There are currently two bills related to the pending FCC regs and net neutrality.

The Markey (D) bill in the House, "Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009":
And the McCain (R) bill in the Senate, "‘Internet Freedom Act of 2009’":
IMO, both are ideologically driven.

One recognizes a government regulatory role to ensure openness and one doesnt.

Ideology makes wonderful campaign promises, and might even be their guideline, although it's usually clear as mud... but it covers the ground.

That said, they don't vote ideologies, they vote bills (laws), which are complicated, long(thousands of pages), and usually have far reaching unintended consequences nobody thought of. No Congressman could possibly have time to Google all the subjects covered, no less know them.

The purpose of lobbyists was to point out all the ramifications and nuances of the legislation, so the Congressman could understand exactly what he was applying his ideology to. When a bill would help the Railroads at the expense of the coal mines, they would both send lobbyists to plead their case.
Then they decided lobbyists who were wining and dining Congressmen, and their staffers, in order to get their attention would up the ante with campaign contributions and perks like corporate jet transportation.

So when a Congressman has to vote on something that doesn't directly affect his constituents in a noticeable way, how does he balance huge campaign contributions against ideology? By trading his vote to someone that is affected by the bill, in trade for their vote on something that affects him?

Or, whoever paid best.;)

Markey's top contributor in the current campaign cylce is Time Warner...opposed to net neutrality.

Among his top industry contributors are the telephone utilities....also generally opposed to net neutrality, at least the big guys - ATT, Verizon, Bell South.... (and a little farther down on the list, music tv/movie/music industry that are generally more supportive of limiting legal fire sharing than they are net neutrality.)

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicia...270&cycle=2010

Sorry guys, I understand your cynicism, but based on personal experience, I just dont agree with it.

Oh..and I thought we de-bunked the myth of "thousand page" bills.

In this case, the McCain bill is less than one page and the Markey bill is maybe 5 pages.

That's because in this case, McCain's and Markey's are simple statements rather than major legislation.

Simple statements with significant potential impact on the future of the Internet.

And they are representative, in terms of "pages" of most bills in Congress.

Like the defense appropriation bill?
I knew a guy that wrote bills for the PA legislature. Not an elected official or staff, just an electrical engineer/ lawyer they hired to write what they wanted to accomplish, in legalese. They were fucking books.

I suspect most congressmen never see more than a synopsis.

Granted, the 12 appropriation bills are longer than most.

The Defense Approp. bill is 400+ page ...that could be printed in 200 pages if they printed on more than half the page across.

Members of Congress are provided with a reasonable (IMO) comprehensive summary (w/o the legalese) on every piece of legislation.

In any case, Undertoad would have accused me of diverting the discussion (again!) as he often does :) .. if I drifted off from the main topic of discussion.

How about sticking to net neutrality.

Pussy. :lol2:

Don't let the facts get in the way of your inability to defend yourself. :rolleyes:

The description I posted on the net neutrality principles is factual.

As are the descriptions of the two pending bills and the source of Markey's campaign contributions.

If you want to take the discussion off point with generalizations about the influence of money, so be it....even though you evidently have no direct experience in the political process or little, if any interaction, with elected officials.

But you are the best cut and paster around!

We can be whatever we want to be...thats what makes this country great. :)

And who gives a fuck what strangers think.

As for me, I knew at a young age. ;)

http://rlv.zcache.com/when_i_grow_up...0afd2y_210.jpg

Now I am just a "former"...

http://www.sfgate.com/blogs/images/s...ags175x172.jpg

... and a "fat cat" east coast liberal elitist Democrat passing the time here til I retire!

::bites tongue::

:lol2:
Anyway, preserving Net Neutrality is important, to keep a few mega-telcoms from strangling thousands of other businesses, and poking you in the pooper.

Be careful now, some people seem to want that.

anyone in particular there MTP?