Republicans want a net neutrality law, but only if it stops the FCC from handling it

[mr moose]

Reading fine print isn't something these people are very good at lately. lol

 

If the Republicans and Democrats agree with each other—with differences in minor details of course—on this could their combined effort actually see any beneficial change?  This could potentially make our situation worse,  couldn't it?

 

It could if they agree on nasty things like data collection.  When you have bi partisan support in government you essentially have a dictatorship, where whatever they agree on gets the green light without proper debate.

[Biggerisbetter]

You ignore someone because they are showing all political parties are just as absurd as each other?    You must have a really thin skin.

 

 

On topic:  All they need to do is add some regulation to prevent anti competitive behavior (including reducing litigation for the purpose of draining the resources from new ISP's) and they might have the solution.  But you will need to read the fine print first.

His argument was poorly constructed and completely lopsided. I come here for tech related news. Not this crap

[KungPaoChino]

So who voted these dudes into the 114th Congress?

[shermantanker]

Do people even bother to think about things before commenting on them anymore.

 

This is a great step forward. Democrats and Republicans are on the same page about net neutrality now, just with differences in details. And honestly this sounds like the better approach to it. I don't know whether the Title II thing is actually a good idea or not because I haven't combed through all the law text it contains so I'm not speaking on that right now.

 

So with all the NSA scares going on recently, why would you want any form of government controlling the internet. They need to have laws about the distribution, classification, competition, etc of internet providers but without stepping directly into the ISP hussle themselves. I certainly wouldn't trust them with it.

 

I'm is the same boat as you. I don't know crap as to what the Title II change would mean, but I would rather not have the government in something if we can avoid it. I love the basic primes of net neutrality, but the moment the government gets in something you can't get them out. Who knows how much they might try to twist the laws 10 years from now and start heavily regulating the net. Last year a democrat body tried getting to "moderators" to sit in during radio shows and monitor their speech for anything they thought was "discrimination" (and super vague wording at that). Once people caught wind of this they pulled out very quickly, and I would not want the same thing to happen to the internet. If it does...we are done as a society.

 

EDIT: loks like my recollection of the information was not 100% correct. but basicly the FCC was going to do a probe of 280 very intrusive interviews on several news mediums to find out why they reported what they did and didn't. And to make sure that they were feeding the right info their proper demographics. here is a quote from the FCC

 

 

 

“The FCC has a duty to make sure that the industries it regulates serve the needs of the American public no matter where they live or what financial resources they have,” acting FCC chairwoman Mignon Clyburn said in a Mayannouncement [pdf] of the survey. “The research design we announce today is an important next step in understanding what those needs are, how Americans obtain the information critical to their daily lives in a dynamic technological environment, and what barriers exist in our media ecologies to providing and accessing this information.”

 

here is a link there isn't a a whole lot of info out there, because it wasn't reported on very heavily before being killed.

 

this is a related quote from a past FCC commissioner.

 

 

 

“In this study, the FCC will delve into the editorial discretion of newspapers, web sites and radio and TV stations,” Hudson Institute Fellow Robert McDowell, who served as an FCC commissioner from 2009 to 2013, told The Daily Caller. “This starts sticking the government’s nose into what has traditionally been privileged and protected ground. Regardless of one’s political stripes, one should be concerned.”

[shermantanker]

So who voted these dudes into the 114th Congress?

 

me.

[mr moose]

His argument was poorly constructed and completely lopsided.

 

The person he was responding to had illustrated a rather anti republican stance based on nothing more  than a belief that only democrats should talk.  So he presented a list of verbal gaff's from democrats illustrating that democrats are no better than republicans at talking, then he followed with a qualifier explaining that ALL political parties are the same. You really cannot get more unbiased and to the point.

[Albatross]

It could if they agree on nasty things like data collection.  When you have bi partisan support in government you essentially have a dictatorship, where whatever they agree on gets the green light without proper debate.

 

I'd rather they were at each others' throats then..

 

edit

 

damn, posted by accident. Meant to also say that there have been times where they were in agreement with each other and resulted in some really stupid/horrible things being done. Demos and Repubs agreed with Executive Order 9066 and that was just wrong on all levels.

 

And also wanted to share this quote.

 

Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out. -- George Carlin in 2006

 

I'm is the same boat as you. I don't know crap as to what the Title II change would mean, but I would rather not have the government in something if we can avoid it. I love the basic primes of net neutrality, but the moment the government gets in something you can't get them out. Who knows how much they might try to twist the laws 10 years from now and start heavily regulating the net. Last year a democrat body tried getting to "moderators" to sit in during radio shows and monitor their speech for anything they thought was "discrimination" (and super vague wording at that). Once people caught wind of this they pulled out very quickly, and I would not want the same thing to happen to the internet. If it does...we are done as a society.

 

What? When did this happen?

[shermantanker]

I'd rather they were at each others' throats then..

 

edit

 

damn, posted by accident. Meant to also say that there have been times where they were in agreement with each other and resulted in some really stupid/horrible things being done. Demos and Repubs agreed with Executive Order 9066 and that was just wrong on all levels.

 

And also wanted to share this quote.

 

Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out. -- George Carlin in 2006

 

 

What? When did this happen?

 I just edited my post and I wasn't 100% correct, but I did sort it out if you look.

[Guest Kloaked]

We all know what happens when you undercut a regulatory agency -- you get people dying from tainted supplements because federal organizations can't step in and take action until people are getting hurt.

 

(90's reference, for the younger crowd)

 

You won't see it -- the attitude is currently "I'm against what the opposing political party is for". Now that the president is openly in favor, the Republican party will oppose it (for the most part).

 

Super dumb how that works.

[mr moose]

I'd rather they were at each others' throats then..

 

edit

 

damn, posted by accident. Meant to also say that there have been times where they were in agreement with each other and resulted in some really stupid/horrible things being done. Demos and Repubs agreed with Executive Order 9066 and that was just wrong on all levels.

 

And also wanted to share this quote.

 

Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out. -- George Carlin in 2006

 

 

What? When did this happen?

 

I have been looking into the Australian system of late because with certain outcomes over the last 3 governments the 2 party preferred and the preference system has been called into question.   I don't think it will change because the alternatives are quite non-productive. The current system could do with some tweaking (I am guessing in the US as much as here) but the basis of the system is about as good as it's going to get.   I.E one party in control, the other party keeping them honest.  Too many independents and you have a shamozzle with too many chiefs and not enough indians, only one party and you have a dictatorship.

[AlwaysFSX]

Or the FCC can just do what they need to do instead of having their balls in a vice.

 

No. I hate Republicans of any kind. Democrats should be doing the talking.

Lol. This post. Funny. As if anyone in charge is any better than the next guy.

[KungPaoChino]

me.

gasp. who wouldve known that one man's decision would change the world. *sarcasm*

[Zeruel]

Republicans and Democrats, two faces of the same Demon. 

 

One extorts the economy the people work hard for, working in favor of big businesses. 

 

The other extorts the people themselves,  while challenging big business so they misguide the people on thier side. 

[Yog]

Republicans and Democrats, two faces of the same Demon. 

 

One extorts the economy the people work hard for, working in favor of big businesses. 

 

The other extorts the people themselves,  while challenging big business so they misguide the people on thier side. 

 

Both sides are working in favor of big business, just different big businesses.

[othertomperson]

The only reason i'd like for the republicans to handle it is because they tend to be more about letting the people handle it not the government.  

 

No, they tend to be more about letting massive businesses handle it, not the government. I don't think they'd be any different than the FCC in standing up to ISPs, and quite possibly even worse.

 

The US needs to do away with the two party system, it's quite possibly the thing that is preventing it from becoming a Democracy.

[Misanthrope]

Is it a big leap to think they just want to cut off the middle man and be lobbied straight into their pockets instead of having to appoint a puppet figure like Wheeler?

[patrickjp93]

I have zero confidence in the FCC so on face this is okay but some sort of pretense has to go in for smaller ISPs to be able to use the existing infrastructure and some sort of fiber mandate.

You do know classification under Title 2 means all used pole and ground infrastructure must be sold to competition for a low price (dictated by the state in this case). That is what opens the doors to a bunch of small ISPs.

[patrickjp93]

The only reason i'd like for the republicans to handle it is because they tend to be more about letting the people handle it not the government.

No, they tend to let their cherry picked donor companies handle it exclusively. Don't be a sheep.

[Toddwjp]

Um if we get rid of the fact then who's going to be there to monitor the companies??

The republican idea of small government is stupid, no one argues for an inefficient use of funds but the government should always be the size it needs be not measured by some preconceived idea of "small".

[Trik'Stari]

This entire thread

[zacRupnow]

Republicans completely control the house and the senate, this is the only way it'll get done. With a huge ass loop hole that is there on purpose.

[patrickjp93]

Republicans completely control the house and the senate, this is the only way it'll get done. With a huge ass loop hole that is there on purpose.

Of course, because the U.S. populace is far too stupid to see the GOP was the whole problem all this time. Yes, the democrats need to boot Pelosi and Reid from their leadership positions, but in terms of policy it's the GOP fillibustering everything (their own sponsored bills included) which Reid brings to the floor, and then they have the nerve to complain about Reid withholding bills passed by the house when everyone knows 2/3s of them are purely partisan symbolic ACA repeal votes rewritten as many times as desired and 1/4 don't have 25 democrat votes to them in the house despite the GOP calling foul and saying it's bipartisan legislation. The last 1/12 of that legislation sitting on Reid's desk was going to be filibustered to death anyway. The GOP is filled with too many sheep who vote in blocks instead of on individual principles.

If Reagan had been stuck with such an uncouth, undeserving, ungrateful, I'll-mannered, self-serving opposition party dominating congressional proceedings, he would have been labeled far worse than Carter.

[zacRupnow]

Of course, because the U.S. populace is far too stupid to see the GOP was the whole problem all this time. Yes, the democrats need to boot Pelosi and Reid from their leadership positions, but in terms of policy it's the GOP fillibustering everything (their own sponsored bills included) which Reid brings to the floor, and then they have the nerve to complain about Reid withholding bills passed by the house when everyone knows 2/3s of them are purely partisan symbolic ACA repeal votes rewritten as many times as desired and 1/4 don't have 25 democrat votes to them in the house despite the GOP calling foul and saying it's bipartisan legislation. The last 1/12 of that legislation sitting on Reid's desk was going to be filibustered to death anyway. The GOP is filled with too many sheep who vote in blocks instead of on individual principles.

If Reagan had been stuck with such an uncouth, undeserving, ungrateful, I'll-mannered, self-serving opposition party dominating congressional proceedings, he would have been labeled far worse than Carter.

The filibuster used to be a fair tool the person would have to speak about what was bad about the proposition without repeating points until that person had nothing left to say. Now all they do is say the word filibuster and it immediately stops the proposition.

[Victorious Secret]

Or the FCC can just do what they need to do instead of having their balls in a vice.

 

Lol. This post. Funny. As if anyone in charge is any better than the next guy.

 

The FCC is having their balls put into a vice because Obama made one crucial mistake. 

 

He openly embraced net neutrality and embraced the FCCs power to reclassify under Title II. Republicans, being Republics (the same way Democrats would be Democrats) now have to disagree with what the President wants because...stupid political reasons. 

Hence them pushing their own bill to cut the FCC out in this respect. Also, LOL @ people who think one side is any better than the other. Both parties are 50 shades of shit and the President sits in the middle with no real power yet gets to enjoy the shit from all sides of the equation. 

[APrettyCoolWalrus]

Don't tell me you support Republicans...

 

 

Don't tell me you support Democrats...

Don't tell me you guys support party loyalty