Senator Al Franken Accuses AT&T of "Skirting" Net Neutrality Rules 81
McGruber writes In a letter to the U.S. Federal Communication Commission and the Department of Justice, Senator Al Franken warned that letting AT&T acquire Direct TV could turn AT&T into a gatekeeper to the mobile Internet. Franken also complained that AT&T took inappropriate steps to block Internet applications like Google Voice and Skype: "AT&T has a history of skirting the spirit, and perhaps the letter' of the government's rules on net neutrality, Franken wrote."
verizon, comcast? (Score:5, Insightful)
why not go after the worst offenders?
Re: (Score:2)
that's the problem, after the recent list released showing which politicians are receiving "campaign funding' or bribes as I call them. its going to be impossible for any of this to be enforced or any rule/law changes that block out any loopholes. after reading about ponzi schemes I just realized the entire country is nothing more then one. and these reports and other investigations into corporate monopolies, corruption at every level from local/state/federal only really bitch slaps me into that reality.
Re: (Score:3)
'Bribes' is outdated. Here's what happens:
Somebody window-dresses nicely, like Al Franken in the present case. You buy that product, and become owner of said Al. In time, dear Al performs the function that you expect from that product. It's not a conincidence that elections are won by Advertising moguls.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:verizon, comcast? (Score:5, Interesting)
I was stuck on Comcast when I upgraded from Dialup. Due to the games with non working services, I jumped ship as soon as Qwest offered DSL. Skype, VOIP via SIP, Google Voice/Talk, etc all working fine. I feel for those without the option. Comcast has been trying to win me back, but I'll take the slower DSL speed for everything working properly anyday.
Re: verizon, comcast? (Score:1)
because: Republicans (Score:3, Insightful)
"why not go after the worst offenders?"
"go after" means the Federal Government to **enforce** laws or pass new ones
Republicans block every effort to pass new Net Neutrality laws or enforce currenet ones
> enforcement: GOP excuse: "can't...no money to do it...we got us a budget crisis b/c of government spending"
> pass new laws: GOP excuse: "can't...new laws are 'regulation' and that's bad for business and jobs"
So the answer to "why not go after..." is simply BECAUSE REPUBLICANS
if you disagree...you must
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No fan of the Republicans here, but enforcement is the Executive Branch's bailiwick. :/
it was in my original post (Score:3)
yeah...I addressed your point, directly...from the post you responded to:
the GOP controls the budget...exec branch included...this is the end of the discussion
Re: (Score:1)
Funny, here I was thinking that Republicans and Democrats were two sides of the same coin. Now, they're uniquely and blameably wrong? I swear, this is exactly the same "we have always been at war with Eurasia" doublethink that Orwell wrote about. One day, the first idea. The next day, the other - with no acknowledgement of the other idea ever having been uttered.
I thought it was idiotic when I read 1984 way back when, but here it is, live and right in front of my face.
Re: (Score:2)
You do know that Al Franken is VERY much a Democrat, right?
The GP post was asking why Senator Franken was only accusing ATT and not Verizon / Comcast / Time Warner.
Blaming the other guys isn't constructive, and only deepens the division without solving a damn thing. Stop it.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Sure, let's ignore the two years when the Ds controlled both houses and the Presidency, yet nothing changed.
Sure, let's ignore the fact that the Senate is still controlled by Ds.
Sure, let's ignore the fact that the White House is still occupied by a D, who has executive power on the regulatory department capable of making some of the changes.
I'm sure it's all because of one party, and if we just eliminate that party, the Democrats will fix everything. Don't think of it as one-party rule, think of it as one
Re: (Score:1)
if you disagree...you must contradict my dual thesis
You haven't proven anything to disprove. Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House and did nothing. They still control the executive branch (i.e. the FCC) and do nothing. Your thesis is nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
why not go after the worst offenders?
Because an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The best way to promote network neutrality is to keep monopolies from forming in the first place.
No Funding for you then. (Score:3)
Guess who won't be receiving much, if any campaign contributions for the next election from ATT? (Or Verizon, or Comcast).
Re: No Funding for you then. (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe he should send all that Microsoft, Honeywell, Comcast, Time Warner, Medtronic, Bain Capital, UnitedHealth and Nextera money [opensecrets.org] back then, since candidates in podunk Mr. Rogers Minnesota don't really need it.
Didn't think so.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: No Funding for you then. (Score:4, Interesting)
I have serious doubts about your statement, considering how contested Franken's election victory was, and for how long, not to mention how close.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01... [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
He's stated that his ambition this election is to double, maybe even triple, his margin of victory.
Re: (Score:2)
So were talking something of a margin of victory like 600 - 900 votes this time around? That still ain't a whole lot. He only won by 312 votes the first time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
He's got a sense of humor and makes jokes at his own expense. Rare and refreshing in a public figure.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think he cares.
https://www.opensecrets.org/po... [opensecrets.org]
Re: (Score:2)
OK, I get your point, but what about the money ATT, Verizon, Comcast, etc. will be pumping into his opponent?
Re: (Score:2)
What does it mean that Comcast gave him money for his first election? Had Franken actually declared war on the Comcast/NBC merger while he was campaigning? GM/NBC was even his former employer at Saturday Night Live. Maybe Comcast just wanted to get on his good side at the time, like his other donors?
But the next election might be something different. And even if Comcast gave him $10k, they'll give the other guy 20k, (so 30K paid out overall) with 20K just the cost of doing business in order to pump up their
Re: (Score:3)
Lots?
There used to be a saying the all Jr.s Senator were told:
"If you can't take their money, drink their liquor, fuck their women and still vote against them, you don't belong in politics."
Re: No Funding for you then. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"A good politician stays bought".
They have to be re-bought every election cycle
Don't you know the ground rules of baksheesh?
Re: (Score:3)
As a Minnesotan, I don't see unknown Mike McFadden making a lot of headway against Franken. The dedicated ideologues may vote for him but Minnesota isn't the kind of a state where hard-core ideology will win elections. And he surely won't win campaigning against Franken on a platform of letting Comcast do whatever it wants.
I think he'd be most vulnerable in his own party to someone like Betty McCollum (a current House member) if she wanted the Senate.
Franken/Warren (or Warren/Franken) 2016! (Score:5, Insightful)
They'd make quite a team, and the debates might finally be watchable.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That would have my vote.
OTOH, I think they might be better in the house.
Re: (Score:1)
Non-substantial character attacks instead of any kind of insightful disagreement with matters of significance?
Confirmation, that they are great candidates.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
A good leader isn't half as important as a good electorate.
So true, I still don't want a liar for president, I don't care how good her ideas are. If her ideas are good, find someone else to implement them. Otherwise you get someone like Obama, "most transparent government of all time." Right.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know. I definitly respect Franken's views and politics since he became a senator, but oh my god is he a terrible entertainer. Can not stand his comedy.
Re: (Score:2)
My view is pretty much the reverse - ok entertainer (long, long ago, in a TV show far, far away), but Senator? Ugh.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm afraid I can not respect anyone who respects him as an entertainer. We can have diametrically opposed views on politics, thats all cool. But, appreciating talent-less hacks, is not something I can support in good conscious.
Re: (Score:1)
I understand your perspective. Nonetheless I thought he was OK as Baggage Handler #1 in Trading Places, although maybe that is the "halo effect" of being such a brilliant movie.
Not a chance (Score:2, Interesting)
For those of you that don't know, any serious candidate for office in America gets approved by the top 1% here before they're allowed to run because without the support of the very rich they can't win.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The NDAA is the appropriation act for the entire military, and at times in the process a legislator must vote yes or no on an entire bill without chances for amendment. A lot of crap gets through that way. I'd like to see strict limits about germaneness of amendments in both Houses, but we don't have that.
I wasn't following that. How did the detention get into the bill? Was it ever voted on or discussed in the Senate? (For all I know, it could have come entirely from the House of Representatives, an
Re: (Score:2)
They'd make quite a team, and the debates might finally be watchable.
Yeah, then add the matching pair Paul/Cruz on the other side, and the debates will be as good as this one [cc.com].
The committment was only for three years (Score:5, Interesting)
Even if AT&T did abide by these rules in three years their commitment is over and they can do what they want.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Agreed. Not so sure about Ronald Reagan not being a good representative of the people, he's highly respected. I recall a recent poll on how people felt about the Presidents we've had in the last 50 years and Reagan ranked highly if not on top.
While making a good joke takes intelligence I doubt that is what people were thinking when they voted for him. I think they voted on name recognition. The guy was a clown before his political career. He played complete idiots on TV. Reagan had his time as a clown
Re:Al Franken? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Minnesota does tend to elect kooks and one-of-a-kinds.
I'd also like to nominate Rudy Perpich (governor, kook), Keith Ellison (IIRC the only Muslim in Congress), and possibly Michelle Bachman (representative) and Paul Wellstone (senator). It can get pretty colorful on the lower levels, also.
In defense of Jesse "the governor" Ventura, he did a pretty good job at running the state, although I never thought he had a real vision for where it should go. The guy hired competent advisers and listened to them
Thanks Al The bravest Senator of them all. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You know in his early days on SNL he wasn't all that funny. I never thought he'd be a Senator but you know he actually makes a lot of sense.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
He's a senator because he got very slightly more votes than his opponent, as determined in a painstaking recount that took months. This recount was overseen by a three-judge panel, and then examined at length by the Minnesota Supreme Court. Half of those judges were Republican appointees, and only two were DFL appointees. The Republican governor then signed the election certificate without any demur.
There were some problems found in the voting (most notably that the absentee ballot instructions didn't
Karma Fodder (Score:1)