Republicans Move To Block Net Neutrality Rules

[Marcus52]

[citation][nom]jhansonxi[/nom]With regional monopolies created by the infrastructure, net neutrality rules are a requirement. If the infrastructure was owned by a separate entities than the service providers, the rules wouldn't be necessary. The lack of regional competition is the problem. DSL vs. cable vs. satellite vs. wireless vs. fiber isn't adequate for competition since the infrastructure for each has different characteristics. Multiple providers for each would be much better (DSL is the closest to that).[/citation]

Not sure "net neutrality" impacts this issue directly, or vice versa, but I heartily agree that the regional monopolies are a serious problem in America. They are what most stifle competition and innovation.

 

[Guest]

The Democrats and Obama had 2 years full majority Congress, Senate, and White House already to try to fix this country and only racked up trillions more in debt and almost doubled the unemployment rate. Now we have record deficits and Obama releases a $3.7 TRILLION dollar budget and you are talking about the Republicans being so bad. How about the guy and the party behind him that wants to spend the country into oblivion.
Kids this is what you brain is like on Bama Koolaid.

 

[dragonsqrrl]

[citation][nom]bit_user[/nom]There's a time and a place and a proper role for regulation. In the best case, it aligns self-interest of corporations with what's good for the consumer and prevents them from profiting at the expense of conumers' health, safety, or ability to make an informed choice.[/citation]
Agreed, I don't think anyone could've said it better. This sounds reasonable and logical, and you'd think this would be common sense or a matter of fact, but amazingly it isn't. No new regulations could ever be socially or economically beneficial for consumers, regardless of the form, nature, or purpose of that regulation. It's this type of ideological absolutism that's becoming increasingly common in the Republican party, and it's not only hurting the party itself but the country as a whole.

It must be a terribly paradoxical situation to be in, to chose the party ideology of 'no regulation ALWAYS = better' over a reasonable regulation that effectively guards consumer rights while stimulating what little competition currently exists in the ISP industry. It's too often I see this paranoia driven illogical equation tossed around, any regulation = big government = government take over = communism, or in short any regulation = the fall of the free market. Fallacy?

Like bit_user was pointing out, I think many of the people so adamantly protesting regulation, even in its "proper role", often don't realize the extent to which some existing regulations positively affect their everyday lives, and just how many of the services and assurances they receive on a regular basis exist because of reasonable regulations that prevent large corporations "from profiting at the expense of conumers' health, safety, or ability to make an informed choice".

 

[NuclearShadow]

[citation][nom]Bama Koolaid[/nom]The Democrats and Obama had 2 years full majority Congress, Senate, and White House already to try to fix this country and only racked up trillions more in debt and almost doubled the unemployment rate. Now we have record deficits and Obama releases a $3.7 TRILLION dollar budget and you are talking about the Republicans being so bad. How about the guy and the party behind him that wants to spend the country into oblivion. Kids this is what you brain is like on Bama Koolaid.[/citation]

If anyone is expecting major results in two years then your not living within reality. Not with the situation we are in anyways. Even Kerry back in the 04 elections made it clear that if he won he would not be able to fix the economy problems within one term. He of course lost and Bush simply continued to drill the problems even deeper. Once the Republicans lost full control it created a useless government as the Democrats would just get vetoed by Bush on whatever they tried to pass.

So when Obama got in and had two years of control this was a already much worse situation.
If Kerry could honestly say he would not be able to fix it back in 2004 in one term what makes you think Obama or anyone could do so in half a term with even worse conditions? As for the rising debt and unemployment rates you would be amazed how much of that money was actually put into saving jobs. Basically Obama was handed a complete economic collapse
all he could do is bandage the wound and hope for the best but we still are certainly bleeding out but thankfully at a slower rate. The hope is for it to last long enough for a shift in the right direction to begin will it work or are we just delaying the collapse is yet to be seen.

It really didn't matter who we put in the White House or whom we even elect today in any office
this is something we are forced to endure and see where it goes any politician or candidate
who says otherwise is either a fool or a liar. I can say for certain that Obama has saved jobs because thanks to his investment into the economy/businesses thankfully the list lay-offs I personally had to come up with (they were in a wave format wave 1 would be most expandable and so on) never had to read out-loud. Saving the jobs of people who have spouses, kids, or other dependents whom depend on them. I'd rather be in debt and have these people not be able to put food on the table. Wouldn't you?

 

[killerclick]

Silly Americans, you see your economic situation deteriorating and you blame Obama, Bush, socialists, corporations, unions, wars, etc. The reason you are not rich as you once were is the fact that there was no basis in it. No real reason why an American programmer would earn five times more than an Indian programmer. Same for plumbers, nurses, whoever. You are not five/ten times more productive than your counterparts in the developing world and for the first time in history your employers have the choice of giving these jobs to someone overseas.

And there is nothing that can be done, you and other rich countries will continue to get poorer, the poor countries will get richer until an equilibrium is reached where you'll earn according to your productivity. It's only fair.

 

[itchyisvegeta]

GOOD! About time some of those politicians did something right. Otherwise, it would lead to alot more of this: http/www.tomshardware.com/news/DHS-ICE-DOJ-Child-Porn-Domain-Seizure,12216.html

 

[shin0bi272]

@frozengpu - yes they did .. google for 650 metric tons of yellow cake uranium taken from iraq (i think it was in 2006)

@itchyisvegeta - Need I remind you that that happened BEFORE net neutrality was even on the table?


For all of you idiot 20 somethings that dont get what net neutrality is... think of it like this... you start a business providing a service and you stipulate how you will provide that service and people agree to use your service with said stipulations... Then the government comes in and says you cant stipulate anything and you must do what ever the feds say. Net Neutrality is a stepping stone (cause we all know NO government program EVER gets smaller... and if anyone proposes any cuts they are evil republicans trying to take money from the elderly or the poor or the children) to the government dictating what we see on the internet ala china.

 

[seeit360]

Once again, The American people are thrown under the bus in favor of the corporation.

 

[Guest]

Killerclick: Apparently economics is not your strong suit; It has to do with cost of living, if I had to program for the wage that an Indian makes (living in India, not in the US), I wouldn't be able to afford even the most ghetto apartment or trailer, much less the respectable standard of living that a skilled worker deserves. You can't afford a modest new car, gas, food and a modest house on less than $50k/yr in most parts of America, let alone expensive areas like NYC and San Franscisco. Given that $50k is barely entry-level for a respectable living standard in America, $75 to $100k a year is a fair wage for a highly-skilled and experienced developer.

American currency is still worth far more than the rupee, which is a contributing factory. The problem is that for the first time ever, companies are allowed to outsource all they want without the tariffs that have been around since George Washington. Reaganomics FTW.

However, the real problem is the banker and get-rich-quick types who have continued to speculate on commodity prices and artificially drive up real estate values, ie: finding novel ways to siphon money off of working people, without making any real contribution to the economy. The money comes from working people, any attempt to leach money off of working people requires higher wages to cover it. The solution is to **regulate** real estate pricing and to **regulate** commodities pricing, even if it means some poor rich SOB has to find some other way to make money.

 

[killerclick]

[citation][nom]git_rich_sl0w[/nom]Killerclick: Apparently economics is not your strong suit; It has to do with cost of living,[/citation]

You've mixed up cause and consequence - higher wages cause higher cost of living. As wealth of the US relative to the rest of the world goes down, so will wages and cost of living.

 

[njalterio]

[citation][nom]killerclick[/nom]Silly Americans, you see your economic situation deteriorating and you blame Obama, Bush, socialists, corporations, unions, wars, etc. The reason you are not rich as you once were is the fact that there was no basis in it. No real reason why an American programmer would earn five times more than an Indian programmer. Same for plumbers, nurses, whoever. You are not five/ten times more productive than your counterparts in the developing world and for the first time in history your employers have the choice of giving these jobs to someone overseas.And there is nothing that can be done, you and other rich countries will continue to get poorer, the poor countries will get richer until an equilibrium is reached where you'll earn according to your productivity. It's only fair.[/citation]

[citation][nom]killerclick[/nom]You've mixed up cause and consequence - higher wages cause higher cost of living. As wealth of the US relative to the rest of the world goes down, so will wages and cost of living.[/citation]

Oh my goodness....do my own eyes deceive me? Someone actually made sense on the internet!

I am American and I agree 100% with what you just said. No one ever seems to discuss the problems of having an economy that is based on the tertiary/services sector. While I certainly hope that all of humanity can advance themselves - I also am hoping that my fellow citizens develop their math and science skills so we can maintain our competitiveness.

 

[tayb]

After seeing the gross overuse of power last week where 84,000 websites were shut down by a freaking internet kill switch I can see why Republicans are fighting to keep this power AWAY from the federal government. I don't like the fact that ISP's are trying to throttle our internet but I also don't want something like what happened in Egypt to even be possible here in the states. No way. No fucking way.

 

[sandivin]

[citation][nom]bourgeoisdude[/nom]Pfft, billions (http/costofwar.com/en/). And more money was spent on Obama's stimulous than the entire Iraq war (http/washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/little-known-fact-obama039s-failed-stimulus-program-cost-more-iraq-war).[/citation]

Couple of things here...stimulus plan was started under republican rule along with the war. Obama has retrieved the majority of the stimulus money and in come cases has made a profit to the tune of $12billion on just Citigroup http://www.voanews.com/english/news/usa/US-Sells-Its-Citigroup-Stock-for-a-Profit--111449989.html. The simple truth is that republicans are pro-corporation and anti-human well being.

 

[demonhorde665]

"The rules stifle innovation, say Republicans."


this is what they said .. here is the real world english translation for those of you who missed it

" the rules stifle republican wallets, say Republicans"

 

[Xatos]

Liberals are morons. There's nothing else to discuss.

 

[killbits]

Unless i'm mistaken this still has to pass the Senate... which it won't (thank god)

What the hell do a bunch of old white guys know about the internet?

It is really upsetting that the republicans even think they are competent enough to address this issue. It will be one more in a long string of hurtful, unethical, embarrassing mistakes by the GOP.

"teh intarnets is tubes! lets just hire a plumber!"

 

[falchard]

Hooray. With the FCC illegally enact net-nuetrality regulations, its nice that someone has taken the initiative to make sure they cannot enforce them. You have to remember the FCC was NEVER given the authorization to regulate the Internet. When they attempted to, they were rejected. Not just by 1 branch of government but by 2 of the 3 branches of government. Yet they still are acting like they have the authority to regulate the net.

 

[ab initio]

Steve Wozniak doesn't like Net Neutrality, and saw it as such an attack on individual freedom, that he wrote a letter to the FCC imploring them to "Keep the Internet Free".

Last I looked, Woz wasn't a Republican.

If it's good enough for Woz, it's good enough for me.

As for the bozo that wants to know where the WMD were, that wasn't a provision that Congress authoritzed for the Iraq War, and not why we went into Iraq. That was a Democrat ploy cooked up by Carl Levin (S.AMDT.4862) and Dick Durbin (S.AMDT.4865) that sought to amend the Authorization for Iraq War (public law 107-243). Those amendments failed, and the debates are a matter of public record, by a 3:1 margin, and for good reason. Google them and read them, and then go, and sin no more with your ignorance.

For all the information that the Internet supplies, some of you remain ignorant about many things.

 

[nottheking]

Pretty much, this move falls into the "oppose whatever Obama says no matter the consequences" category, with the trappings of the "we need to balance the budget!" mantra.

I have some news for those that have faith in the Tea Partiers that have run the more sensibly-minded Conservatives out of the Republican party: they won't balance the budget. They'll also blame Obama, even though by Constitutional Law, (which is something Tea Partiers always claim to be keen on, but could do some reading up with) ONLY the US House (which is Republican/Tea Party-controlled, BTW) is permitted to start/write up spending-related laws, which include the budget. So in other words, at least for the beginning, the ball is ENTIRELY in their court: if the Republican-controlled house fails to pass a bill that balances the budget, the Republicans are the only ones that can properly be blamed.

Regulations happen to be important: they're what keep a capitalist system from becoming plutarchic. Big businesses don't LIKE to actually have to compete. Here among tech enthusiasts, we see evidence of this CONSTANTLY: AMD suing Intel for anti-competitive practices, (and forcing Intel to settle for billions) the Department of Justice looking into anti-competitive behavior by Apple, and a couple years back, a cartel between all RAM manufacturers, where they kept RAM prices badly inflated. If we didn't have government regulation stepping in, where would we be? Few of us would be able to afford the exorbitant prices tech companies would be agreeing to charge behind-the-scenes: they wouldn't have to obey the market. Things like the Tom's "$400/500/625 build marathon PC" wouldn't exist. Heck, with that bad a market, I highly doubt the enthusiast community ITSELF would really exist: it'd be like it was back in the 1950s and 60s, where computers were hyper-expensive machines that only large businesses, universities, and agencies could own.

Next time, think on precisely what capitalism brings you... And think of all the times a major company in one of your favorite markets has, in the past, made attempts to end capitalism. In this case, Net Neutrality is no different: without it we would likely have no truly free Social Media. We would, in essence, have no true Freedom of Speech online: it just plain isn't profitable to allow people to say potentially negative things about a business!

[citation][nom]ab initio[/nom]That was a Democrat ploy cooked up[/citation]
You mean, cooked up by Republican Donald Rumsfeld? (y'know, the guy who was our own Secretary of Defense immediately before, and for years during the war?) Yep, he outright admitted it today. Perhaps next time, before opening your trap to "blame liberals for everything," actually see what the facts say. It's time for those that've derailed the Republican party from its original true, pro-American conservative values to actually take responsibility for their own decisions.

[citation][nom]ab initio[/nom]For all the information that the Internet supplies, some of you remain ignorant about many things.[/citation]
This, given what you just demonstrated, is so incredibly ironic. Thank you for giving us all a laugh.

 

[Objectivist]

The government's ONLY proper role is to protect individual rights. We have no more a "right" to the internet than we do any other service or product provided by other people. If ISP's decided tomorrow that they don't want to continue staying in business for whatever reason and closed their doors, would we put a government gun to their head and make them continue providing service because "we have a right to it"? The internet is not simply a free entity owned collectively by everyone. It is owned by the businesses and industries that maintain and create its infrastructure. It can not be owned by those who have no knowledge or ability to create it and make it work. If you don't like what an ISP does, boycott the company, affect its profits, and maybe they will change their ways.... out of self interest as a business... not out of capitulation to government's force.