Net neutrality: John McCain says no, Glenn Beck sees a Marxist plot — DailyFinance — Well, these two in agreement must mean net neutrality is indeed a good thing.
Sen. John McCain, the Arizona Republican, introduced a bill late Thursday that would short-circuit the FCC’s ability to enforce its proposed open Internet rules. In a press release, McCain said the new rules will “stifle innovation, in turn slowing our economic turnaround and further depressing an already anemic job market.” McCain is particularly opposed to extending net neutrality to the wireless space, and his bill, the Internet Freedom Act of 2009, comes as opponents of net neutrality launched a furious attack on the FCC and the Obama administration.
Glenn Beck, the popular TV and radio host with 3 million nightly viewers, has blasted net neutrality as a “Marxist” plot by the Obama administration to take over the Internet.
When ever someone uses the word “innovation” I know they are full of shit. Most especially when it comes from a corporate tool like McCain.
That pic alone is enough to convince me that your argument is sound.
#2. Actually, I’m studying her book collection.
Dude… I’m at work here!! Stop with the stupid NSFW pics!
Anything other than a clear statement of “you can not degrade service or traffic of a particular company or application for the sole reason of advancing your own service or application” will be a tool for abuse in 10 years. This will lead to a government censored internet…of course it will be done “for the children” and to stop “child pornography.” No one will question why the laws are dropped off by the IP lobbyists.
So the only reason they Republicans are complaining is because they aren’t the ones doing it.
And JCD wonders why this site was websensed
but to play devil’s advocate you cant see her nipples.
The best part is that, at least in the clip I saw, Beck wasn’t even talking about net neutrality. He was talking about universal broadband access which is a different thing.
Love it how the bill is title for “freedom and openess” when it’s actually NOT. Well maybe for these communication companies it gives them more freedoms while their customers lose it.
I’m siding with the tech industry on Net Neutrality – Google, Intel, Apple, ..you name it.
As expected, the fascist Republicans paid off by the old industry monopolists ATT, Comcast, etc want to charge a variable toll depending on what internet content gets consumed.
Youtube video? $1 a megabyte. Fox Snooze? 25¢
a megabyte.
This is what the Republicans stand for and have the audacity of calling Net Neutrality a stifle on innovation. The whole reason why there is huge innovation on the internet now is the very fact that it has been open.
Why McCain, a 300 year old relic has a say on this is astonishing. Follow the money.
#3 What book collection?
She should reveal the rest of her arguments.
Gentlemen, put your stick shifts in neutral and discuss the subject in matter.
Thank you.
@#5 Yes!!
Net Neutrality is indeed double edged sword, easy to implement in a dangerous way, one where we replace potential BigCompanies abuse with even more dangerous BigGovernment abuse.
Anything beyond simple one (or less) page law without any Govt. mandates and monitoring and loopholes and exemptions would be slippery slope to Govt. controlled Internet in the name of Net Neutrality.
Net Neutrality, yes. Govt. meddling in it NO.
Glen Beck and John McCain are absolutely wrong here.
I’m getting sick of these companies that say they are capitalist and then have no problem asking the government for handouts or favoritism. Need a new football stadium? No problem, we can get the citizens to pay for it again and again and again and you get to keep the profit. What a deal. Need to run cable, no problem. We can use the citizens public right of way for next to nothing and you can keep the profit. What a country. Oh my gawd, you gonna default on trillions in credit default swaps, you poor babies, here’s a trillion bucks from the U.S. taxpayers. Fucking dirt bags.
Glenn Beck is a jerk and CIA operative.
If someone would SIT down and read threw the measure TO THE PUBLIC from the net..and explain the meanings of it…MAYBE we might have an opinion..
Corps DONT PAY SQUAT..
They will make you pay 10 times for a product or feature BEFORE giving it to you.
Think of the features you could have on a cellphone, then THINK about the FUN thats been happening with ATT and the iphone..
Think about the USA not being in the TOP 10 with internet speed and access..
THINK about internet access and that it took 10 years to get the FULL coverage to RURAL areas in this country. AND STILL, if you dont live IN/CLOSE tot he small towns, you STILL dont get access…
THINK about CELL towers, and they still have DEAD SPOTS.
Think of computer advancements THAT ARENT true advancement..selling you features that SHOULD/COULD have been there 10 years ago, and features and abilities that SHOULD BE THERE from 20 years ago.
DVD players that SHOULD have features available in OTHER countries but are restricted HERE..and SOON even more so..as the MPAA dont want you copying DISKS/video/movies/TV…
AND YOU PAY FOR IT.
That linked article was an embarrassment of reporting. Full of shrills and no one of credibility.
Nowhere in the article is there actually any mention of why people have a problem with Net Neutrality.
Well, let’s try this.
The definition of Net Neutrality:
“FCC Broadband Policy Statement
* access the lawful Internet content of their choice.
* run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.
* connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network.
* competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.
FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski proposed to add two additional rules on top of its 2005 policy statement, viz., the nondiscrimination principle that ISPs must not discriminate against any content or applications, and the transparency principle, which requires that ISPs disclose all their policies to customers.”
See the problems?
What is the definition of “legal” and “lawful”, and who gets to make that decision?
What about “subject to the needs of law enforcement”? What precisely does that mean?
government + regulation = the road to 1984
Anyone surprised? John McCain also supports sexual harassment and rape, if it’s to protect corporations.
Can someone explain Net Neutrality to me?
Ok, if an ISP wants to charge $25 for certain amount of bits at a certain speed, that’s fine with me.
And if they want to charge for more bits at the same speed, again fine with me. (If you want a bigger car, then you pay more.)
And if they want to charge for more speed and more bits, thats ok too. (If you wanted a faster car, then you pay more.)
But if they want to charge more because of the type of bits (VOIP, BitTorrents, etc) then that is NOT ok with me – because to do so would require them to actually monitor the data I am transferring and that would inevitably lead to some kind of control and censorship.
why is Republicans so often come out against what they claim to stand for? Democrats are too diverse to really stand for much but those homogenized Republicans can be such hypocrites. Time to retire McCain have a seat, And Beck get a spine and say what you think instead of right wing opinion poll broadcasting. Ratings will keep you employed until you self destruct my guess is that will happen on air then you will have to live with yourself.
Like music CD’s, if they raise the price I will not buy. I think it’s only a matter of time until that happens. Heck, as crappy as our connections are now, I’m almost there already.
I new you would have to use some more soft porn soon. Nice picture.
I wish Beck would make his mind up whether Obama is a Marxist or a Nazi. I’m starting to think he’s making it up as he goes along.
I’m kind of with John on this. The net is not and has never been neutral. There all manner of packer prioritisation and private networking going on everywhere. Application layer discrimination is happening all the time in both public and private networks. What does network neutrality actually MEAN?
Where the nub of the argument lives, for mine, is discriminating of source / destination traffic based on a commercial agreement, as Art Brodsky point out in the article. I suspect McCain and Becks corporate masters want to be able to ‘bribe the internet’ into preferable treatment.
That said I don’t really trust the Democrat’s motives either. They clearly want to have a bill that allows them as much scope as possible to do whatsoever they like.
just remember how much you loved net neutrality when your IP phone sounds more like Sprint than MA Bell and you can’t get your bills paid on your bank’s website because the interwebitubes are clogged with google’s new ANY MOVIE EVER MADE IN 1080P uber-HD FOR FREE streaming service which your ISP is forced to carry with equal priority with your IP-based phone and your secure browser traffic.
Glen Beck and John McCain are jackasses.
Here’s a clear situation where clearly they’ve got their heads so far up the asses of their corporate backers that shit streams out their mouths.
@RSweeney
And just remember how much you hated it when you have to pay 25 cents for every you tube video you download.
The cable and media companies want to tier CONTENT. They are going to splinter the internet into their own domains. There will be the Comcast internet and the TimeWarner internet etc.
LOL, Lib posters are for it because MaCain and Beck are against it … and they have no damn idea what ‘net neutrality’ actually means. Neither do I.
Ask twenty people who really do know what they are talking about, and you will get twenty different definitions for net neutrality.
What do I know about? I know we have one group of corporate giants for it and another group against it. Gee, which group do you think gives a shit about our welfare? Which group do you think cut the best deal with soon-to-be-ex-FCC heads? Which made the biggest contributions to McCain?
A pox on them all. When in doubt, leave it the fuck alone. Let the damn market place work it out until it proves that it can’t or won’t.
Once again, hatred for Beck & McCain dominates what should be a dialog while all Republican’s are painted as evil corporate tools – while at the very same time the real supporters of “net neutrality” are giant corporations like Google, Apple, Microsoft etc… But they can’t be evil like At&t or Comcast…
Listen, when you talk of a neutral network – that is all very nice – running skype or WOW and getting the same bandwidth is great. If THAT was all Net neutrality was who won’t want it?
So what is the problem???
Government regulates hwys for traffic, airwaves (radio) – so what is the issue?
Imagine some one coming to your house and saying they will pay your to walk from the front door to the back every day, so you say yes, from 9-5 you can… then the Government comes along and says you have to let anyone through – anytime, with anything that will fit through your door…
If it is a private network – by what right has the government to regulate it?
If public, then fine, regulate all you want.
Duh.
And get off the ridicule of anyone you don’t agree with. Beck is not even a republican, and McCain is just to the right of Obama, so what’s the flippin’ difference in the titles?
Read the proposed FCC rules – these guys are DYING to get a regulatory foot in the door… Ask yourself WHY?
Define corporate tool:
“McCain, who introduced the bill to undermine the new rules, has received some $894,379 in contributions from AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and other broadband interests over his career, many of those dollars directed to his 2008 presidential campaign, according to the Sunlight Foundation.”
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/10/22/net-neutrality-john-mccain-says-no-glenn-beck-sees-a-marxist-p/
Oh, yea, and:
Early in 2007, just as her husband launched his presidential bid, Cindy McCain sought to resolve an old problem — the lack of cellphone coverage on her remote 15-acre ranch near Sedona, Ariz., nestled deep in a tree-lined canyon called Hidden Valley.
Verizon and AT&T Provided Cell Towers for McCain Ranch
Early in 2007, just as her husband launched his presidential bid, Cindy McCain sought to resolve an old problem — the lack of cellphone coverage on her remote 15-acre ranch near Sedona, Ariz., nestled deep in a tree-lined canyon called Hidden Valley. … In July, AT&T followed suit, wheeling in a portable tower for free to match Verizon’s offer. “This is an unusual situation,” AT&T spokeswoman Claudia B. Jones said. “You can’t have a presidential nominee in an area where there is not cell coverage.”
Ethics lawyers said Cindy McCain’s dealings with the wireless companies stand out because her husband, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), is a senior member of the Senate commerce committee, which oversees the Federal Communications Commission and the telecommunications industry. He has been a leading advocate for industry-backed legislation, fighting regulations and taxes on telecommunication services.
McCain and his campaign have close ties to Verizon and AT&T. Five campaign officials, including manager Rick Davis, have worked as lobbyists for Verizon. Former McCain staff member Robert Fisher is an in-house lobbyist for Verizon and is volunteering for the campaign. Fisher, Verizon chief executive Ivan G. Seidenberg and company lobbyists have raised more than $1.3 million for McCain’s presidential effort, and Verizon employees are among the top 20 corporate donors over McCain’s political career, giving his campaigns more than $155,000.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/15/AR2008101503575.html
Tool. Defined.