywood, and elsewhere, where already in bed with the Democrats. So the ISPs, which have mostly the opposite agenda, lined up with the Republicans. This alignment of interests had happened well before NN became a issue. The Republicans don't oppose NN because of ideology. They oppose it because that is what their big donors want them to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. This issue is pretty complex.
It may not be in then net's best interest to have FCC regulate the internet IF their regulations are as hamfisted and full of loopholes like their previous attempts have been. So the Republicans might the right there.
However, if the FCC actually had the balls to make the internet common carrier that would be the kind of regulation that is really needed to protect the net. If the FCC did that then the Republican position is all kinds of wrong.
As for the Democrats, if they
Re: (Score:2)
However, if the FCC actually had the balls to make the internet common carrier that would be the kind of regulation that is really needed to protect the net. If the FCC did that then the Republican position is all kinds of wrong.
I fear this will lead to the FCC regulating Internet content like they do broadcast content. Censors, fairness doctrines, all kinds of stuff. It's easy when "lawful content" and "lawful traffic" are embedded all over the place in the proposals. "Lawful" is a lower bar than "Legal" - just look at the definition: "conforming to, permitted by, or recognized by law or rules." In other words, "Legal" means there is no law against, but "Lawful" means there needs to be a law allowing it.
This can lead to all k
Re: (Score:2)
individual democrats are very often pro business.
yet as long as the party contineus to generally also support workers rights, unions, science, and any other topic on which they happen to agree with me, while the other party generally does not, they will get my vote.
thats why its important to vote the man, not the party.
Re:Conservatives crying "no fair"? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, they oppose Net Neutrality because of ideology. The conservative position isn't that Net Neutrality is bad per se. It's that it's the wrong solution to the problem.
The real problem isn't lack of net neutrality. It's lack of competition due to monopolies granted to the cable and phone companies by local governments. Net Neutrality is just more government regulation to try to solve a problem created by government in the first place. The monopolies were typically granted in exchange for a contractual guarantee that service is provided to low-income neighborhoods, though lately it's become a straight payola scheme with the chosen ISP having to pay the government per household serviced. IMHO the government should never be allowed to "sell" access to its citizens like that - it corrupts not just business but government itself.
Remove the government-granted monopolies and the problem goes away on its own. Why are Korea, Japan, most of Europe, etc. not grappling with this same issue? Because they have true competition in the ISP market. Any ISP which deliberately slows down web traffic as part of an extortion scheme to make web sites pay them hemorrhages customers until they put themselves out of business. Such extortion is only possible when the customers have no viable competitor they can switch to, as is the case when the government grants the ISP a monopoly. That's the free market approach conservatives advocate.
Of course 9 out of the 10 rated responses so far are how conservatives are evil greedy robbers who will kidnap and eat your children. People typically want to cast the issue in a manner which villainizes the opposition, rather than try to really understand the other guy's point of view.
Re:Conservatives crying "no fair"? (Score:5, Insightful)
For instance Democrats tend to like big companies with unionized workforces, and pushed through the GM bailout in the face of mostly Republican opposition. For more complicated reasons, the Democrats voted for the bank bailout, while most Republicans opposed it.
Don't kid yourself. The republicans opposed these bailouts because they knew that the democrats would be able to pass them anyway, and they can go to their constituents and say how bad the democrats are for supporting the bail-outs. Completely ignoring the fact that they would have done it as well, if there hadn't been enough democrats to pass it. Nobody, other than some of the tea party members, was going to let those bail-outs fail to pass.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because the air traffic controllers were unskilled labor in your world?
If the libs are for it... (Score:5, Insightful)
then we must be against it! Fire up the astroturfing machine!!!
Like many things based in science or technology, I think the conservatives simply do not understand the call for net neutrality. But they do understand that many people with liberal tendencies are for it, therefore, they must oppose it. I'm (somewhat) convinced that there are people at Fox News or similar conservative outlets that stir up and create controversy where there is none, just to get their base frothing at the mouth...which equals more ad revenue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Clearly they dont get the concept of net neutrality because I dont know a single person who is opposed to this
They exist, and I've talked to them. With a little more thought on the subject, I may become one of their number. Like Pauline Kael, you live in a rather special world: "I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don’t know."
Re:If the libs are for it... (Score:5, Insightful)
I would consider myself on the "Conservative" side of things, however, I am a Libertarian through and through.
On the one side, I oppose government defining anything for the private sector. The lines between regulation, and over regulation is too blurry.
On the other side, I oppose government sanctioned monopolies creating artificial scarcity to raise prices and dominate market places.
Being a geek, I fully understand the concept of net neutrality. I've seen the stats of Comcast vs Netflix et al and what happens when Comcast DELIBERATELY hinders Netflix packets on their network.
The real issue is there is LACK of choice at the local level (last mile) for high speed internet, due to local municipalities having franchise agreements with Comcast (or others), limiting real choice of network.
Fixing this at the national (federal) or even state level is just going to end up being a boon for politicians and lawyers, and that is really the last thing we need. What we need to do is start working on the last mile issue, providing REAL market choice for the consumer. And until we as people realize that legislating everything is not really a solution, things like this WILL continue to be an issue.
Re: (Score:3)
You don't have to run dozens of lines to each residence. You just have to run it to a COLO facility for the municipality. Proper VLAN infrastructure can do the rest and auctioning space at the COLO to Providers can do the rest.
AND, I'll be that we'd have better channel choices for less money if we did it that way.
Re:If the libs are for it... (Score:4, Insightful)
That was my thought. I don't even understand why the Koch brothers care. They don't have a dog in this fight. Why on earth go to the trouble of opposing net neutrality? I wonder if they walk around city parks slapping ice cream out of little kids' hands. It's not like they want the ice cream for themselves, they just don't want anybody else enjoying their treats.
The whole thing also flies in the face of the usual conservative talking points, that they're pro small business. Well, you eliminate net neutrality and new, small, innovative players who can't afford to pay for the "fast lane" suffer. There is no idealogical reason for conservatives to oppose net neutrality. It's simply a knee jerk reaction, libs are for it so we must be against it!
Re: (Score:3)
People like the Kochs are really after control and consolidation of power.
There are plenty of reasons for "Conservatives" to oppose an Open Internet...
Which "Conservatives"? Groups like ALEC, thats who. [commoncause.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"People like the Kochs are really after control and consolidation of power. "
And you think Soros, Nancy and Harry and Barack are not ? They only want to "help" people.
Re: (Score:2)
they are now contributing and trying to control/affect local mayoral and city council elections across the country. Congress, and even state level is no longer enough.
a guy in iowa actually lost cause they came in out of nowhere and began "promoting" him....in a town of 500 people. he was embarassed, and actually apologized to his neighbors.
in nashville, a city in which the Koch's have ZERO financial interest, a new plan to create a new high speed transit link (basically, an express public bus route) cross
Re: (Score:3)
"that's why they do it."
Could it be that there is a record of horrible public school performance over the last few decades that is prompting this "school choice" movement? To allow those locked in to poorly performing public schools a shot at a better performing school? And maybe NOT trying to turn schools in to a business?
I'm sorry, conservatives are not evil. Libertarians are not evil. Liberals are not evil. Jeez. I can have opinions that are different than yours without you being EVIL and trying t
Re: (Score:2)
I don't even understand why the Koch brothers care. They don't have a dog in this fight.
Sure they do. They're on the side of protecting corporate influence.
Re:If the libs are for it... (Score:4, Informative)
That was my thought. I don't even understand why the Koch brothers care. They don't have a dog in this fight. Why on earth go to the trouble of opposing net neutrality?
They don't, they don't, and they are not. If you read the article carefully, you'll see they're just shouting "KOCH BROTHERS" as a rallying cry to left-leaning constituencies. The "ties" to Koch that they refer to is simply that the the founder of "American Commitment" once (5 years ago) worked for Americans for Prosperity, which is chaired by David Koch. There doesn't seem to be any funding for American Commitment from Koch or AFP.
Re: (Score:3)
That threads not as slender as you think it is:
http://www.publicintegrity.org... [publicintegrity.org]
Supports: Conservative candidates
Location: Washington, D.C.
Founded: April 10, 2012
Website: americancommitment.org
Social media: Facebook page, Twitter profile, YouTube channel
Finances: Not available
IRS Form 990 filing: Not available
Principals:
Phil Kerpen (president, founder): Kerpen is the former policy and legislative strategist at Americans for Prosperity and previously worked at Club for Growth. He is chairman of the Internet Freedom Coalition and a Fox News opinion columnist.
Profile:
American Commitment was founded in April 2012 by former Americans for Prosperity strategist Phil Kerpen. The group’s website says it is dedicated to individual freedom, limited government and economic growth. It has generally supported Republican candidates running for federal office.
Americans for Prosperity is known as a Koch-brothers-backed, politically active nonprofit, but Kerpen denies American Commitment is linked to Americans for Prosperity. When asked by the Washington Post if billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch were funding American Commitment, Kerpen would not answer, saying only that he takes the privacy of all American Commitment donors very seriously.
In mid-July, Kerpen said the nonprofit had raised $7 million. As a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, American Commitment is not legally required to publicly disclose its donors. But the Center for Responsive Politics discovered that the group had received a $1.6 million grant in 2011 for "general support" from another nonprofit, the Arizona-based Center to Protect Patient Rights.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, American Commitment spent nearly $2 million on ads that expressly advocated for the election or defeat of federal candidates in the 2012 election. That includes $1.4 million spent in Arizona's U.S. Senate race on ads supporting Republican Jeff Flake or opposing Democrat Richard Carmona.
Many of American Commitment’s ads have avoided federal disclosure because they do not explicitly advocate for or against a candidate, and because the ads aired more than 30 days before a primary or 60 days before the general election.
For instance, between June 28 and July 10, American Commitment aired seven different television ads in Ohio, Wisconsin, Florida, New Mexico, Nevada and North Dakota, all opposing Democratic candidates. Another series of ads opposed the farm bill and its food stamp provisions criticizing three House Republicans: Steve King of Iowa, Frank Lucas of Okahoma and Vicky Hartzler of Missouri.
The group also made large ad buys over the summer in Florida, where it spent $1.1 million opposing Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson, according to the Orlando Sentinel, and in Ohio, where it spent $1.2 million opposing Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown, according to the Washington Post.
American Commitment also runs NoMandateTax.com, which opposes the Affordable Care Act, KeystoneXLNow.com, which supports the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline, and WarOnCoal.com, which opposes President Barack Obama’s efforts to decrease hazardous emissions from coal-fired plants.
They also operate ALECpetition.com, which urges people to “reject anti-ALEC bullying.” The American Legislative Exchange Council, known as ALEC, is a partially Koch-backed, unofficial lobbying outfit that is run by mostly Republican state lawmakers and corporations that work together to write and promote “model legislation” that often makes it into the nation’s statehouses.
ALEC’s tax-exempt status has come under scrutiny for having written some of the most contentious legislation in the country, including voter ID bills, anti-union bills and stand-your-ground gun rights bills. The Center for Public Integrity has been tracking ALEC’s role in state legislative initiatives and the challenges to its tax-exempt status.
Advertisements:
“Alexander Joins Obama's War on Coal" criticized Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee for supporting the Utility MACT rule, which would place additional regulations on coal emissions.
"Cheating” criticized Rep. Tammy Baldwin, the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in Wisconsin who ultimately won the election, for voting for the economic stimulus plan and the Affordable Care Act.
“Fading Away” criticized Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in Nevada, for voting for the Affordable Care Act and contributing to the “fading away” of the American dream. Berkley lost her election.
“Cheering” said Heidi Heitkamp, the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in North Dakota who ultimately won her election, “cheered” for more taxes by supporting the Affordable Care Act.
“Fix the Farm Bill” featured a drawling narrator scoffing at the farm bill and its food stamp provisions. Versions of the ad ran in Missouri, Oklahoma and Iowa. They urged voters to contact their congressmen: Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, Rep. Frank Lucas, R-Okla. and Vicky Hartzler, R-Mo.
For more ads from American Commitment, see its YouTube page.
Last updated: Jan. 22, 2013
Re:Conservatives crying "no fair"? (Score:5, Interesting)
You are lumping all conservatives in with two special interest groups. That seems to be the point of this article as well as most articles on news sites these days, anything that rings partisan politics generates a lot of comments.
Re: (Score:3)
Your problem isn't that it's a gross oversimplification of conservatism, but that it isn't narrow enough?
Funny how the conservative's first defense is "we're not all like that!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
However, more than likely, the VAST majority of "Conservatives" DO AGREE with agree with groups like ALEC, The Koch Brothers and Karl Rove when it comes to an Open Internet, and their dogmatic load of shit about a "government takeover of the internet".
Re: (Score:3)
Corporatism is when the corporations take over the government. Fascism is when the government takes over the corporations.
Take a history lesson.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Conservatives crying "no fair"? (Score:4, Insightful)
The government shouldn't use force based on the pretense it will somehow make things fair. The answer to injustice caused by happenstance isn't another unnecessary, purposefully-committed injustice. Save government force for use against murderers and rapists rather than calling out the stormtroopers when your Netflix is fuzzy.
It doesn't work anyway. Regulatory capture is common [bloombergview.com]. The regulators end up working hand-in-hand with the people they're supposed to be regulating, big companies and lawyers benefit while the public suffers. Look no further than Uber vs. the taxi companies and their government friends [washingtonpost.com].
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't work anyway. Regulatory capture is common [bloombergview.com]. The regulators end up working hand-in-hand with the people they're supposed to be regulating, big companies and lawyers benefit while the public suffers.
Speaking of which, isn't the current head of the FCC an executive from Comcast?
Re: (Score:2)
That works great when the government gets to define 'fair'.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that their whole ideology, that the world isn't fair?
And isn't their opponents' crie de guerre,"leveling the playing field"?
Math is hard? (Score:2, Interesting)
814,000 is just over a third of 2.4 million (2,400,000). That's a damned good return rate on a mass spamming. It's kind of pathetic that so many people would support the Koch brothers in their efforts to make sure that internet dissent finally stops screwing with their business model, but I don't see why this is interesting news. As for the petition being sent to the senators, again, how is this news? Every PAC does this. You get people to sign a petition, and you send a letter in each person's na
Re:Math is hard? (Score:5, Informative)
It isn't a return rate, it's cause and effect. They got 814,000 people to sign up to have them send 3 messages for each person, one to each congressman representing them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Math is hard? (Score:4, Insightful)
You get people to sign a petition, and you send a letter in each person's name to each of their representatives. Sometimes they send one to the POTUS as well. The summary seems to be implying that there's something dishonest about this
There is. It's fraudulent. A petition is a petition, it doesn't give a right to pretend to be that person and post letters in their name. Even if the petition signer ticks a box to say it's OK, as it's misrepresenting the degree to which someone cares. There's a big difference in commitment to an opinion between filling out a web form and actually writing a posting a letter.
if true, it's dishonest whether it's the Koch brothers or Earth Defense Alliance.
Who?
Look there is no balanced six of one, half a dozen of the other. The Koch brothers are a constant threat to democracy. There crimes against humanity occur daily.
Re:Math is hard? (Score:4, Insightful)
Certainly not. Do you think they're fooling, or even trying to fool anyone into thinking those letters were written and mailed by individuals? Nope. When some congresscritter's office gets mailbags of nearly identical letters, in nearly identical envelopes, they know they didn't come from individuals.
"Look there is no balanced six of one, half a dozen of the other. "
Never mind. You're obviously blinded by partisanship, and unable to think rationally.
Re: (Score:2)
You are utterly missing the point. I agree with you that when there are two people arguing two sides of an issue, it is possible (indeed likely) that one is mostly wrong and the other mostly right. But what we are talking about here is a political technique that both sides use in exactly the same way. So if you think it's okay when one side uses it, and bad when the other side uses it, you are indeed blinded by partisanship. I say this as someone who has deep antipathy toward the position the Koch B
Re: (Score:2)
QED
Re: (Score:2)
That's neither what I think nor what I expressed. My point is that the weight of these corrupt practices are coming from organisations funded by the Koch Brothers. There is no equal on the other side.
So you bought into that implied connection even though there is no evidence that it exists at all? Typical low information voter. No wonder the US political system is so screwed up.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm pretty sure that's a computer game.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is what many online petitions do these days; you get pestered by those petitions no matter whether you go to a progressive or conservative site.
Yes, because only wealthy Democratic donors should ever be allowed to spend money in politics, right?
Re: (Score:2)
If poor people can volunteer their time then rich people can volunteer their money. Ban them both and we can talk. But I don't think you want that.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no evidence to suggest that the FCC wouldn't have helped the other side if they'd had a strong groundswell of support. The problem is that there really were very few comments against net neutrality, and a huge number for it. So there was no other side that the FCC needed to work with.
Re: (Score:2)
Was just about to point out the dishonest spin in the teaser, but you took the words out of my mouth. I have been involved with issue mailings to people that have previously indicated interest in something and gotten far far less of a response. A 34% response indicates that they had a very very well targeted mailing and indicates that there are a lot of people that do in fact share the perspective. I still think there is a large majority for net neutrality and therefore the FCC which represents the inter
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In what way is net neutrality related to "their business model"? They are into chemicals, petroleum, and agriculture.
The "business model" that net neutrality relates to is companies like Verizon, companies that big Democratic donors like Buffett and Soros seem to have invested a lot of money in recently.
why would you write 1 and not the other? (Score:5, Informative)
That's kind of what you do. Why would you send a letter or email to only one of your two senators?
Every online form I've ever seen lets you write to your two senators, your house rep, and frequently also the white house or other applicable office. They take your input on the online form and either print and mailvit or aggregate it and send the comments and signatures to the people's congressional representatives.
Re: (Score:2)
But ideally it should be recognised for the corruption it is and prosecuted.
So why should it be illegal rather than just something I shouldn't approve of?
Re: (Score:3)
If the form says... fill out this form and we will send this form letter with this wording to your representatives... then that is just an honest and straightforward exercise of free speech. Making it convenient for people that share your views to express their views is the most honest thing that is done in politics.
Bribing newspapers and media to cover your issues or candidates in a favorable light by spending big money on advertising is dishonest and undermines our democratic system. Individuals sendin
Re: (Score:2)
it's called agreeing (Score:3)
> a web form is not you writing letters.
So if I type my comments into a web form, I'm not writing. If I use a quill pen and parchment, that's writing, I presume? What about a mechanical typewriter?
> You are being the useful idiot, allowing someone else to have their say over and over again. At the very least such astroturfing should be ignored by politicians.
It's called AGREEING. Often, my personal position on an issue is a expressed well by an EFF author, who also took the time to cite verifiable
Factually false. You just make things up out of th (Score:2)
> The web form has no area for typing your own comments.
False. You like to just completely make things up out of thin air, don't you? See that box labeled "Add your public comments" on their forms?:
http://action.americancommitme... [americancommitment.org]
"Conservative group opposes net neutrality" (Score:4, Insightful)
Nonono. Group of luddite imbeciles opposes net neutrality.
Re:"Conservative group opposes net neutrality" (Score:5, Funny)
"Group of luddite imbeciles" - "Conservatives"
"Potayto" - "Potato".
Re: (Score:3)
No. A reactionary conservative wouldn't be against net neutrality because tiered service would be a BIG change in how the internet operates. Reactionaries HATE changes like that.
A financial conservative would hate the change because a changeover to tiered service is an excuse to steal more money from their pockets.
I could go on, but you're locked into the foolish "conservative = idiot" mindset.
Just because someone's conservative doesn't mean they're either a luddite or an imbecile.
Re: (Score:2)
You are confusing someone who calls themselves a conservative with someone who actually is a conservative.
Nobody cares about the pedantic definitions. No one follows them.
Re: (Score:2)
You are confusing someone who calls themselves a conservative with someone who actually is a conservative.
Nobody cares about the pedantic definitions. No one follows them.
Except the people tossing labels at them...
Re: (Score:2)
"And yet it *IS* conservative groups that are opposing net neutrality. So there's something wrong with your reasoning."
No. There's something wrong with yours. I *DONT* want to see any tiered services. Net neutrality would prevent this. Yet I'm apposed to it. Because I'm against a bloated central government trying to do control a very heterogeneous population (culturally and economically) over a wide geographic area. What works in NYC probably wont in Baker, CA. Let local governments and the market pl
Re: (Score:2)
It's "Potato" - "Potawto"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Group of luddite imbeciles opposes net neutrality.
Nonono. Group of millionaires opposes net neutrality.
Because once net neutrality is abolished, things will get expensive.
Robber barons (Score:5, Insightful)
Is basically what these people are - or want to be. Reading the wikipedia article on the subject ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R... [wikipedia.org] ), it's hard to distinguish the behavior of the current conservative groups in question and the unscrupulous landowners who lived along the Rhine:
"They hindered commerce by imposing unauthorized tolls and tariffs and at times by sometimes ransoming or hijacking the goods outright..."
Free market my ass: the real goal of all these crony capitalist "conservatives" is rent-seeking (man, that's another good article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R... [wikipedia.org])
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly.
Just to be clear: I meant that in a declarative sense, not an imperative one!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Rent seeking involves passing legislation and regulations restricting the free market to favor your business. Net neutrality is a restriction on the free market. And which of the Koch's businesses would benefit from this? How is opposing net neutrality "rent seeking"?
Oh, there are rent seekers involved in this: the super wealthy like Soros and Buffett, who have bought big stakes in companies like Verizon and dona
Yay! Koch scaremongering! (Score:2, Insightful)
That's all Dems got.
I am completely done with the GOP (Score:3)
This is utter bullshit. The GOP used to be more of a classical liberal party, but has become nothing more than the political arm of Wall Street.
Fuck them. I'm done. I'll never vote for another one.
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck them. I'm done. I'll never vote for another one.
Why not just never vote for a millionaire again? Or never vote for a human that has received campaign donations from billionaires. Or never vote for anyone that is able to run for office. All of these are the only choice we'll ever get and it's the root of the problem. These people didn't become millionaires or billionaires by having humanity's interests in mind.
Re: (Score:3)
FWIW, his UID is already older than 12.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except that was Clinton.
Re: (Score:3)
Remember Reagan broke up ma bell.
Yeah, and these days Reagan wouldn't make it past a Republican primary. It's a pretty sad state of affairs.
2.4 million letters? (Score:2)
Desperation tactics (Score:3)
814.000 signatures... (Score:3, Insightful)
Are we really supposed to believe 814.000 Americans signed a petition to prevent them from using their internet as they see fit? Never mind the fact the triplicated the single signature purpose, this is flat out unbelievable.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe 814000 Americans have figured out that there is no tooth fairy or Santa Claus.
(1) Corporations never pay these costs; you aren't sticking it to Comcast or AT&T. Such regulations inevitably ultimately just shift money from some group of people to another group of people. In the case of net neutrality, nobody knows who it's going to shift money from and to because...
(2) The
Re: (Score:3)
I think net neutrality will probably result in higher prices overall (or rather, a slower decrease in prices) for Internet access, less investment in high speed Internet, and force low-volume users to subsidize high volume users. But it might be a lot worse. What it won't accomplish is giving you more freedom, lower prices, or more choices.
Except that we have a model for regulated Internet service and so can easily see the outcome. In most of Western Europe (actually most of the developed world) Internet service is faster, cheaper and more regulated than in the US. So the facts contradict your ideology - sorry.
In other words. (Score:5, Funny)
American Commitment, an advocacy group with ties to the Republican billionaire Koch brothers, sent out 2.4 million letters to Congress opposing net neutrality but only collected about 814,000 signatures.
They're trying to Koch block Net Neutrality, or am I pronouncing that wrong.
Warning sign (Score:3)
Any time something said to criticize the right mentions the Koch Brothers as a menace, it's probably BS.
In this case, the BS consists of:
1) The "is tied to" claim. If it was actually run by the Koch Brothers, they'd say so. If you read the links, you'll find that the "tie" is that the founder previously worked at a group with Koch funding.
2) No comparison to other signature campaigns to say whether other signature campaigns send letters to multiple people as well. And really, what did you expect them to do, have three separate campaigns for "collect signatures to your senator", "collect signatures for your other senator", and "collect signatures for your representative"?
Conservatives complain ... (Score:2)
Better get used to it when all the GOP fund-raising sites suddenly disappear from the Internet.
Conservatives and hearing the people (Score:4, Insightful)
For a group that just loves to scream "democracy!" and "republic!" they sure don't want the wrong sort of people having a say in their government, what with fighint tooth and nail to reduce early voting, vote-by-mail, and now, apparently, making it harder to file opinions with government agencies.
koch (Score:2)
Koch BROoooooTHEeeeeeeRrrrrSSssssssss!!!!
Well, did they ASK for help? (Score:2)
I see a lot of whining about how the FCC worked with groups in favor of the new rules. I don't see one whit of proof that those opposed to the new rules asked for help. Maybe they are just jealous that the people on the other side thought to ask for assistance, and it never occurred to these clowns to do so.
... I hate to say it is a fair point. (Score:3)
First, I want net neutrality. I'd prefer if it came through market competition rather then government fiat because I worry that that will lead to the FCC regulating the hell out... and that could lead to the internet being less of a free place. But I want our data to flow neutrally through the internet.
That said... the FCC really has no right to take sides in any political debate. That isn't their place. They are not to be advocates of any position. They are to enforce the law. They're police officers for communication. They are not community organizers.
Beyond that, I'll just make the comment that while I do think data should be neutral there should be some flexibility for VoIP and other types of data that require low latency. Compared to something like bit torrent or netflix streaming... you just don't need low latency for that. You just need bandwidth. If your data is delayed by half a second but it is all going into a cache then who cares.
I do NOT think this should be a paid service where you get your communication slowed down if you don't pay and get a faster channel if you do pay. Rather, I think that the communication should declare its needs to the network. And that communication protocols that do not need low latency should voluntarily declare that they are happy with high latency.
Re:More /. bias (Score:5, Insightful)
... better solution would be to break up these government created monopolies and allow for competition in the markets.
Care to name any conservative groups with your solution above as part of their platform? I'd really like to send them a check. Thanks!
Re: (Score:3)
Are there any liberal groups with this solution as part of their platform? Just curious....
Re: (Score:2)
... better solution would be to break up these government created monopolies and allow for competition in the markets.
Care to name any conservative groups with your solution above as part of their platform? I'd really like to send them a check. Thanks!
There are a few (some call themselves "conservative", others used terms like "libertarian" or "non-partisan". Here is my favorite one [againstcro...talism.org].
Re: (Score:2)
You bet I'm intellectually incapable of understanding this issue: I have no idea what net neutrality rules will do to Internet speeds, costs, or investments in the US. And if you think you do, you're a bloody fool.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why the man said: "40 years later, and the only trickle down I've seen has been brown and stinky."