Republican Bill Aims To Thwart the FCC's Leaning Towards Title II 182
SpzToid writes U.S. congressional Republicans on Friday proposed legislation that would set "net neutrality" rules for broadband providers, aiming to head off tougher regulations backed by the Obama administration. Republican lawmakers hope to counter the Federal Communications Commission's vote on Feb. 26 for rules that are expected to follow the legal path endorsed by President Barack Obama, which Internet service providers (ISPs) and Republicans say would unnecessarily burden the industry with regulation. Net neutrality activists, now with Obama's backing, have advocated for regulation of ISPs under a section of communications law known as Title II, which would treat them more like public utilities. The White House on Thursday said legislation was not necessary to settle so-called "net neutrality" rules because the Federal Communications Commission had the authority to write them.
Glad were stopping the evil socialists (Score:4, Funny)
Clearly this means freedom for all users right?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah.
The polarized politics in this country has gotten so out of hand that the electorate shoots themselves in the foot over ideology.
Last year's election was a complete joke in my state (GA). Every Republican ran with this platform: A vote for a Democrat is a vote for Obama's policies.
If you ask a typical Obama hater exactly what policies they don't like and why, you inevitably got the media talking points. The only time I saw a reasonable dislike for one of Obama's policies was actually here - the perso
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
But that was the only time. I have a very low opinion of the electorate.
Yea, no shit. Last week in Virginia, the voters re-elected a convicted pedophile, running from jail [dailymail.co.uk]. But don't worry - he's on work-release so he can head down to the General Assembly to cast his votes... :/
I guess it's okay since he's a Democrat.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually (and I speak as a Republican here) he was convicted of sex with a 17-year-old girl, an act which in most other states is legal. Not coincidentally, Virginia is the one state that band radar detectors.
Re: (Score:2)
"Bans radar detectors!"
Re:Glad were stopping the evil socialists (Score:5, Interesting)
The reason (as I understand) that he got reelected is that it was a special election for a state legislative office. This is the sort of race that doesn't get much attention even when it's a general election. Incumbency, and party identification, carry so much more weight than actual issues, because most people never hear about the issues. Heck, I consider myself reasonably involved and aware, and even I can't remember who my state senator is offhand (it's not this guy).
To bring this full circle, this is part of the exact problem. These races have tons of power, generally fly below the radar of most voters, and also are ridiculously easy to influence with outside money. Notice how so many state legislatures have been pushing agendas doing things like blocking municipalities from offering ISP service, all at the behest of the major incumbent providers (usually who sparked the municipal offering in the first place by refusing to upgrade service in the area to something remotely modern).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. But it doesn't work there, either.
Re: (Score:2)
Radar detectors help keep down people's insurance premiums.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude don't be a lying Republican, right there in the fucking story you linked to "He won re-election Tuesday as an independent" in bold yet, yeah I sure you fucking missed it by accident. Just like the daily mail did itself when they left the browser tab description a "Virginia Democrat Joseph Morrison". which is owned by the Yattendon Group run by the Iliffe Family, staunch pseudo conservatives http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... [wikipedia.org] (so even worse royalists). Should he be prosecuted, of course, especially as i
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, fucker, if I didn't give you the whole history of this. He was a Democrat, resigned while he was under indictment and facing felony charges, then he got this miracle-out-of-the-blue plea deal that let him plead to a misdemeanor instead. At that point, they had already called for a special election to fill his vacated seat, and it was too late to file as a Democrat because they had already put a candidate on the ballot. So he got on as an "Independent" instead. He's a far-left Democrat, but worse,
Re: (Score:3)
He's wrong because you don't know the meaning of the word "pedophile" and went the full Fox News [huffingtonpost.com] at the same time? Is anyone who calls Reagan a Republican or Warren a Democrat [go.com] also a fucker? I don't think so.
You engaged in 10-pounds-of-bullshit-in-a-five-pound-sack willful dumbfuckery and are now whining like a bitch because you got caught.
Re: (Score:2)
He won re-election Tuesday as an independent
You sound like you're not an American, so let me explain to you how this works.
In America, you can't be "kicked out" of a political party.
The reason to register for a political party so you can vote in that party's primary. For some offices (not this guy's office) they have what's called a primary election where the people from each party pick the best member of their party to run in the real election. So you have members of the Democrat party picking the best Democrat and members of the Republican part
Re: (Score:2)
But that was the only time. I have a very low opinion of the electorate.
Yea, no shit. Last week in Virginia, the voters re-elected a convicted pedophile, running from jail [dailymail.co.uk]. But don't worry - he's on work-release so he can head down to the General Assembly to cast his votes... :/
I guess it's okay since he's a Democrat.
If you cant find a better source than the daily fail then hand in your internet licence and collect you cheque at the door.
Re: (Score:3)
Did you read your own link? He has not been convicted of "being a pedophile" (being a pedophile is not a crime), his conviction was a plea bargain for a misdemeanor: "contributing to the sexual delinquency of a minor." It's unfortunate that something like that is illegal at all, but a misdemeanor seems about right given that she was seventeen, she insists that nothing happened, and if it did it was clearly consensual.
The fucker is 47 years old. 47!!! What version of "consensual" was it? The original charges were much worse, but after the parents realized their daughter was PREGNANT (like, how did THAT happen?), they decided they didn't want her involved in a protracted legal battle, so they allowed the plea bargain.
Or, like I said, you're okay with it because he was a Democrat.
The nature of 17 yo consent (Score:5, Informative)
She was 17. It is your position that a 17-year old could never give informed consent? That's pretty much the law's position (and it is demonstrably stupid, and almost always harmful, and so out of touch with reality it's almost frightening.) If you're going with "age line in the sand" to define 17 year olds as incompetent by definition in such matters, then you are all those things the law is, and we're done -- take your torch and pitchfork and have at it.
Get here? Ok, then I presume that is not your position, and that you agree that at least some 17 year olds can indeed give informed consent. So the next question is, is it your position that such a a 17-year old can give informed consent if the partner is also 17, but not if the partner is 47? Because I have to tell you, that kind of thinking can only arise from magical bullshit, and I'm fresh out. Anyway...
I shouldn't have to even ask this, but given the twisted, peculiar nature of your post, I presume you agree that the 47 year old can give informed consent, yes?.
Also, at least get your terminology right. A pedophile is someone with a sexual interest in children. Which is horrific and creepy, because children aren't sexually mature and so sexuality, by its very definition, isn't part of their normal and customary worldview. And putting it there, or trying to, is abusive, in the fundamental sense of the term. You know, child abuse. Because they're children.
An ephibophile, on the other hand, is someone with primary or exclusive sexual interest in mid-to-late adolescents, often described as ages 15 to 19 (but perhaps much more accurately defined by the single criteria of being physically a sexually mature human being. 15 is not a magic number, no matter what your astrologer has been telling you.) Note that if this is not your primary or exclusive interest, then you're just a typical person. Because sexually mature bodies are typically of normal and healthy sexual interest to most who are sexually active. Which is not to say that the first word out of a teenager's mouth might not send most 47-year-olds running away screaming, but that's really not the same issue.
Also note that for many teenagers (I want to say all, but I have not met them all) sex is pretty much the #1 subject on their mind. Learning about it, having it, exploring it, and so on. The whole shebang, as it were. And this is precisely correct behavior from the POV of the body's various clocks. Socially, we have to deal with the hangover of superstition and Victorian insanity, but the fact is, many teenagers (definitely including the 17 year old demo) are having great, happy sex all the time and the vast majority of those so engaged are both glad of it and not even fractionally interested in any contrary opinion of yours thereof.
Sometimes sex is about relationships and all of that. Complex, interrelated, even a matter of power or submission. Which can be wonderful. Rah, rah. But sometimes it's just sex. Hot, steamy, bouncy, hanging-from-the-chandeliers physical activity with a bang. Or several. Ahem. In such a case, and in the instance of informed consent, I see absolutely no barrier to sex between a 17 year old and a 47 year old, any more than I see a barrier between a 17 year old and a 47 year old that should prevent them from playing tennis, or chess.
Here in Montana, the age of consent -- below which "sex without consent" can be charged -- is sixteen. It's still stupid as there will be (mostly) exceptions on either side of the rule, but the point is, were that guy here, no one would even blink, legally speaking.
Seems to me that you put your Outrage Panties on a little too tight this morning.
Re: (Score:2)
Stumbo and the poster are both republicans.... it's twisted, stupid as fuck thinking.
Shows how head-stuck-up-his-ass partisan fucktard you are - because I am not a Republican. But in your twisted end-justifies-the-means worldview any shitty fucked-in-the-head piece of shit that will sell his own mother is fine and dandy with you - as long as he talks the talk - rah rah my team.
Useful idiot if I've even seen one. All that hate ain't gonna get you a better world, asshole.
Re: (Score:2)
they decided they didn't want her involved in a protracted legal battle, so they allowed the plea bargain.
This is not how prosecution works. For a criminal charge, it's not up to the parents or the victim. The prosecutor makes the decision whether or not to go ahead with the trial, based on what they believe they can prove in court.
Also, he's 57.
Bullshit. If your case is based primarily on the testimony of one witness - you can try to talk them into cooperating, but if they are against it you do what you want. Any prosecutor that doesn't is an idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The bottom line is though, you can't blame this on party affiliation any more than you can any other scandal, because the sort of people that are drawn to political power tend to be far more likely to be narcissistic assholes
I doubt the Republicans wrote it... (Score:4, Insightful)
U.S. congressional Republicans on Friday proposed legislation that would set "net neutrality" rules for broadband providers, aiming to head off tougher regulations backed by the Obama administration.
That sentence should have read, U.S. congressional Republicans on Friday proposed legislation authored by industry lobbyists, that would set "net neutrality" rules for broadband providers, aiming to head off tougher regulations backed by the Obama administration. (additions mine).
Re: (Score:2)
John Thune [opensecrets.org] doesn't have so much telecom money it seems, but the same cannot be said of John Upton [opensecrets.org], who received a lot from Verizon, Cox, Comcast, The National Assn of Broadcasters, and Time Warner.
Re: (Score:2)
U.S. congressional Republicans on Friday proposed legislation that would set "net neutrality" rules for broadband providers, aiming to head off tougher regulations backed by the Obama administration.
That sentence should have read, U.S. congressional Republicans on Friday proposed legislation authored by industry lobbyists, that would set "net neutrality" rules for broadband providers, aiming to head off tougher regulations backed by the Obama administration. (additions mine).
Your additions were a given.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with the FCC taking control of something it has previously refused to control is a steep problem for republicans to overcome on a constitutional basis.
Why is the FCC regulating an industry that OBVIOUSLY WOULD BENEFIT FROM REGULATION a "problem to overcome"?
Oh, that's right. it's because the line of argumentation which backs populist conservative/Republican talking points cannot understand that Constitutionality does not prohibit the regulation of public utilities, especially when such regulation is in alignment with even the most hardcore conservative defenders of free market capitalism.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Actually, it is unconstitutional to have laws enacted in ways other than the constitution proscribes. Leaving that aside, you have a serious problem here anyways. The constitu
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, it is unconstitutional to have laws enacted in ways other than the constitution proscribes.[...].
Can the US government with absolutely no legislative act making a change but by board or panel constituted under it- constitutionally declare pot illegal.[...]
Everything you say after the last sentence I quoted is a straw man.
Reclassifying ISPs under Title II is not a legislative act. On the contrary, it depends on the legislative Act known as Title II.
Here is a common-language explanation [dailydot.com] of the legality of using Title II to classify communications company as "common carriers".
You seem to think that classifying communications companies requires a legislative act when it does not. It simply requires a vote by the FCC and a reclassification of ISPs as common carr
Re: (Score:2)
Silly rabbit, tricks are for kids.
The law never intended reclassification of anything. There is no provision within the law to reclassify anything. There is only provisions of classes in which certain elements reside.
It is a legislative act because it would take an act of legislation to otherwise bring someone not regulated by the government into new ways of regulation.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that word [merriam-webster.com] means what you think it means.
separation of powers. See How a Bill Becomes a Law (Score:2)
There is a video you might interesting called How a Bill Becomes a Law. Under the USUS Constitution, the chairman of the FCC doesn't write law, and the president doesn't write law. The Congress does that. The President's role is, in the words of his sworn oath, to "faithfully execute the law". Here "execute" doesn't mean kill, though you might get that impression from watching Obama.
Re: (Score:2)
What does that have to do with anything I said?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't watch Fox News or any 24 hours news channel for that matter. I gave up cable TV a little over a decade ago.
I do however know how to find news online that is not tainted by partisan BS and I am smart enough to discern facts from opinion which I think a lot of people, including you struggle with.
Re: (Score:2)
The fun part about politics is everyone has a reason to lie about it.
If you didn't have a reason to lie about it, you'd not have any reason to participate in the conversation anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
Again, if you believe that, you should check your beliefs and positions moreso than mine.
Nothing I've said is not verifiable by independent sources outside of not having cable. But if you need to believe that is a lie, - well I'm repeating myself again.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh no! He said the same thing again! I can feel my opinion changing!
Nope. Just repeating what you already said doesn't really work.
Re: (Score:2)
... it has to presume that the FCC has authority already over the internet. It doesn't...
Strange, the FCC doesn't have the ability to place ISPs under Title II? How did Kevin Martin (acting in his capacity as FCC Chair) get the authority to declare ISPs informational services? And given that ISPs now provide the pipes where many of our voice communications now travel, why is it that you don't think this is exactly what Title II (and the FCC) is supposed to regulate?
Re: (Score:3)
It was actually put in the FCC hands by the courts which in ATTv Portland the 9th circuit said Portland could not regulate broadband internet access over cable because the "Communications Act prohibits a franchising authority from doing so". The FCC adopted the rule making process and comments period and then classified it
Re: (Score:2)
It was actually put in the FCC hands by the courts which in ATTv Portland the 9th circuit said Portland could not regulate broadband internet access over cable because the "Communications Act prohibits a franchising authority from doing so". The FCC adopted the rule making process and comments period and then classified it as information services.
So, what you just admitted is that the FCC does have jurisdiction in this matter. Thank you.
Now if you'd like to make the case that Chairman Wheeler needs to go to the NPRM process, I don't know if you've been under a rock for the last year or so but the FCC has received record breaking amounts of comments on this subject.
Where voice communications go to or from or travel is meaningless. They can go anywhere they want.
Really? So in cases of emergencies, say a Katrina or a Sandy, we don't need no stinking regulations?
You could possibly make the case that internet connectivity isn't crucial but voice com
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sigh.. There is absolutely nothing in law that allows the FCC to change the classification of anything it regulates and it certainly does not allow it to do so in order to escape a court order.
The FCC never even had power over the internet outside of encouraging it's adoption until a court case in the late 1990 which was appealed in 2000 thrust it on them. The FCC then classified it as an information service and several appeals later, the US supreme court confirmed the FCC's determination.
Now, after more th
Re: (Score:3)
" absolutely nothing in law that allows the FCC to change the classification of anything it regulates"
Great! Then we already HAVE title II regulation! It was the FCC itself that reclassified broadband providers back in the day. Thanks to the great legal opinion of some !@#$ on the internet, they never HAD that authority, so we don't need to reclassify, because THEY NEVER COULD HAVE RECLASSIFIED IN THE FIRST PLACE.
I don't think you know the history of what's going on here. I don't think you know what you
Re:I doubt the Republicans wrote it... (Score:4, Informative)
Sigh.. Who told you those lies?
The FCC ignored the internet or more precisely broad band internet until the court made them classify it as an outcome of the Portland case. The FCC argued until that time that the internet was an information service residing on a regulated network just as a channel line up would have been. The court case in which Portland Oregon's franchise board attempted to hold up the sale of a cable provider unless they opened up the internet portion to others lost in court with the final decision being that the FCC had jurisdiction not the franchise board. The FCC then classified cable internet which has since become known as broadband internet as an information service subject to title one. A consortium of cable providers sued and it went back and fourth in the courts with the Supreme Court of the United States siding with the FCC. The only time it was reclassified or classified other than as an information service is when a court incorrectly overruled the FCC. The FCC has never reclassified the broad band. It has never reclassified any other object or technology under it's control without an act of congress making it so.
Read this from the EFF [eff.org]
Here is another you should consider. [eff.org]
"I don't think you know the history of what's going on here. I don't think you know what you're talking about at all."
Re: (Score:2)
You mean why do they allow local jurisdictions have explicit access to areas provided they build out into the unprofitable portions of those areas? If some of these areas did not have monopolies, you would only find these services within the most densely populated portions and everyone else would be screwed.
Re:I doubt the Republicans wrote it... (Score:4, Informative)
If you somehow think that is double speak, you simply have not been paying attention.
The problem is the net neutrality agenda wants to invalidate these explicit access contracts so anyone can come on and compete with the profitable sections of towns. Cities will be able to build out their own service which will pretty much kill off any competition in the area so those outside the city limits will be stuck with whatever they have now until it degrades to the point it isn't usable.
No, I'm not against regulation if that is what you are trying to suggest. And yes, I do see where governments mandating access and companies service the unprofitable areas as a condition of servicing the profitable ones has helped the economy quite a bit. But you seem to be missing the boat on everything involved. Have you even bothered looking some of this shit up yourself instead of relying on what someone posts at slashdot? I mean the guy I was replying to thought government regulation was fantastic until it came to government regulating which is the entire reason I posted what you replied to.
Re: (Score:2)
If you somehow think that is double speak, you simply have not been paying attention.
The problem is the net neutrality agenda wants to invalidate these explicit access contracts so anyone can come on and compete with the profitable sections of towns.
Indeed they do. And as someone who lives in that section of town, I would really like to have an option overpriced crappy cable and dialup 2.0 (DSL). And you know what? That isn't going to happen with the way things are setup now, is it?
Cities will be able to build out their own service which will pretty much kill off any competition in the area so those outside the city limits will be stuck with whatever they have now until it degrades to the point it isn't usable.
I think you've got that backwards in many cities. What I see is the Fios being rolled out in the wealthy neighborhoods, typically rich suburban ones, while the inner cities are screwed.
But even if you were correct, why the heck would anyone want a monopoly system?
No, I'm not against regulation if that is what you are trying to suggest. And yes, I do see where governments mandating access and companies service the unprofitable areas as a condition of servicing the profitable ones has helped the economy quite a bit.
Where do yo
Explain this to a non-Americal please.. (Score:3)
During all Obama's presidency, did Republicans manage to keep being the ruling party somehow? because it seems even with a Democrat president Obama can't pass any law without going through them.
Or is all this democrat/republican thing just theater and Obama pretends to be the good guy failing to fight to the bad guys?
Or something else going on?
Re: (Score:2)
The President is not a part of the lawmaking branch of government. Presidents can't pass laws.
Re:Explain this to a non-Americal please.. (Score:5, Informative)
Well, sort of. The president signs a bill into law- no passing necessary unless the president vetoes the bill and it goes back to congress and the senate in which if two thirds still want it, they can vote again and make it law independent of the president.
A bill can also become law if the president does nothing and leave it sit for ten days or longer if congress is in session. It will automatically become law then. If congress is not in session, then it sort of disappears and does not become law.
Re:Explain this to a non-Americal please.. (Score:4, Informative)
A bill can also become law if the president does nothing and leave it sit for ten days or longer if congress is in session. It will automatically become law then. If congress is not in session, then it sort of disappears and does not become law.
Pocket Veto [wikipedia.org] (for those interested)
Re: (Score:2)
The Presidential Executive Branch enforces the laws, (and is the Commander In-Chief of the Armed Forces).
Re:Explain this to a non-Americal please.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Because we have a House of Representatives and a Senate which comprise Congress. Both work independently of each other, and each can be ruled by either party. The clincher is that both the House and Senate need to agree to pass a bill. If a bill doesn't make it thru both sides it dies. The deadlock we've been seeing for the past few years has come from the Republicans ruling the House of Representatives and refusing to pass any Democrat-proposed bill coming from the Senate, even tho the Democrats ruled there, and vice-versa.
Now that both sides are Republican I don't expect anything to change really. Since they are comprised of at least 4 warring factions amongst themselves (the tea party, moderates, extreme right wing faux-christians, and libertarians) it's highly unlikely both sides of Congress will ever agree on anything, and even if they do Obama has the power of veto to block any legislation that might successfully come out of Congress. Yes, Congress can override a veto with a 2/3rd majority vote, but that's extremely unlikely to ever happen. So essentially we will have another 2 years where absolutely nothing gets done.
Re:Explain this to a non-Americal please.. (Score:5, Informative)
You ask a good question. Democrats could have passed a law in 2009 or 2010 when they controlled House, Senate, and White House. But they didn't, partly becasue they were busy collecting campaign contributions from these same ISPs. Obama has waited until after his personal last election and until after the next- to-last election under his presidency to propose rules that should have been in effect the whole time.
Aside from campaign contributions, there may be one other reason for the late start on Title II regulation. It is only recently that content providers such as Netflix and Amazon have started producing quality programming and distributing it on the internet rather than on the TV channels controlled by the ISPs. This has undercut the revenue stream of these ISPs and encouraged them to begin differential pricing based on content provider. Comcast now charges extra to Netflix even though Netflix customers already pay for their internet service directly to Comcast. So they are "double billing" for the same service. If allowed to get away with this, the ISPs can be expected to continue to ratchet up the cost of accessing third party content, becasue they control the pipes. But the pipes were developed at public expense and using public right-of-way and so should be treated as a regulated utility.
Re:Explain this to a non-Americal please.. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The Democrats had exactly 134 days to pass any legislation before the GOP began filibustering.
Or, you know, they could pass bills that were acceptable to both sides. God forbid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> did Republicans manage to keep being the ruling party somehow?
For most of Obama's years, yes.
> it seems even with a Democrat president Obama can't pass any law without going through them
No President can pass any law - wrong branch of government. And when the Legislative branch is indeed "controlled" (majority) by the opposing party, the President and the President's party would indeed have to "go through" the other party. But it's even worse. Although, in theory any Congress critter can start a
Re: (Score:2)
Your questions suggest you're more familiar with a parliamentary system of government where (per Wikipedia) "the executive branch derives its democratic legitimacy from, and is held accountable to, the legislature (parliament); the executive and legislative branches are thus interconnected." In such systems, a majority party (or a coalition) forms a government and from this selects/appoints a top executive (Prime Minister) almost certainly from that party.
Another example of the wiki being wrong, at least as far as Westminster based Parliamentary systems. The executive is the Crown or her representative, eg the Governor General or in the case of Canadian Provinces, the Lieutenant Governor. Parliament (or Provincial Legislature) passes a bill, much like Congress though generally the Upper House has been neutered or eliminated, and when the Bill gets Royal Assent, it becomes law. In theory Royal Assent can be refused resulting in a veto, but in practice it almo
Re: (Score:2)
There is something I don't understand here.. During all Obama's presidency, did Republicans manage to keep being the ruling party somehow? because it seems even with a Democrat president Obama can't pass any law without going through them.
In addition to what others have said.....
In America, unlike some other countries, congresspeople are free to vote however they like, regardless of party. So a lot of times you'll see a few democrats voting with republicans and vice versa. Because America is so big and diverse, frequently parties are not unified in opinion, for example, a senator in rural west-Virginia might be pro-union, but also anti-gun-control,
That's why they had so much trouble passing Obamacare even while controlling both branches
They can propose all they want (Score:5, Informative)
Republicans in both the House and Senate can propose this legislation all day long. They can even vote to pass it. But ti still can't get around a Presidential veto, and in their wildest dreams the GOP does not have the votes to override a veto.
Use that pen Mr. President! (Score:2)
VETO!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Well before he can veto, Congress needs to actually pass something, which in and of itself is highly unlikely.
And I have absolutely zero issues with executive orders. Presidents have been using them for decades and no one ever complained until now. It's just more anti-Obama smoke and mirrors courtesy of the Koch brothers and Faux News.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:3)
Oh please, stop with the Faux News bullshit. His EO and the bill that the Republicans attempted to pass were NOT equal in form or substance, namely, the EO was a delay that applied only to businesses while the GOP bill would apply to everyone, which would have resulted in a rise in premiums and lower enrollment numbers. And let's face it, the GOP bill is yet another thinly-veiled attempt at derailing the ACA, unlike the EO which was actually a bone toss to businesses to help them get onboard.
If you're going
Re: (Score:2)
When the Black man does it, everyone starts screaming bloody murder.
Bingo!
Re: (Score:2)
When the Black man does it, everyone starts screaming bloody murder.
Close but much more likely is when the other party does it scream bloody murder.
Remember Bush and how all the democrats screamed about the stuff he did while the republicans kept their pie holes shut. Now that Obama is president and doing the same things the democrats are the ones keeping their pie holes shut and the republicans are screaming about it.
Re: (Score:2)
EOs are completely legal and have been used since the creation of the union. Reagan used then, Bush I used them, Clinton used them, Bush II used them....name a president that did not use an Executive Order please.
Idiots.
Getting around the court decision (Score:3, Interesting)
Now by making the ISPs "common carriers", we will get all the innovation that we got under Ma Bell before the breakup in 1983 :-(
Re: (Score:2)
Utter nonsense.
The common carrier status of AT&T had nothing to do with it's level of "innovation". It's monopoly status did. Competitive providers are more than capable of operating in a non-monopoly environment. The example of phone services AFTER the AT&T breakup is a glaringly obvious example of this.
We already have a working model for breaking up the cable monopolies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are an idiot that does not understand why Ma Bell was not innovative or what the court actually told the FCC when it over-turned the rules...you certainly do not understand the crap political game the ISPs have been playing with the FCC regarding when they do and do not want to be considered a common carrier.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a free market (Score:2)
A free market would permit everyone to operate freely on equal footing, where the biggest players don't automatically get a cut on top of what they already charge.
So Republicans like the taste... (Score:2)
"Free Market" religion (Score:5, Insightful)
Does anyone think the sponsors of this legialation have serioulsly considered the issues of user access and cost? Of course not. As in so many areas of public life, Republicans have adopted the mantra of "free markets". Which is another way of saying on behalf of large corporations, "Let the Wookie win". Let the big strong arm-ripping behemoth have its way. This disregards the needs of the majority of the population and lets corporations take the profits resulting from public investment and tax dollars.
The internet has never been about "free markets". The internet was developed by the government and universities (with public funding). As far as the big ISPs are concerned, most of them, such as Comcast and Time Warner, make use of public right-of-way to carry thier signals to their customers. Most of this right-of-way was obtained either through imminent domain (for the public good) or for other purposes entirely (to carry power lines). This has resulted in a protected monopoly for these ISPs. They have no competition, the exact opposite of a free market.
Title II will treat the ISPs as utilities so that their rates will be controlled and their fiber optic cables will be available to all content providers under competitive conditions. This is really a free market in content, rather than the coroporate oligarchy envisioned by this Repucblican legislation.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps...
The reason they ended up with Title II is because that is all that is left to them. If you read what the judge said when they got shot down last time. He said 2 things title II *might* work or congress needs to fix this. There is no guarantee that it will work. In fact it may make the situation worse. No one knows how it will burn down when you put it in front of a judge (any lawyer will tell you that). In fact the only one really bitching about being title II is at&t and comcast. The r
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"
I take it it is not self evident to you that pursuit of happiness among equals means among people that are equal under law and nothing else? Yet here you are proposing that some are not equal under law to others, that there should be laws that apply differently because some, who are not you, built an
Re: "Free Market" religion (Score:3)
Why are you quoting the words of slave owners in an essay about freedom?
Re:"Free Market" religion (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm in favor of free markets, but that's not what the status quo currently is. Right now incumbent ISPs have a monopoly on a lot of local rights of way and ordinances. If a competitor wants to move in, it's basically some local government that puts a stop to it (albeit at the behest of the incumbent ISP.)
I don't think Title II is necessarily the perfect answer (partly because of the New Deal era taxation that goes along with it) but it is better than the status quo.
Re:"Free Market" religion (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm in favor of free markets, but that's not what the status quo currently is.
Exactly. If the ISPs competed in a a free market, NN would not be necessary. NN is not a remedy for free markets, it is a remedy for de facto monopolies.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're right Dragon. Truly free markets are a very efficient means of allocating resources. The problem is that markets have no way of determining the will of the majority of people. Maximizing profits is not hte same thing as determining what is best for society. The belief that it is the same thing is what I call a religion. Once society, through it's elected representatives, has decided on a course of action, truly free markets within a regulatory framework are the most efficient way to rea
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that markets have no way of determining the will of the majority of people.
A truly free market by definition is responsive to the majority (will) of the people. If the people like "A" over "B" in a free market, that is what they invest/buy/suggest/endorse etc.
Maximizing profits is not the same thing as determining what is best for society.
Really? Who determines what is "best" for society? You? Government? Corporations? In a free market the people decide what is important to them and that is the direction society goes. If the majority of the people choose to buy/use "A" then that is their choice and the will of the people will be the most profitable. You a
Re: (Score:2)
A truly free market by definition is responsive to the majority (will) of the people. If the people like "A" over "B" in a free market, that is what they invest/buy/suggest/endorse etc.
Not necessarily true. A free market solution might disproportionately benefit the very wealthy for example. That's not a priori bad, but it would certainly be a stretch to call it representing the will of the majority of the people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In canada that used to be the case. However now all of the telecoms are ripping up streets themselves laying down new fibre.
Re: (Score:3)
Talk about how many municipalities don't allow more than one provider. This is anti-capitalist, anti-free market, and not necessary (as has been shown by Google fiber). Get the Republicans focused on fixing that problem, and they will feel like they are doing something good AND they will be actually doing something good.
Re:"Free Market" religion (Score:4, Interesting)
Like that wouldn't or couldn't happen under Title II?
Re: (Score:2)
It could happen and it did. There was a time when under Title II local measured service was what you got, and long distance calls were not only billed by time but by distance as well.
Re: (Score:3)
Those bills weren't a product of Title II regulation, and you know it.
Forcing the ISPs to lease the lines out to other players, and hence creating actual competition and a plethora of mom and pop ISPs? That WAS a product of Title II regulation.
You sir, are a liar.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Don't be a dumb fuck. Under Title II, that couldn't happen, period.
You know why? Once it's all Title II, anyone can open up shop and offer services.
Gee - free market, lowest price wins!
Wow - we just get cheaper and better internet.
Today's market is anything but free.
Re: (Score:2)
You say that like every Mom and Pop shop in the world has the resources to set up and support their own multi-million/billion dollar metropolitan fiber network.
Yes, competition will be easier with Title II, but it's not going to happen quickly. Plus, you're still going to have some rural areas where there simply isn't a large enough customer base to support multiple profitable ISP's.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Trading dozens of poorly run state systems
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I do remember it, and I mentioned that unfortunate state as one, brought about by an earlier attempt by our government to regulate cable companies. In exchange for the regulation they wrestled monopoly powers — and ran with it (like AT&T did decades before that).
That mistake was corrected in the 90ies, though the problems caused by earlier government stupidity remain [wired.com]. To now point at them and argue, we need
Great Part of Republican-backed Industry Bill (Score:2, Interesting)
"which Internet service providers (ISPs) and Republicans say would unnecessarily burden the industry with regulation." - Except it IS NECESSARY, DUMMIES.
Given where US broadband is even in major metropolitan areas like San Francisco, New York, and Chicago, regulation as Title II is EXACTLY what US ISPs need to get their acts together. I mean 12 mbs down and 5 mbs up for $50/month in 2015. Give me a fucking break.
The great part of this Republican-backed shill bill? Obama is going to VETO it.
Suck THAT you plutocratic, money-grubbing, technologically-illiterate enemies of the United States. (Yes, I'm talking about the so-called "honorable" representatives who
Re: (Score:3)
You are exactly right. The ISPs have always been short term in their thinking. Under Title II they will be providing better and cheaper content to thier customers which will result in more customers. There is a reason that Comcast has the worst consumer satisfaction of any US company, with Time Warner a close second. They try to milk their customers for every penny they can get with their predatory "promotional" pricing. And now they have begun to milk the third party providers of internet content as we
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
President Obama != the FCC. The FCC is an independent authority. It doesn't answer to any President, although it can be circumscribed by laws. The FCC is directed by five commissioners appointed by the U.S. president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate for five-year terms, except when filling an unexpired term. The president designates one of the commissioners to serve as chairman. Only three commissioners may be members of the same political p
Re: (Score:3)
Only three commissioners may be members of the same political party. None of them may have a current financial interest in any FCC-related business.
FTFY - judging from the revolving door at the FCC (and other agencies).