Republicans Create Rider To Stop Net Neutrality

[Trajan]

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) submitted a rider yesterday to a bill on military and veterans' construction projects. The rider would, 'prohibit the FCC from using any appropriated funds to adopt, implement or otherwise litigate any network neutrality based rules, protocols or standards.' It is co-signed by six other Republican senators

Republicans Create Rider To Stop Net Neutrality - Slashdot

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.


Sen. Jim DeMint, R-SC, says Federal Communications Commission should be renamed the "Fabricating a Crisis Commission," following a vote by the panel's three Democrats to approve proposed rules that amount to a hostile takeover of the Internet by a government agency acting illegally.

DeMint vows to reverse FCC's 'Internet takeover' | Washington Examiner

SNIP:


If the FCC plan somehow manages to survive, it will almost certainly do for First Amendment liberties and the Internet what it did for them in regulating broadcast television and radio. Former CBS News president Fred Friendly's landmark book, "The Good Guys, the Bad Guys and the First Amendment," describes in great detail how the Kennedy and Johnson administrations used the FCC to silence conservative critics.

and of course the FCC cherry picked the advice they asked for and asked orgs. who had a clearly hostile ideological stance to submit studies........nice.

 

[edthecynic]

It sounds as though you're completely unable to form a singe thought all on your own.

Heritage may be conservative, but the individual mandate is simply not a conservative idea.

So all you're left with is impotent butthurt.

Of course it is! It was the CON$ervative alternative, based on the CON$ervative "principle" of "individual responsibility," to the Liberal proposal that all employers be mandated to provide health insurance. According to CON$ back then health insurance was the responsibility of the individual not businesses.
But keep making an example of yourself by showing how CON$ are on all sides of any issue depending on which way the wind blows at the time.

 

[daveman]

Of course it is! It was the CON$ervative alternative, based on the CON$ervative "principle" of "individual responsibility," to the Liberal proposal that all employers be mandated to provide health insurance. According to CON$ back then health insurance was the responsibility of the individual not businesses.
But keep making an example of yourself by showing how CON$ are on all sides of any issue depending on which way the wind blows at the time.

And yet, your insistence that red is, in fact, green changes absolutely nothing.

 

[RDD_1210]

The internet ain't broke and I'm damned sure we don't need Uncle Sam to regulate or fix it.

Jeeze.

Exactly, lets keep it the way it is. Net Neutrality.


Jeeze.

You need a law to fix a problem that doesn't exist?

You take a vaccine for a disease you don't have? Don't be dumb.

 

[RDD_1210]

To anyone against this legislation, please answer this.

Are you ok with anyone (government, private enterprise, etc..) preventing you from accessing any site and any information that you want?

 

[Trajan]

To anyone against this legislation, please answer this.

Are you ok with anyone (government, private enterprise, etc..) preventing you from accessing any site and any information that you want?

as long as you pay for it you can have anything you want. its the bandwidth that is the crux of the issue, not so much content per se'. if at&t has a per per view site, and you don't want that but want netflix you will have to pay a premium for that.Its AT&T's pipeline , their infrastructure. If at&t gets greedy they will see market forces control for that as customers seek different providers or means of delivery.

 

[RDD_1210]

To anyone against this legislation, please answer this.

Are you ok with anyone (government, private enterprise, etc..) preventing you from accessing any site and any information that you want?

as long as you pay for it you can have anything you want. its the bandwidth that is the crux of the issue, not so much content per se'. if at&t has a per per view site, and you don't want that but want netflix you will have to pay a premium for that.Its AT&T's pipeline , their infrastructure. If at&t gets greedy they will see market forces control for that as customers seek different providers or means of delivery.

What do people do in markets where there are minimal or no choice in provider? Your reasoning would make sense if there were more then just a few major ISP's dominating the market.

 

[G.T.]

A message from Jim Cicconi on today's FCC Order to Preserve the Open Internet

To: All AT&T employees

Today, the Federal Communications Commission adopted rules designed to preserve the open Internet. While we still need to read the Commission's Order before making any final judgments, we are encouraged that the FCC appears to have favored innovation, investment and jobs over unwarranted net neutrality regulations. After many years of debate, we are hopeful that this will be an important step toward bringing much needed certainty to the industry.

I want to personally thank each and everyone one of you for your willingness to be involved in this important issue. Your support has been critical in our efforts. Our statement on today's FCC action is included below.

I wish you and your families a safe and happy holiday season. See you in 2011!

Jim Cicconi

www.below-the-fold.com • View topic - Anybody understand the new FCC rules for the Internet?

 

[hortysir]

We need a way to access the internet without going through telephone companies and other 'gate keepers'. Actually, the internet shouldn't have gate keepers at all.

And Obama needs to provide it to us free of charge???

Where does it say that? Are we making things up again?

We need a way to access the internet without going through telephone companies and other 'gate keepers'. Actually, the internet shouldn't have gate keepers at all.

And Obama needs to provide it to us free of charge???

nice try at characterizing net neutralists as free-loaders or socialists. That's not the point.

we just want to keep the fucking thing like it is. no reshuffling. no increased costs for less bandwidth.

why is that so hard to understand?

look I get that companies are going to fight to make the most profit they can. But the consumer has the right to fight back.

Where does it say that? Are we making things up again?

Simply a question.
Do you have an answer?

No, Obama DOESN'T need to provide the internet Free of Charge, nor is anyone asking for that, NOR is that in this bill.

Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

Being the very same FCC chair that proposed this:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ld.html?highlight=FCC+free+broadband+internet
I find it very pertinent to the discussion

 

[Trajan]

To anyone against this legislation, please answer this.

Are you ok with anyone (government, private enterprise, etc..) preventing you from accessing any site and any information that you want?

as long as you pay for it you can have anything you want. its the bandwidth that is the crux of the issue, not so much content per se'. if at&t has a per per view site, and you don't want that but want netflix you will have to pay a premium for that.Its AT&T's pipeline , their infrastructure. If at&t gets greedy they will see market forces control for that as customers seek different providers or means of delivery.

What do people do in markets where there are minimal or no choice in provider? Your reasoning would make sense if there were more then just a few major ISP's dominating the market.

they can do what comcast did for instance on my block 4 years ago, lay their own lines. I don't use them, I use Direct TV....market forces. I didn't like the comcast packages vs. what I was getting from Dir TV........and there ya go.

 

[DiveCon]

as long as you pay for it you can have anything you want. its the bandwidth that is the crux of the issue, not so much content per se'. if at&t has a per per view site, and you don't want that but want netflix you will have to pay a premium for that.Its AT&T's pipeline , their infrastructure. If at&t gets greedy they will see market forces control for that as customers seek different providers or means of delivery.

What do people do in markets where there are minimal or no choice in provider? Your reasoning would make sense if there were more then just a few major ISP's dominating the market.

they can do what comcast did for instance on my block 4 years ago, lay their own lines. I don't use them, I use Direct TV....market forces. I didn't like the comcast packages vs. what I was getting from Dir TV........and there ya go.

yeah, if the government would get out of the way and allow actual competition in cable services

 

[Trajan]

A message from Jim Cicconi on today's FCC Order to Preserve the Open Internet

To: All AT&T employees

Today, the Federal Communications Commission adopted rules designed to preserve the open Internet. While we still need to read the Commission's Order before making any final judgments, we are encouraged that the FCC appears to have favored innovation, investment and jobs over unwarranted net neutrality regulations. After many years of debate, we are hopeful that this will be an important step toward bringing much needed certainty to the industry.

I want to personally thank each and everyone one of you for your willingness to be involved in this important issue. Your support has been critical in our efforts. Our statement on today's FCC action is included below.

I wish you and your families a safe and happy holiday season. See you in 2011!

Jim Cicconi

www.below-the-fold.com • View topic - Anybody understand the new FCC rules for the Internet?

I found this...do you have a link for that above the fold site, where they got that blurb, they don't have a link.

AT&T: Jim Cicconi, EVP of external and legislative affairs

We appreciate the views expressed publicly by Commissioners McDowell and Baker. At the same time, we recognize the determination of the Chairman to move forward with a rulemaking. In this circumstance, which is not ideal, our overarching concern is to bring market certainty so that investment and job creation can go forward, while ensuring that we can still meet the expectations of our customers. Though a final view must await a careful reading of the FCC's order, we believe the Chairman's compromise can provide this certainty while taking steps to preserve flexibility for investment and innovation.

FCC's Net Neutrality Rules: the Heavy Hitters React | News & Opinion | PCMag.com

theres a whole industry comment round up there....

 

[G.T.]

A message from Jim Cicconi on today's FCC Order to Preserve the Open Internet

To: All AT&T employees

Today, the Federal Communications Commission adopted rules designed to preserve the open Internet. While we still need to read the Commission's Order before making any final judgments, we are encouraged that the FCC appears to have favored innovation, investment and jobs over unwarranted net neutrality regulations. After many years of debate, we are hopeful that this will be an important step toward bringing much needed certainty to the industry.

I want to personally thank each and everyone one of you for your willingness to be involved in this important issue. Your support has been critical in our efforts. Our statement on today's FCC action is included below.

I wish you and your families a safe and happy holiday season. See you in 2011!

Jim Cicconi

www.below-the-fold.com • View topic - Anybody understand the new FCC rules for the Internet?

I found this...do you have a link for that above the fold site, where they got that blurb, they don't have a link.

AT&T: Jim Cicconi, EVP of external and legislative affairs

We appreciate the views expressed publicly by Commissioners McDowell and Baker. At the same time, we recognize the determination of the Chairman to move forward with a rulemaking. In this circumstance, which is not ideal, our overarching concern is to bring market certainty so that investment and job creation can go forward, while ensuring that we can still meet the expectations of our customers. Though a final view must await a careful reading of the FCC's order, we believe the Chairman's compromise can provide this certainty while taking steps to preserve flexibility for investment and innovation.

FCC's Net Neutrality Rules: the Heavy Hitters React | News & Opinion | PCMag.com

theres a whole industry comment round up there....

He doesn't have a link, he works there. I've been a member there for years and there's only a few of us, he's not lying about where he works.

 

[G.T.]

Looks positive to me.

 

[DiveCon]

A message from Jim Cicconi on today's FCC Order to Preserve the Open Internet

To: All AT&T employees

Today, the Federal Communications Commission adopted rules designed to preserve the open Internet. While we still need to read the Commission's Order before making any final judgments, we are encouraged that the FCC appears to have favored innovation, investment and jobs over unwarranted net neutrality regulations. After many years of debate, we are hopeful that this will be an important step toward bringing much needed certainty to the industry.

I want to personally thank each and everyone one of you for your willingness to be involved in this important issue. Your support has been critical in our efforts. Our statement on today's FCC action is included below.

I wish you and your families a safe and happy holiday season. See you in 2011!

Jim Cicconi

www.below-the-fold.com • View topic - Anybody understand the new FCC rules for the Internet?

I found this...do you have a link for that above the fold site, where they got that blurb, they don't have a link.

AT&T: Jim Cicconi, EVP of external and legislative affairs

We appreciate the views expressed publicly by Commissioners McDowell and Baker. At the same time, we recognize the determination of the Chairman to move forward with a rulemaking. In this circumstance, which is not ideal, our overarching concern is to bring market certainty so that investment and job creation can go forward, while ensuring that we can still meet the expectations of our customers. Though a final view must await a careful reading of the FCC's order, we believe the Chairman's compromise can provide this certainty while taking steps to preserve flexibility for investment and innovation.

FCC's Net Neutrality Rules: the Heavy Hitters React | News & Opinion | PCMag.com

theres a whole industry comment round up there....

He doesn't have a link, he works there. I've been a member there for years and there's only a few of us, he's not lying about where he works.

hey how is ole big "rove indicted" Al

 

[G.T.]

I found this...do you have a link for that above the fold site, where they got that blurb, they don't have a link.

AT&T: Jim Cicconi, EVP of external and legislative affairs

We appreciate the views expressed publicly by Commissioners McDowell and Baker. At the same time, we recognize the determination of the Chairman to move forward with a rulemaking. In this circumstance, which is not ideal, our overarching concern is to bring market certainty so that investment and job creation can go forward, while ensuring that we can still meet the expectations of our customers. Though a final view must await a careful reading of the FCC's order, we believe the Chairman's compromise can provide this certainty while taking steps to preserve flexibility for investment and innovation.

FCC's Net Neutrality Rules: the Heavy Hitters React | News & Opinion | PCMag.com

theres a whole industry comment round up there....

He doesn't have a link, he works there. I've been a member there for years and there's only a few of us, he's not lying about where he works.

hey how is ole big "rove indicted" Al

i wouldnt know, tbh. i dont really talk to him.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Sad to see some many still trusting the government , They invented an issue , no one was doing anything blocking anything, and now the government has seized control.

You think they will stop there?
Does the government ever stop?

Perhaps they want very big government control over everything.
Neo fascism .

 

[edthecynic]

as long as you pay for it you can have anything you want. its the bandwidth that is the crux of the issue, not so much content per se'. if at&t has a per per view site, and you don't want that but want netflix you will have to pay a premium for that.Its AT&T's pipeline , their infrastructure. If at&t gets greedy they will see market forces control for that as customers seek different providers or means of delivery.

What do people do in markets where there are minimal or no choice in provider? Your reasoning would make sense if there were more then just a few major ISP's dominating the market.

they can do what comcast did for instance on my block 4 years ago, lay their own lines. I don't use them, I use Direct TV....market forces. I didn't like the comcast packages vs. what I was getting from Dir TV........and there ya go.

Comcast is not allowed in my area, we have Optimum only. Two miles away in the next county they have Comcast but Optimum is not allowed there. Satellite, which I tried, drops out every time it rains so it is useless and their internet access is through DSL which is not available in my area because it is too far from the Central Office. Wireless internet is more expensive than cable and slower than DSL. So basically if you don't want Optimum you are left with broadcast TV and dial-up internet.

 

[Trajan]

Looks positive to me.

so he exposed a confidential co. communication? Not smart.



well, be that as it may, I can only assume hes taking a wait and see attitude.


reading the other blurbs from the major players none are outright hostile, co's don't intimidate the gov., its the other way round.

 

[beowolfe]

But nevermind that by consensus they made it LAW of the land...for folks like YOU to dismiss as old and moldy.

Right?



Let's just make law for the fuck sake of it because we have a minroity of fucking whiners...forget the Constitution. Outcomes HAVE TO be equal

or as obama would have it f k the american people what they think.

That much is evident of Obamacare now that it is tied up in court.

Where have you been? Health care reform has been tied up in court since it passed.