Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Raw Story)   The GOP declares war on "net neutrality"   (rawstory.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, net neutrality, Republicans, declares war, Jim DeMint, Federal Communications Commission, high-speed internet, intervention, Kay Bailey Hutchison  
•       •       •

34851 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Sep 2009 at 4:16 PM (9 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



701 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2009-09-22 01:34:38 PM  
i37.tinypic.comView Full Size

republicans usually favor corporations over individuals.
 
2009-09-22 01:38:12 PM  
I will likely never vote GOP again. I can't imagine a party more hellbent on ruining everything they touch.

I'll vote for parties aside from Dem, but never GOP.
 
2009-09-22 01:39:14 PM  
Corporate Whores Are Whores.
 
2009-09-22 01:40:46 PM  
i37.tinypic.comView Full Size

Democrats usually favor government control over individuals.
 
2009-09-22 01:43:53 PM  

ne2d: Democrats Politicians usually favor government control over individuals.


FTFY
 
2009-09-22 01:46:01 PM  
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).

A veritable rogues gallery of suck. Very disappointed in Hutchison. She at least has a brain. If only she used it for good instead of evil.
 
2009-09-22 01:46:34 PM  

ne2d: Democrats usually favor government control over individuals.


So, how exactly does that apply to a case where they are fighting for individuals?
 
2009-09-22 01:48:04 PM  

Blues_X: ne2d: Democrats usually favor government control over individuals.

So, how exactly does that apply to a case where they are fighting for individuals?


Beats me--I was just trying to bring neutrality to the thread.
 
2009-09-22 01:48:09 PM  
So, ultimately, what we these Senators are hoping for is to stifle competition, and throttling Internet communications so that the playing field is predicated on an uneven practices?

Tell me again how this fits into a free market system? Oh, the markets are free to do what the hell they want, not free to compete fairly...

I really dislike it when folks who claim to love the free market, do everything in their power to stifle it...
 
2009-09-22 01:53:09 PM  
It combines two things Republicans love: hating every little thing Obama does and blowing corporate cock. Of course they're going to try to kill it.
 
2009-09-22 01:57:39 PM  
Lest we forget the type of people who are trying to legislate on this: Link (new window)
 
2009-09-22 01:59:11 PM  
If the presidents for it, we're against it! Hoorah!
 
2009-09-22 02:03:33 PM  
i37.tinypic.comView Full Size

I'm a hotlink of a hotlink. That's a spicy-a-meatball!
 
2009-09-22 02:09:01 PM  
Six Republican senators have introduced an amendment that would block the Federal Communications Commission from implementing its recently announced Net neutrality policy.

Imagine, if you will, a raging storm. No - and earthquake AND a category five hurricane, both happening at the same time. Ok, so hold that raw, raging elemental fury in your mind. Now imagine it shrinking in size, but only increasing in power as it shrinks. imagine it crunching down further and further, growing in power and fury all the while, shrinking down until if fits into the human mind. Imagine all that rage and thunder and elemental power bottled up inside someone's head...and the only way to express that fury is from the comparatively weak and small human vocal chords.

That's about a tenth of how I feel towards these six senators.
 
2009-09-22 02:09:15 PM  

incendi: Lest we forget the type of people who are trying to legislate on this: Link (new window)


I bet he imagines that an internet gnome lives inside the tubes and directs traffic.
 
2009-09-22 02:11:23 PM  

Weaver95: Six Republican senators have introduced an amendment that would block the Federal Communications Commission from implementing its recently announced Net neutrality policy.

Imagine, if you will, a raging storm. No - and earthquake AND a category five hurricane, both happening at the same time. Ok, so hold that raw, raging elemental fury in your mind. Now imagine it shrinking in size, but only increasing in power as it shrinks. imagine it crunching down further and further, growing in power and fury all the while, shrinking down until if fits into the human mind. Imagine all that rage and thunder and elemental power bottled up inside someone's head...and the only way to express that fury is from the comparatively weak and small human vocal chords.

That's about a tenth of how I feel towards these six senators.


A bit less on my part, but it's frustrating to see your own party just toss everything that it's supposed to stand for away for campaign contributions.
 
2009-09-22 02:11:37 PM  

Weaver95: That's about a tenth of how I feel towards these six senators.


So, in short:
i9.photobucket.comView Full Size
 
2009-09-22 02:13:58 PM  

hubiestubert: A bit less on my part, but it's frustrating to see your own party just toss everything that it's supposed to stand for away for campaign contributions.


I wish I could find a way to force every Republican voter to understand that the Republican 'leadership' does not have their best interests in mind. That they're being lied to, and that they've been betrayed.
 
2009-09-22 02:14:17 PM  

ninjakirby: If the presidents for it, we're against it! Hoorah!


Whoa...that's what it sounded like in here when Bush was in office.

Diogenes: Very disappointed in Hutchison. She at least has a brain. If only she used it for good instead of evil.


Exactly. That's why I hope Friedman gets the Democratic nomination in the Texas governor's race. If he does, it will be the first time I've ever voted for a Demoncrat in the 20 years I've been able to vote.
 
2009-09-22 02:15:27 PM  

Weaver95: That's about a tenth of how I feel towards these six senators.


Tell us how you really feel Weaver!

/add in one part meteor storm and Im right there with you
 
2009-09-22 02:16:06 PM  
I'll tell you how I feel about this as soon as I hear from Olberman and Hannity.
 
2009-09-22 02:20:53 PM  

PacManDreaming: ninjakirby: If the presidents for it, we're against it! Hoorah!

Whoa...that's what it sounded like in here when Bush was in office.


Yeah ... Democrats were just automatically opposed to everything Bush did without thought, and never on the merits.
 
2009-09-22 02:22:02 PM  

Weaver95: hubiestubert: A bit less on my part, but it's frustrating to see your own party just toss everything that it's supposed to stand for away for campaign contributions.

I wish I could find a way to force every Republican voter to understand that the Republican 'leadership' does not have their best interests in mind. That they're being lied to, and that they've been betrayed.


People are either going to wake up, or they're going to be led into a permanent minority slot. The nation simply cannot afford more of the same disastrous economic, domestic, and foreign policy that is being advocated by idiots who can't see past the short term.
 
2009-09-22 02:24:39 PM  
They realize of course, that without net neutrality individual ISPs can decide to slow down or even block certain websites. particularly the websites of anyone running against them in the next election.
 
2009-09-22 02:27:17 PM  

kmmontandon: Yeah ... Democrats were just automatically opposed to everything Bush did without thought, and never on the merits.


Well, at least you're honest.
 
2009-09-22 02:28:41 PM  
Great!

Who better to determine our policy regarding the future of information technology than a collection of geriatrics with their pockets wide open?
 
2009-09-22 02:29:22 PM  
Here's an extremely basic lesson about economics that conservatives, especially elected conservatives, never seem to understand or care about:

Effective competition requires low barriers to entry.

Anyone who advocates against NN on the basis of competition is a ideological flibbertigibbet.
 
2009-09-22 02:30:12 PM  
If the Dems cave to these five morons on this, I will be seriously angry.
 
2009-09-22 02:32:32 PM  

Mugato: Great!

Who better to determine our policy regarding the future of information technology than a collection of geriatrics with their pockets wide open?


Indeed. Being able to throttle traffic based on protocol and priority is quite useful in keeping more people happy on a network. Heck, I do it in my own home!

That's not to say I'm happy with what Comcast did with BT traffic a while ago, but I can see times when it'd be very useful for nearly everbody to have ISPs start rating traffic differently. Especially in a huge disaster situation.
 
2009-09-22 02:33:59 PM  

elchip: PacManDreaming: Well, at least you're honest.

Democrats were infrequently automatically opposed to everything Bush did without thought, and usually argued on the merits.


I wonder if there's a list of some of the worst examples of that happening. Someone must have them, since they are so sure that it was a 24x7 occurrence and all.
 
2009-09-22 02:34:13 PM  

chtorran: They realize of course, that without net neutrality individual ISPs can decide to slow down or even block certain websites. particularly the websites of anyone running against them in the next election.


You begin to ken to part of the opposition to Net Neutrality then.

The aggregation of media has a lot to do with this. We are seeing a narrowing of focus in newspapers, on television, radio, and even in the printing of books. The recent writers' strike was likewise about aggregation of power over distribution--or rather, just wanting a fair share out of that, and opposed by studios who want more control, and to share less profits. And see less competition.

It is stunning to think of those who supposedly champion free market values simply toss that away to suck hind teat to those who want no competition--and the bloat, inefficiency, and just plain garbage that gets retained to keep dreams of financial empire going. And good Republicans should be championing guarantees for free market competition, not the folding over of possible outbreaks of the very "liberty" and "freedom" they use so offhandedly.

Especially in the face of narrowing of government and corporate interests. Freedom of the press isn't just threatened by the state telling you to shut down, but in advocation of policy that would restrict distribution to only "sanctioned" suppliers of information.
 
2009-09-22 02:36:20 PM  
Sheeeesh. I'm all sorts of free-market-first, but the Internet is essentially a utility. Localized monopolies. So, no, you can't do stuff like slow down/cut certain services for mere marketing/business reasons.
 
2009-09-22 02:43:50 PM  

PacManDreaming: ninjakirby: If the presidents for it, we're against it! Hoorah!

Whoa...that's what it sounded like in here when Bush was in office.


I wish that was true in the case of the Iraq war. Unfortunately, it was supported by most Democrats, too.
 
2009-09-22 02:45:26 PM  

DamnYankees: Here's an extremely basic lesson about economics that conservatives, especially elected conservatives, never seem to understand or care about:

Effective competition requires low barriers to entry.

Anyone who advocates against NN on the basis of competition is a ideological flibbertigibbet.


tfwiki.netView Full Size


Who you callin unchrasimatic?

 
2009-09-22 02:45:35 PM  
jbuist: but I can see times when it'd be very useful for nearly everbody to have ISPs start rating traffic differently.

The problem is who gets to decide what to throttle and how.
 
2009-09-22 02:49:59 PM  

sweetmelissa31: PacManDreaming: ninjakirby: If the presidents for it, we're against it! Hoorah!

Whoa...that's what it sounded like in here when Bush was in office.

I wish that was true in the case of the Iraq war. Unfortunately, it was supported by most Democrats, too.


This is a good example of where I get confused. Republicans like to point out how the Dems also were in favor of the war... and yet (like PacMan, for example) are quick to point out that the Dems were always in automatic opposition to every Republican initiative.

Odd. It seems impossible for both conditions to be true, and yet here we are.
 
2009-09-22 02:57:15 PM  

Mordant: sweetmelissa31: PacManDreaming: ninjakirby: If the presidents for it, we're against it! Hoorah!

Whoa...that's what it sounded like in here when Bush was in office.

I wish that was true in the case of the Iraq war. Unfortunately, it was supported by most Democrats, too.

This is a good example of where I get confused. Republicans like to point out how the Dems also were in favor of the war... and yet (like PacMan, for example) are quick to point out that the Dems were always in automatic opposition to every Republican initiative.

Odd. It seems impossible for both conditions to be true, and yet here we are.


You mean like the support for the bailouts while Bush was in office, and then the sudden turn that it was Obama that engineered and necessitated the measures? Or the new meme that Iraq and Afghanistan are Obama's Wars?

Lately, disingenuousness is more a pass time than an accusation...
 
2009-09-22 02:57:56 PM  
Just because they don't want to have to take any of the billions of dollars in profits they've been making off of the web and actually put it into more infrastructure and new technology to increase bandwidth I've got to lose access to portions of the web? I don't think so.

They don't have a chance of winning. Trying to take away our internets will make too many people very mad.
 
2009-09-22 03:03:16 PM  

GurneyHalleck: Just because they don't want to have to take any of the billions of dollars in profits they've been making off of the web and actually put it into more infrastructure and new technology to increase bandwidth I've got to lose access to portions of the web? I don't think so.

They don't have a chance of winning. Trying to take away our internets will make too many people very mad.


And starve the very market they hope to exploit...
 
2009-09-22 03:11:37 PM  

GurneyHalleck: Just because they don't want to have to take any of the billions of dollars in profits they've been making off of the web and actually put it into more infrastructure and new technology to increase bandwidth


Wow, damned near choked on my crackers when I read that.

Bandwidth is improving. We're a little lacking in the area of the last mile compared to plenty of other countries but we are freaking light years from where we were 15 years ago.
 
2009-09-22 03:13:26 PM  

Diogenes: Very disappointed in Hutchison. She at least has a brain. If only she used it for good instead of evil.


Isn't she the one who hid Dick Cheney from the police until he sobered up?
 
2009-09-22 03:14:04 PM  

Mordant: I wonder if there's a list of some of the worst examples of that happening. Someone must have them, since they are so sure that it was a 24x7 occurrence and all.


It's called the Farkives. You'll find about six years worth of Democrats opposing and bashing Bush just because he was Bush.

-----

My point originally, was that yes, the Liberals on Fark were immediately against anything Bush did, no matter what he did. I never said it was or wasn't based on merit.

Now, if y'all will quit changing the qualifiers to my original statement, and point out where I'm wrong, I'd love to see it.
 
2009-09-22 03:17:24 PM  
PacManDreaming: You'll find about six years worth of Democrats opposing and bashing Bush just because he was Bush.

No, not really. Most of us opposed Bush on principles. That may be a hard concept to grasp though.
 
2009-09-22 03:20:36 PM  

PacManDreaming: Mordant: I wonder if there's a list of some of the worst examples of that happening. Someone must have them, since they are so sure that it was a 24x7 occurrence and all.

It's called the Farkives. You'll find about six years worth of Democrats opposing and bashing Bush just because he was Bush.

-----

My point originally, was that yes, the Liberals on Fark were immediately against anything Bush did, no matter what he did. I never said it was or wasn't based on merit.

Now, if y'all will quit changing the qualifiers to my original statement, and point out where I'm wrong, I'd love to see it.


Wouldn't it be easier if you pointed out a time that Bush was crucified unjustly by the crazy-ass liberals and he actually made a decent, rational decision. I imagine your list is shorter than the times he was bashed based on principles (or lack thereof).
 
2009-09-22 03:22:49 PM  

DamnYankees: Here's an extremely basic lesson about economics that conservatives, especially elected conservatives, never seem to understand or care about:

Effective competition requires low barriers to entry.

Anyone who advocates against NN on the basis of competition is a ideological flibbertigibbet.


Holy crap, I actually agree with you about something.

/The internet has been de facto neutral since its creation. It works fine the way it is. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
 
2009-09-22 03:25:18 PM  
FTFA:
"I am deeply concerned by the direction the FCC appears to be heading," Sen. Hutchison (R-Texas) said in a statement. [...] "We must tread lightly when it comes to new regulations."

Wow, that's some serious doublethink.
Telling ISPs they can't throttle and censor is regulation?
Next up: GOP favors withdrawing the 1st Amendment because "free speech should be deregulated, we don't need none of this constitutional redtape, dagnabbit!"

/my face is being serious worn down by all this palm erosion
 
2009-09-22 03:25:37 PM  
PacManDreaming: the Liberals on Fark

All of them? Some of them? One of them?

From when to when?

I'm sure even NMPH has agreed with Bush at least once in the 8 years he was in office.
 
2009-09-22 03:29:34 PM  

PacManDreaming: It's called the Farkives. You'll find about six years worth of Democrats opposing and bashing Bush just because he was Bush.


If you can, please list five Bush/Cheney policies that were worth defending. Thx.
 
2009-09-22 03:30:32 PM  
Diogenes
A veritable rogues gallery of suck. Very disappointed in Hutchison. She at least has a brain. If only she used it for good instead of evil.


Give her a break, she's in for a brutal fight against Perry in the GOP gubernatorial primary. She's got a lot of crazy to court if she's gonna' catch up with his secession talk.

3Horn
 
2009-09-22 03:34:33 PM  

Flab: PacManDreaming: the Liberals on Fark

All of them? Some of them? One of them?

From when to when?

I'm sure even NMPH has agreed with Bush at least once in the 8 years he was in office.


Without doing 6 years of research I'm pretty sure a lot of "libs" had positive things to say about Bush's policies on helping Africa.

But to be fair, a lot of current "conservatives" have also agreed that they like watermelon... so it's even.
 
Displayed 50 of 701 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter




In Other Media
Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report