Net neutrality

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Really? wow. how enlightening. not.

Now just replace ideology with power and you might be on to something.

People run for office to pursue an ideological agenda that they believe in, not with the goal of getting as much lobbyists money as they can.

Money (and power) is an enabler.

Please point me to where money indisputably changed one's ideology.

One party's ideology is to support a government regulatory role as being in the best public interest...the other's is to support a reliance on voluntary industry action as being in the best public interest. The McCain bill makes that pretty clear.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

People run for office to pursue an ideological agenda that they believe in, not with the goal of getting as much lobbyists money as they can.

Keep telling yourself this if it makes you feel better. It is false.

Money (and power) is an enabler.

Yea, all the more reason for me to contribute to the defeat of Harry Reid.

Please point me to where money indisputably changed one's ideology.

Pick up any HS history book. Don't let the facts get in the way of your excuses.

One party's ideology is to support a government regulatory role in the best public interest...the other's is to support a reliance on voluntary industry action in the best public interest.

Voluntary! What are you kidding me.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Please point me to where money indisputably changed one's ideology.

Prove to me their ideology was not changed.

Here are a few short lists:

http://politicalgraveyard.com/trouble/kickbacks.html

more recent:

Recent cases that have been investigated and politicians charged include:

Thomas Dale DeLay, Republican Representative from Texas 22nd District was indicted on criminal conspiracy and money laundering.
William Jennings Jefferson, Democratic Representative from Louisiana 2nd District, named as an unindicted co-conspirator by prosecutors in connection with the Brent Pfeffer’s guilty plea to bribery charges.
Randall Cunningham, Republican U.S. Representatives from California 50th District, pleaded guilty on Federal conspiracy and tax evasion charges.

Read more: http://peacesecurity.suite101.com/ar...#ixzz0VBQMHXQg

Let's Go International!

http://ty.rannosaur.us/10-plundering-politicians/

How about that Larry Summers! What a piece of work:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/...s_bailing_out/

http://www.sextonreunion.com/profile...st-financially

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Prove to me their ideology was not changed.

I agree completely that money can (and does) corrupt.

But where did it change DeLay's ideology or Jefferson's....or any sitting elected official? Where/when did they vote against their ideology?

When did DeLay take money to vote FOR a strong government regulatory program as opposed to supporting the position of the business community? When did Jefferson vote against the Democratic position on a bill?

[spudcon]

Okay, I'm back, and here's my answer. I don't trust ANY regulatory control over any private business by the government we've had in the last twenty years. They have proven themselves incompetant again and again. Say what you will about big business, but it's the small businesses that get bullied out by government fascism, while the big businesses that are in bed with politicians are rewarded for corruption. Remember the banks that were too big to let go under? Funny how government regulators bailed out the bank that handled their pensions, while small town banks and businesses were thrown to the wolves. If I start a small internet company, I don't want Big Brother regulating me out of business.
And just because the FCC under Bush started this idea, it is still a commission, and who are they accountable to? Not me and not you.
Keep the government out of the internet, or we'll be in the same boat as the Chinese.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by spudcon

Okay, I'm back, and here's my answer. I don't trust ANY regulatory control over any private business by the government we've had in the last twenty years. They have proven themselves incompetant again and again. Say what you will about big business, but it's the small businesses that get bullied out by government fascism, while the big businesses that are in bed with politicians are rewarded for corruption. Remember the banks that were too big to let go under? Funny how government regulators bailed out the bank that handled their pensions, while small town banks and businesses were thrown to the wolves. If I start a small internet company, I don't want Big Brother regulating me out of business.
And just because the FCC under Bush started this idea, it is still a commission, and who are they accountable to? Not me and not you.
Keep the government out of the internet, or we'll be in the same boat as the Chinese.

Yea, read my link about Larry Summers above, it will make you want to puke on his desk.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/...s_bailing_out/

[TheMercenary]

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the ideology of former Congressman Randy Cunningham:

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.co...ke-cunningham/

Followed by the ideology of former Congressman William Jefferson:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...080503195.html

[spudcon]

Reading about scumbag Summers just validates what I said. And some want the internet to be influenced by these types of bureaucrats. Blech!

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":

....to set the policy of the United States regarding various aspects of the Internet, including access, consumer choice, competition, ability to use or offer content, applications, and services, discriminatory favoritism, and capacity.

Makes it the duty of each Internet access service provider to:

[(1) not block, interfere with, discriminate against, impair, or degrade the ability of any person to use an Internet access service;
(2) not impose certain charges on any Internet content, service, or application provider;
(3) not prevent or obstruct a user from attaching or using any lawful device in conjunction with such service, provided the device does not harm the provider's network;
(4) offer Internet access service to any requesting person;
(5) not provide or sell to any content, application, or service provider any offering that prioritizes traffic over that of other such providers; and
(6) not install or use network features, functions, or capabilities that impede or hinder compliance with these duties.

Requires the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to promulgate related rules.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...58&tab=summary

And the McCain (R) bill in the Senate, "‘Internet Freedom Act of 2009’":

The Federal Communications Commission shall not propose, promulgate, or issue any regulations regarding the Internet or IP-enabled services....

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=s111-1836

IMO, both are ideologically driven.

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

[xoxoxoBruce]

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

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

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

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.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

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.