GOP senators declare war on Net neutrality

[mystieus]

Source: rawstory.com

Plan to keep Internet free of interference from ISPs draws opposition from GOP, service providers

Six Republican senators have introduced an amendment that would block the Federal Communications Commission from implementing its recently announced Net neutrality policy.

Texas Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison introduced the amendment to an appropriations bill. It would prevent the FCC from getting funding for any initiative to uphold Net neutrality. According to The Hill, the co-sponsors are Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), Sen. John Thune (R-SD) and Sen. David Vitter (R-LA).

The move appears to be an attempt to pre-empt the FCC's expected new policy to ensure that Internet service providers don't discriminate between different types of information on their networks.

Read more: http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/09/gop-senators-net-neutrality/

[derby378]

1. We'll hang this around KBH's neck during the 2010 mid-terms

Let's see her become Governor of Texas now! She should have stayed in the Senate where her political career would at least be "safe."

[ProudDad]

70. She's running for tex-ass governor... (n/t)

[indepat]

2. Can't we just all agree its time quit pussyfooting around and politically piss on the GOP senators,

metaphorically speaking of course? :P

[movonne]

10. I think it is funny that two of them are preverts...or close to it...

[saigon68]

90. They are PERVERTS

Liars and adulterers

[Downtown Hound]

11. What's the fun in only doing it metaphorically?

;)

[wroberts189]

43. I think I'll stand over here with you...and get my fluids ready. nt

[NBachers]

56. Good use for non-precious bodily fluids

and Solids, Jackson!

Link below:

[wroberts189]

62. No link :) .... nt

[HillbillyBob]

96. why only figuratively ?

I ll send mine by bucket full ...I m p shy in public...

[Sinistrous]

3. The GOPers think with their gonads.

Can't these MFers be FOR anything?

[Old Time Pagan]

46. The worse thing that can happen to these slime doogies

is for Obama and the Dems to straighten things out. Naturally the Repukes are going to put themselves and their party ahead of their country. That and that alone is what they're FOR.

[DJ13]

4. Sounds like the making of a GOP election slush fund

Corruption is another name for Republican.

[Overseas]

89. I agree.

That group of Republicans will need a lot of help.

Diapers Vitter.
Mistress Paid by Mom & Dad Ensign.
Waterloo DeMint.

and isn't KBH going up for governor of Texas against Blow Dry Secessionist Perry?

[L0oniX]

5. ASSCARROTS !

[Me.]

6. Well That Should Get Them Lots Of Votes

:sarcasm:

[Cha]

32. Hey, Me..here's Obama on Net Neutrality..

<snip>>

"Obama Exhumes Net Neutrality From the Tomb of Forgotten Issues."

"The debate over Net neutrality has quieted considerably since the Federal Communications Commission rebuked Comcast in August for its discriminatory handling of BitTorrent traffic. Congress has been silent on the issue as one of the leading proponents of Net neutrality, Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), has focused on cap-and-trade legislation to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. The FCC is still awaiting confirmation of President Obama's pick for its chairman, Julius Genachowski, and has been preoccupied by the looming analog TV cutoff. The new chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, Jon Leibowitz, has dropped hints about regulating broadband providers, but for the most part, whatever momentum that the Net neutrality drive had in 2007 and 2008 seems to have dissipated.

So when Obama brought up the issue today in a speech on cyber-security, it seemed like a bolt out of the blue. Here's the relevant excerpt:

"Let me also be clear about what we will not do. Our pursuit of cyber-security will not -- I repeat, will not include -- monitoring private sector networks or Internet traffic. We will preserve and protect the personal privacy and civil liberties that we cherish as Americans. Indeed, I remain firmly committed to net neutrality so we can keep the Internet as it should be -- open and free."

This isn't a change for Obama -- he strongly endorsed Net neutrality during the presidential campaign. And it's consistent with some elements of the cyber-security strategy he laid out today, which emphasized (in a striking contrast with the previous administration) protecting individual liberties and privacy along with critical digital infrastructure. On the other hand, such a regulatory impulse conflicted with another important tenet of Obama's cyber-security initiative: that private companies will be free to choose how to protect themselves. As Obama put it:.."

<more>>>
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2009/05/obama-net-neutrality-cybersecurity.html

[defendandprotect]

49. Thanks -- and a Yippeee !!!

[No Elephants]

77. Thanks. Good for Obama.

:fistbump:

[wroberts189]

65. They will spin it as something totally opposite .. like Gov. censorship. nt

[Kablooie]

69. It will because the money they recieve will buy them lots of air time.

[BrklynLiberal]

7. Am I supposed to be surprised???

[wroberts189]

45. Yes ..you need to do your best Gomer impression.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6_1Pw1xm9U

[BrklynLiberal]

93. ROTFLMAO!!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[wroberts189]

99. Thx ..glad my sense of humor came through ok. That Gomer quote is a classic. nt

[BrklynLiberal]

102. We have the same sense of humor...I guess...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3759714&mesg_id=3760654

[wroberts189]

104. HAHA.. no stranger to Gomer I see ..thx for the pic/link

The way he used to say it ... He was cast as a sort of a fool as I remember ... but I know of no other person ever who captured that cynical "yeah right" like he did.

[pattmarty]

8. They're all fucking douchebags. All six are either far right loons or............

.........fucking perverts.

[The Green Manalishi]

14. huh

Why does it have to be an either/or?
:-)

[earth mom]

9. Bastards!

:grr:

[Odin2005]

12. The Corporatists cometh.

[proud patriot]

13. evil bastards

[msongs]

15. internet needs to be a PUBLIC UTILITY managed by government not corporate thieves nt

[Arugula Latte]

16. How can any person with a brain vote for these evil freaks?

:grr:

[No Elephants]

78. Only income bracket Republicans are suspected of having brains.

[alcibiades_mystery]

17. That should endear them to the libertarians

When are the libertarian idiots going to peel off the GOP and start voting their basic interests?

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

18. So, these politicians are ADVOCATING discrimination by ISP providers?

That's strange.

[Moosepoop]

20. Yes...

But so are the ones advocating it. ;)

[wroberts189]

38. YES .. and while this may sound a bit extreme DU will start loading slower and slower....nt

[BootinUp]

19. ok, tell me they aren't going to get away with that. nt

[wroberts189]

39. They will not. Only reason its in the news is because we are trying to put it into law.

Although it is already there in the form of "common carrier" law .. they are trying to wiggle out of it.

[sudopod]

21. Slashdot can suck it.

Maybe that seething lot of paultards will finally wake up and realize that the Republicans aren't their friends.

[wroberts189]

42. Thats why I stopped going there. There was always a rw slant here and there. nt

[ThoughtCriminal]

22. They are worried about the tubes!

Toobular Boobular Joy!

[Piewhacket]

23. obama has to sign it.

[Umbral]

106. After an assload of Democrats have voted for it. It's just so much flatulence without Dem support.

[proud2BlibKansan]

24. And I was thinking this was the one issue where we had common ground

:shrug:

[wroberts189]

37. Never underestimate a pub to take the stupidest position possible. nt

[TygrBright]

25. Oh, dear... ::pious upward roll of eyes:: I hope this doesn't get any clever hacker-types MAD.

It would be just TERRIBLE if their campaign websites suddenly started developing horribly embarrassing glitches, or their campaign computers were taken over by bots spamming porn under their names, or anything like that.

I would totally disapprove of such terrible, lawless actions.

So I really HOPE this doesn't totally piss off the kind of people who have the chops and the attitude to pull something like that off.

I really hope not.

piously,
Bright

[cliffordu]

29. Me too.....

I mean garsh....that would be toooooo bad!!!!

[Hawkeye-X]

26. Too bad Thugs are irrelevant

As their shrinking minority starts getting smaller and smaller, their amendment has a chance of passing is like dealing with a toothless old diseased rat.

[wroberts189]

44. I keep telling myself that too but for some reason they get all this media coverage ..hmm. nt

[No Elephants]

83. Irrelevant? Yet, the health care of 300 million people sits in the hands of Olympia Snowe.

Go figure.

[pinto]

27. They don't let up, do they? (aside) The FCC's ruling got good coverage locally,

which I took as a positive sign for a fairly conservative CA county.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

28. I will send them my internet bill plus tax so they can pay it

[AsahinaKimi]

30. maybe their collective websites will crash....

:shrug:
just sayin'...

[Cha]

31. Fuck OFF GreedWhores..you ain't getting our Social Security

and you're not getting your greedy greasy hands on our Net.

http://www.savetheinternet.com/index.php

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Joe the Liberal]

34. I am SHOCKED...SHOCKED I Tellz ya!1!1!!11....

republicans siding with big corporations and the elite instead of the people, How could this be? Can someone clue me in? I thought the Repubs we're genuinely concerned about our freedoms/liberties and well being, this is incredibly surprising to say the least. :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

In all seriousness this was to be expected, repubs will oppose anything that doesn't give more money and control to big corporations and the top 1%. In this day and age you can bet that if republicans are against something then generally it's because it has positive consequences for the majority of the people. If they are actually FOR something it's because it has negative consequences for the majority of the people.

It's gotten to the point where if you want to be on the right side of the issues all you have to do is see the republicans stance on them. Then just be in support of the things they are against and be against the things they support.

[wroberts189]

36. "Surprise ..Surprise ..Surprise!" Gomer is my favorite. nt

[wroberts189]

35. It should be pretty clear now to anyone they hate anything that helps us all. nt

[rasputin1952]

40. The R's wuld have nothing to do w/bipartisanship...

I see no reason on the face of the earth to let them have anything. They'd screw it up anyway.

[wroberts189]

41. All of your Internets belong to us !

Sorry ...kinda of an inside joke.

[defendandprotect]

47. What a surprise . . . they don't like free speech -- and especially the internet variety --!!!

[wroberts189]

68. They do not like the truth and how the Net has been able to disseminate it. nt

[Enthusiast]

74. Yup. Truth is not the friend

of the GOP.

[wroberts189]

98. Not their Friend at all.. a matter of fact the truth has taken quite a beaten from them.

But it always comes back to bite them back hard in the end. It just takes a while... latest example ACORN.

[lark]

91. They don't like "free" speech at all

But they are heavily in favor of bought speech by corporations. It's just we the people that they don't want to hear from because we can't pay them enough.

[DCKit]

48. Fuck those fucking fuckers.

Give 'em what the would-be Internet gatekeepers want, and China would have better and faster access.

They'll go all "Family Values", "Think of the Childrens!!!!" and anti-porn in 3...2...1...

[wroberts189]

63. While I will refrain from using those words myself I think you summed it up in you're subject. :) nt

edited because my damn caps key is broke

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

85. My thoughts also.

[LynneSin]

50. It's so nice to see good family men like Vitter and Ensign take an interest in stuff like this

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[PatrynXX]

51. Figures. Can't the politicians agree on one thing

Carrying the partisan thing a bit far on this one. It's a no brainer to support it. Hard to find someone who is not rich that would support the right wing on this one. ? oh wait. teabaggers protest against having their taxes cut what am I thinking.

[Beartracks]

52. What's their motivation?

a) The usual "pro-business" corporate bias (i.e. "if something can make money, it must be good")?

b) Taking a stand against immorality (i.e. "the Intertubes is full of pr0n, and this will help combat it")?

c) Because its been proposed under a Democratic administration (i.e "if Dems want it, we'll fight it")?


Whaddaya think?

[Hippo_Tron]

53. Well see, the internet isn't a big truck, you can't just dump stuff on it

It's a series of tubes. And when the tubes get clogged your internet doesn't work. My staff sent me an internet on Friday and it just got here.

[Lautremont]

55. d) Big bags of money dropped off at their door by Time Warner.

[jeff30997]

58. Same answer but...

they'll use "b) Taking a stand against immorality" to justify their votes.

[wroberts189]

64. I will pick the usual ..money talks. nt

[HCE SuiGeneris]

54. F'n douchebags.

Please tell me why these a-holes have positions of power.

[grahamhgreen]

57. They don't have the votes - if they do the dems will never be in power ever again, IMHO.

[mvd]

59. Glad to hear they don't

Net neutrality is extremely important..

[JackRiddler]

60. Vitter's had enough of equal bandwidth for FAIL blogs, I tell you.

[BREMPRO]

61. what a surprise! the corporate wing of government wants to control the internet for their

"clients" and suppress individual initiative, ingenuity, and democratic exchange so all us little folk are relegated to the slow dark recesses of cyberspace.

Pukes are very predictable.

[SeattleGirl]

66. Sigh. Still singing the same old tired song.

They just wear me out. I'm ready to vote them off the island.

[Umbral]

67. Unless they get some Democrats to go along - So What?

The Republicans can't implement policy; they're barely in a position to obstruct the implementation of policy.

[ProudDad]

71. And this is relevant, how?

I can count. They don't have the votes...

Unless Dems fuck us over...

[ProudDad]

72. Net Neutrality and the modern Mafia

I offer a short explanation of “net neutrality” in the context of our old friends, the Mob.

First, the Internet is just a collection of millions of computers (servers) connected by phone lines. The computers are programmed to accept “packets” of information from another server or originator and relay them on towards their final destination. All packets are now treated equally and are passed on as expeditiously as technically possible at the moment they’re received.

Think of the telecoms as the Corleone family of the Internet. They want run the old “Protection Racket”. They would add an extra layer of programming to the servers so that when a packet is received:

1) Is the destination address in our list of “paid up clients”?
2) Yes, move the packet along at normal Internet speeds.
3) No, put it on the bottom of the “uncooperative” stack…slow it down

This is what these bat-crap crazy pukes want to happen to the relatively "free" Internet...

[TheCentepedeShoes]

105. Thanks

I looked up net neutrality on Wiki and got more alphabet soup than a Campbell's factory
Reason I am asking at this point is I was listening to some of G Beck the Totally Insane this morning on the radio....yeah I know:eyes:....but I was tired and thought some banging of head on the desk would wake me up
Anywho, he goes into net neutrality saying that means everyone gets free internet access and a free computer and it's all a scary brainwahsing plot

[Vidar]

73. They are consistent. There is no evil they won't own.

[Hubert Flottz]

75. They want the tubes to go down the tube!

They want to turn the WWW into FOX!

[yoyossarian]

76. They continue to reveal themselves...

...as evil incarnate!
Too bad they're POWERLESS to actually push this shit through!

Keep it up, ass-hats! Keep showing the world EXACTLY what sort of fascist assholes you actually are!




Tee-hee-shirts, buttons and other crap at
Laugh City!


President Evil Online
has risen from the grave!

[annabanana]

79. I hope everyone realizes that Net Neutrality is a battle we will have

to continue to fight, like, FOREVER. The multinationals will NEVER quit trying to control and circumscribe this asset.

[No Elephants]

80. Yell at Comcast, ATT and Verizon.

http://www.comcast.com/Corporate/Customers/Contactus/Contactus.html?lid=2CustomersContactus&pos=Nav

http://www.att.com/wireless/contact-us/index.jsp

http://www22.verizon.com/content/contactus/



Maybe also contact Google and Microsoft to support their position on Internet neutrality.


http://support.microsoft.com/contactus/?ws=mscom

http://www.google.com/contact/




"While Net neutrality is supported by Internet-reliant companies such as Google and Microsoft, it is opposed by major Internet service providers like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon. Those three have come out against Genachowski's plan, ChannelWeb reports.

The part of Genachowski's plan that ISPs are most opposed to, according to PCWorld's Paul, is that it would apply to mobile carriers as well -- cellphones, Blackberries and the like. Bandwidth for wireless is not infinite, and some carriers have argued that they need to shape some traffic on their networks in order to make sure there is space available for everyone.

But, as the experience of other countries has shown, that is not necessarily the way "traffic shaping" is used. In Canada, throttling some types of traffic on the Internet -- not on wireless -- has become commonplace. It is used to slow down peer-to-peer file sharing networks.

"Broadband providers cannot discriminate against particular Internet content or applications," Genachowski said in his speech. "Nor can they disfavor an Internet service just because it competes with a similar service offered by that broadband provider. The Internet must continue to allow users to decide what content and applications succeed."

[Joe Chi Minh]

81. You mean you still have Republican senators? I wonder for how long.

[and-justice-for-all]

82. Fascist control freaks...nt

[Canuckistanian]

84. This is a purely corporate move

How in Hell can anyone be AGAINST net neutrality?

I'd like to hear their explanations for this bill.

[LittleOne]

86. I wonder if Comcast will let us visit DU?

I can understand individual web sites blocking traffic from areas that are not in their target demographic. No point letting your bandwidth go to people that are not going to buy your sponsors' products.

That is why my brother in Canada can't get Hulu and Pandora and I can't watch Coronation Street on the BBC online. Sadly it makes sense.

This is a hugely important issue. If the Repubs can control the internet then no online grass roots movements, no catching them on their shit.

[Piewhacket]

87. No. You DU trash have been against Comcast from the start. WE control what you read, and you PAY!

[LittleOne]

88. LOL sadly if they get their way you are correct.

[OKNancy]

92. They have scrapped it.

If people want a follow-up I suggest they go to a mainstream news site.

Posted 15 hours ago:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2009/09/republicans_with.html?hpid=news-col-blog

Senate Republicans Scrap Anti-Net Neutrality Push
Senate Republicans have stopped their push to prevent funding for the Federal Communication Commission as a protest of proposed net neutrality rules.

"While we are still generally opposed to net neutrality regulations, we have decided to hold off on the amendment because approached us and we are beginning a dialogue," said a staff member on the committee.

An official at the FCC confirmed that Genachowski, who on Monday introduced a proposal for net neutrality rules, called Republican members who criticized his move, saying it could hurt the businesses of network operators. The call was intended to begin a conversation about the proposal that would prevent Internet service providers from blocking Web content and services.

Earlier this week, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), ranking member of Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, said she would introduce an amendment to an Interior Appropriations bill that would tie up funding at the agency for new regulatory mandates. Observers said, however, that the move was unlikely to be approved in the Democrat-majority Congress.

[Uncle Joe]

97. Scrapped it sounds too permanent and misleading, they'll just try an alternative back door approach

to achieve their goals of neutralizing net neutrality.

[BrightKnight]

101. I'll send a diagram showing them what to do with their bill. - n/t

[damntexdem]

94. That will be real popular on the net.

They seem to think that to get out of a hole they should dig it deeper.

[quiet.american]

95. So predictable. What took them so long? nt

[BrightKnight]

100. .

[ProudDad]

103. If you have AT&T or Verizon phones

SWITCH!!!

NOW!!!!

Credo Mobile...
http://www.credomobile.com/Default.aspx

Credo Long Distance...
http://www.credolongdistance.com/


Starve the Beast...