Net Neutrality: Lobbyist McCurry Raises Ire 251
BBCWatcher writes "Mike McCurry, former Clinton Administration Press Secretary turned telecommunications industry lobbyist, reacts to his many new critics in the battle over Net Neutrality: "There are millions and millions of good Democrats who get paid by corporations," he said, "and I think every time we bash corporations, we just turn off people who are in the middle of the political spectrum." Among others, top political blogger Markos Moulitsas Zúniga responded swiftly to McCurry's latest assertions: "What a dishonest piece of sh[..] McCurry has become. This is an anti-corporatist jihad, is it? Is that why we are aligned with Microsoft, Google, and eBay? And when did the Christian Coalition and the Gun Owners of America join the 'left'? What a pathetic attempt to marginalize those of us working for net neutrality....McCurry is now a sad, sad, pathetic man.""
Democrats and Corporations (Score:5, Insightful)
And it's hard to trust (Score:3, Informative)
-Have explicitly said they plan to make Google et al pay twice to use "their" pipes
-Have already blocked e.g. Vonage
-Have (unconfirmed, someone check) reserved 80% of the bandwidth in their fiber for their own TV service
-Have constantly said "There's no problem; the free market will work it out". Which to me translates as "We just want to make sure we have the power to degrade everyone's net service in order to benefit ourselves; we're not actually going to do if of course..."
Re:And it's hard to trust (Score:2)
Re:And it's hard to trust (Score:2)
Now, if the subscriber has the option to buy that bandwidth, without your TV service, then heshe can access GBC (Google Broadcasting Corporation) at a competitive speed. And your service competes with GBC on a level playing field.
Re:And it's hard to trust (Score:3, Insightful)
Who was it that laid all the fiber?
I'm not being facetious; I'm trying to figure out the argument that Verizon (for example) spends billions to lay fiber to everyone's house, and then they should sell access to that bandwidth on par with what they would use it for.
Shouldn't they be able to recoup the cost somehow? Why should they be required to subsidize competitors?
Having said that, I think that once they sell internet service at a given bandwidth (15 Mbps on my FIOS plan), they should not be allowed to
Re:And it's hard to trust (Score:2)
Poor verizon. So unfair for them to invest their hard-earned money only to have the governments that granted them a geographic monopoly actually start enforcing the common-carrier rules that have been on the books for 30 years or so.
Oh wait: Was that our hard-earned money? [muniwireless.com]
Re:And it's hard to trust (Score:2)
bitch please! (Score:2, Insightful)
Who laid that fiber? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Who laid that fiber? (Score:2)
Hate to break it to you, but it wasn't Verizon.
I'm not sure we're talking about the same fiber. In all the towns around me in MA, Verizon trucks were crawling down every street stringing fiber. When I ordered FIOS, they ran fiber from the pole to my house.
Googling for "Verizon fiber cost" turns up this article [businessweek.com], which says Verizon plans to roll out fiber-optic connections to every home and business in its 29-state territory over the next 10 to 15 years...It will cost $20 billion to $40 billion.
I suppose
Re:And it's hard to trust (Score:3, Interesting)
But some of them are stupid bribes. When the official doesn't produce results for the corporate briber, the official has not done anything wrong, except maybe allow the appearance of doing something wrong, which costs the system in ease of telling the difference.
When the official continues (or starts) to work against that corporate interest or agenda, though receivi
Re:And it's hard to trust (Score:2)
To be fair, can we agree to amend to the following:
All those [corporate | union] contributions are obviously bribes. They should be illegal - [corporations | unions] shouldn't be allowed to bribe any public official.
Re:And it's hard to trust (Score:2)
To be "fair", or rather to be protected from abuse, no one should be allowed to bribe any public official.
Humans (and only humans, not "artificial persons" like corporations of any kind) have to be allowed to donate money to politics. Otherwise, only the "media incumbents" will be known to voters enough to get elected. A real campaign finance law would allow only human American citizens to donate money only to the race itself, drawn upon equally by everyone registered on the ballot.
Re:And it's hard to trust (Score:3, Insightful)
What if I really, really want Joe Smith to be elected, and I want that so badly that I'm willing to buy a TV commercial for him? I should be free to do so.
And as long as that freedom exists, money will continue to pervert the process. I'm not convinced that less liberty is worth less perversion of the system.
Of course, now we've got both.
Re:And it's hard to trust (Score:2)
And as long as that freedom exists, money will continue to pervert the process. I'm not convinced that less liberty is worth less perversion of the system.
I'm convinced that a corrupt system is worse for the preservation of my rights in general than the loss of the right to buy an election for a candidate that I like. As long as bribery is legal, then the system will be corrupt and for sale to the highest bidder. I'm far from convinced that the highest bidder has my interests, or the interests of the co
Re:And it's hard to trust (Score:2)
Re:LOL on Exogenous Factors (Score:2, Informative)
Oil prices have risen because the 6 oil companies that control our government have cut down production. No new oil refineries have been built in the US since 1976. We are at an 8 year high in supply for oil, we just don't refine it!
Re:LOL on Exogenous Factors (Score:3, Interesting)
Considering that the Democrats have prevented new gasoline refineries from being built in the last 10 or 15 years and that the oil companies profits on one gallon of gas are around 9 cents, I find your arguments (and all those links you provide), completely unconvincing. Don't even get me started on the amount that ever single gallon of gas is taxed.
We'd be better off building more refineries and eliminating some of the massi
'Democrats' stopped refinery building?! (Score:2)
Maybe we could just USE LESS, ya think? Eat less food, burn less fuel...you know, don't be a hog.
Re:LOL on Exogenous Factors (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, it is. (though you wouldn't know it from all the oil execs lying and blaming ethonol producers, the US Congress and OPEC a few months ago).
Considering that the Democrats have prevented new gasoline refineries from being built in the last 10 or 15 years and that the oil companies profits on one gallon of gas are around 9 cents, I find your arguments (and all those links you provide), completely unconvincing.
Nobody is prevent
Re:LOL on Exogenous Factors (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps you could let the oil companies know of a location where they could set up a new refinery. It would need to be near existing oil distribution systems and the neighbors and local community ordinances will need to not oppose the development. Shouldn't be too hard, right?
If you look at these oil companies investor reports, you will see it is price gouging. Take Exxon/Mobil.
Re:LOL on Exogenous Factors (Score:2)
Actually, perhaps first you could persuade them to do so. As I understand it, they're not actually dying to build new refineries. That's B.S. that has been made up for you. Or is driving the cost of their product down somehow in their interest?
Re:LOL on Exogenous Factors (Score:2)
Your argument doesn't pass even basic muster. The issue isn't whether the incumbents are building refineries, but whether or not anyone is building refineries. When new entrepreneurs can't build refineries to cash in on the gasoline shortage, it isn't a lack of will, it's an impossibly high barrier to entry.
Stated another way: if you are convinced that there are hundreds of millions to be made
Re:Democrats and Corporations (Score:3, Interesting)
Well I think its safe to say that oil prices are more than a little vulnerable to manipulation. Now its nearly impossible to tell who is doing all the manipulating, but I would guess big oil companies and OPEC governments certainly have a part. OPEC is after all a cartel which is designed to collude to set production and manipulate prices though they are often not very good at it any more.
Whomever the mysterious oil "traders" are who dr
Re:Democrats and Corporations (Score:2)
Well since then it came to light that energy traders at Enron, Dynegy and number of other electricity providers were in fact colluding to inflate the price and to create artif
he is exactly right (Score:4, Insightful)
Yup, by his definition they are "good".. By the rest of us they are paid off hooligans trading personal wealth and power for our freedoms and rights, and our freedoms and rights are a no cost giveaway for these guys.
Good is a relative term and it has been proven for thousands of years that those in power have a very different view of good and evil than the rest of the population.
He's talking about employees, though. (Score:2)
Re:he is exactly right (Score:2)
So it's official now? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:So it's official now? (Score:2)
Either that or please offer some cheese with your pointless whines.
Re:So it's official now? (Score:2)
Re:So it's official now? (Score:2)
There are other offices. And right now there are people challenging what you point out. Ned Lamont is challenging Lieberman in CT. Winograd is challenging Harmen in CA. Tasini is challenging Clinton in NY. And Howard Dean is executing a 50 state strategy to re-energise local Democratic parties across America. Not to invest in individual campaigns but to invest in the party - to give people a place to debate and discuss ideas.
You're
Re:So it's official now? (Score:2)
FWIW, because they would be removing impediments to how the telcos do business, this sounds to me like deregulation...I have a hard time opposing that in most cases. It may suck for the consumer in the short term, but it will end up creating com
Two things... (Score:5, Interesting)
#2. Generally speaking, wider "left" political blogsophere supports net neutrality very strongly. And the reason for that, is actually a traditionally centrist viewpoint, namely in order to maximize the effect and forces of a free and open market. Eliminating net neutrality is a great threat to putting a full stop to innovation in business and technology on the internet. It stops new players and technologies from taking those first baby steps out.
You have one area of business with high barriers to entry and a few companies, and you have another area of business with much lower barriers to entry and new companies forming every day?
Which is the important one to protect here?
Re:Two things... (Score:2)
The motivations are different but the results are the same.
Re:Two things... (Score:2)
In reality, this is one of those issues that there's two sides. You have the DC/WallStreet community vs. The Rest Of Us.
Re:And what one will the few, protected by barrier (Score:2)
The biggies I can see are VoIP and Streaming Audio/Video. Those are the obvious ones.
However, from comments the telco industry has made, it seems that they're going to play hardball with this. So more than likely any business who tries to operate via the internet will need to pay the telcos to be able to do it.
The problem I see isn't with for example, EBay being charged. The problem I see is the sucessor to Ebay getting charged, and because of that is unable to get off the ground.
Re:Two things... (Score:2)
Not as much as you'd think, and that was part of my point. There's nothing anti-business, per se, about the Democratic base, as it exists right now. There's things about how there needs to be a balance or society and the economy will have serious problems in the long run, but that's not anti-business. That's just being pragmatic.
The problem with just abandoning the poor, is what do you expect the poor to do? Find jobs? There's not enough jobs
Not helping! (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course I agree with this blogger, but I don't think he is doing our cause any good by spouting off like this. On Slashdot we always poke fun at corporate bigwigs with anger issues(look at Steve Balmer), why should bloggers be any different. That said, I of course agree with net neutrality like anybody in their right mind would... unless of course they work for said corporations.
Re:Not helping! (Score:2)
I think you might be confused, and talking about the Ultimate Flame? That wasn't really Zuniga's complete answer. It was a joke.
As to controlling our anger, I sort of agree. But I also understand perfectly when people reach a tipping poing and get emotional. This article [mydd.com] starts with "That's it. Burn DC to the ground. " but becomes a very well-argued piece.
Re:Not helping! (Score:2)
Re:Not helping! (Score:2)
The giant flame posted above? Markos didn't write that. Rather, it was a slightly altered copy of the flame to end all flames which the writer helpfully included an oh-so-obvious link to down at the very bottom of the mass of text. [everything2.org]
LAtimes.com requires registration (Score:3, Informative)
WASHINGTON -- Former White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry is no stranger to well-aimed political attacks. After all, he held down the briefing room podium for Bill Clinton during the height of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, a task he compared to being a "human pinata."
He was called "a stonewalling administration mouthpiece" who "perfected a plethora of dodges" and "was a master at speaking with charm, wit, self-deprecation and ease -- yet saying nothing."
ADVERTISEMENT
But even McCurry admitted surprise at the verbal shellacking he's received on the Internet lately. More shocking to McCurry is the end of the political spectrum doing most of the name calling: his traditionally supportive left.
It's all because of his latest job working for AT&T Inc., BellSouth Corp. and some other communications companies to shape public opinion on perhaps the most controversial aspect of telecom legislation moving through Congress.
"I've faced far worse in the past," McCurry said of the criticism. "Although the bad names I got called were from the other side."
McCurry is co-chairman of Hands Off the Internet, a group arguing against so-called Net neutrality rules -- federal regulations preventing phone and cable companies from charging extra to zip some high-bandwidth services through their wires faster than others.
The group is squarely in the middle of a brewing battle over the issue against big Internet companies, such as Google Inc., Yahoo Inc. and Microsoft Corp. With many congressional Democrats and liberal bloggers supporting Net neutrality, McCurry finds himself opposing his historical allies.
In a highly charged election year, McCurry has been branded a turncoat, a Democratic Jedi lost to the dark side at a time of looming crisis across the Internet.
The intense and personal flogging -- partly provoked by McCurry's sharp responses -- shows how contentious Net neutrality has become for some Internet users.
He's been called a "sellout" and "stooge," a purveyor of "dishonest hackery" and "classic flack misdirection," and an "industry sock puppet."
"I think people are reacting not just to the issue but to their disdain for a top-tier Democrat shilling in such an overt way for big-money interests," said David Sirota, a liberal political blogger and author of "Hostile Takeover: How Big Money and Corruption Conquered Our Government -- and How We Take It Back."
McCurry said the response to his new job demonstrated the "constant jihad" of 21st century politics and the ongoing struggle between the liberal and centrist wings of the Democratic Party.
"There are millions and millions of good Democrats who get paid by corporations," he said, "and I think every time we bash corporations, we just turn off people who are in the middle of the political spectrum."
McCurry is one of those Democrats.
After leaving the White House in 1998, McCurry became a partner at Public Strategies Group in Washington, developing communications strategies for corporate and nonprofit clients.
He signed on earlier this year with a coalition of telecommunications companies battling an effort by large Internet companies to get Congress to pass rules that would outlaw any preferential treatment of data over the Internet.
Some phone company executives want to charge extra to guarantee fast and reliable delivery of video and other data-heavy applications.
As word spread of McCurry's role, bloggers started ripping him.
Last month, McCurry ripped back.
"On Net neutrality, I feel like screaming 'puh-leeeze,' " he wrote on the Huffington Post, where he sometimes blogs. "The Internet is not a free public good. It is a bunch of wires and switches and connections and pipes and it is creaky."
He slammed his critics for "worshipping" Vint Cerf, a co-founder of the Internet and now a Google executive who has testified to Congress about the need for Net neutrality rules. McCurry said Cerf had "a clear
Re:LAtimes.com requires registration (Score:2)
Am I the only one who thinks this? (Score:3, Interesting)
Ummm... birds of a feather? (Score:2)
Re:Am I the only one who thinks this? (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:Am I the only one who thinks this? (Score:2)
Re:Am I the only one who thinks this? (Score:3, Funny)
What do we want? Equal access! When do we want it? Now! End the Slashdot liberal bias!
Re:Wrong (Score:2)
You people slay me
Well argued = making points and using facts that people here are willing to acknolege.
Less than polite = Something anyone beloved here has done thats not quite kosher
Gotten Wrong or Misrepresented = Things which are not to be spoken of
Don't mind opening themselves up = To points of view which are more extreme forms of the ones they allready hold
If you want to have some fun you can try any of these topics
The bush administration invasion of Iraq has resulted in a net
Re:Wrong Again (Score:2)
But youre absolutely right I am not taking you seriously why should I.
You demand in the classic manner of the arrogant left that I don't provide evidence that I should find you the numbers to support my case when you havent even provided a single putative example to support your argument. As the UFO nuts are so loathe to hear Extraordinary claims require Extraordinary evidence. If you want posts and examples for my position just
Re:Wrong Again (Score:2)
You really need to learn how to read.
claim that Clinton was the only good economic result out of four dem presidents.
No I claimed he was the only one who could lay any claim to a balanced budget. This is a matter of history and you should have this in your basic stock of knowledge.
Al Gore inventing the internet. That wasn't a joke it was just sad. The same way he claimed he claimed his mother sang him the ILGWU song to sleep. or the way he went to Dubai and made anti americ
This is a surprise? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah yes, the binary view of political life (Score:2)
Anyone who thinks otherwie -- and mind you, this is totally regardless of party affiliation -- is being silly.
Anyone? Really? Anyone who disagrees with your binary interpretation of all the people who have ever held the office of White House Press Secretary is being silly? I guess I'm silly, then.
All other press secreteries are simply PR figureheads, who never -- not ever -- present their own views, if, indeed, they even have any.
Wow. Not ever. Not once. I'm sure most of them have no party affilia
Re:Ah yes, the binary view of political life (Score:2)
Re:"Personally inconvenient"?! (Score:2)
He's got a point, though. That was an awful thing to have to endure, but that doesn't give Brady the right to lobby against my and your constitutional protections.
This is not a Left Vs Right issue (Score:3, Insightful)
If you take away the legislation part of this discussion I'm not sure that the lefties and free market guys wouldn't swap positions on Net Neutrality.
The push for legislation has steered this discussion more than the issue itself.
Re:This is not a Left Vs Right issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Surely, there is no need for it? (Score:2, Insightful)
Surely this obvious fact renders the arguments against NN null and void?
Re:Surely, there is no need for it? (Score:2)
The fact that it will stomp on start up web companies and whatnot is incidental for the telcos. Collateral damage in a war for profit, unfortunate, but not worth stopping for.
two ends of the pipe (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Surely, there is no need for it? (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Heh, there is a lot of dishonesty to go around (Score:2)
I don't know why you'd assume that's NOT what the telecoms really want to do.
It's not like the future of online hi-def video services is going to be Anonymous FTP sites. That content is going to be distributed via the Web, and more specifically via video-centric we
Re:Heh, there is a lot of dishonesty to go around (Score:2)
Yes, they do. The telcos can see the writing on the wall. The phone companies are just starting to hemorrhage customers to VOIP, but they know it's going to change from a trickle to a torrent. They're already hurting because of cell networks (which is why they own big chunks of them) and VOIP is going to make it worse. And it
Wow (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't hold back on the character assassination there Markos. However, if you read through his blog post it seems to be pretty well deserved. McCurry does seem to have run out of arguments on the issue in question and is now resorting to "Well, these people must just be anti-corporation lefties", somewhat ignorant of the fact that many corporations are seriously against all this. It would be hugely detrimental to Google
"The internet has always had rules. One of those rules is that even if you own a pipe, you're not allowed to tell people what they can put through that pipe. You can't block web sites, you can't say 'don't stream video', and you can't dictate what people and can't say. You do have to pay for the pipe you use; Google pays millions a month on one end, and millions of consumers pay smaller amounts ($20-$60) a month on the other. But no one can tell you what you can do with those pipes. It's very much the opposite of cable TV. There are no gatekeepers, and that's by design. This has created a highly competitive marketplace."
This is the way the internet works, and even if the Telcos get what they want the internet will definitely not work like this. There is simply no other way. It will simply collapse and people will bypass the telcos and go their own way, or the internet in the US certainly would be non-existant for most ordinary citizens while other countries surge ahead. Anyway, one can see why the telcos are reacting badly because in the long-run they are simply on a hiding to nothing, but it really doesn't matter one bit how much they spend. The only certainty in life and in business is change.
Did we need more proof? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Did we need more proof? (Score:2)
To be fair, I don't think Mr. McCurry is currently serving as a direct member of "our government" any more.
He may be a slimeball, but he's no longer a government slimeball -- that job's currently fulfilled by Messrs. DeLay, Santorum, Frist...
Bah. Why the hell did you blank out "shit"? (Score:2)
What it means to be a Democrat (Score:4, Informative)
Oh, speaking as a Demcorat, I can agree that it's a bad thing to "bash" corporations, provided that by "bash" you mean "persecute in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner."
However,it's profoundly against what it means to be a Democrat to call it "bashing" just because you aren't doing what an individual corporation or cartel would like. What it means to be a Demcorat is to belive that the government is the custodian of the public good, as measured by the effect on the welfare and freedom on a typical person. Sometimes this means standing in the way of private companies, sometimes this means stepping aside, and sometimes this means encouraging them. In the end the significance of the corporation's welfare is, in itself, zero. If a policy is good for the public and good for a corporation, that's nice. But if a policy is good for the public and bad for an individual corporation, or even corporations as a whole, it's still a good policy.
That's what distinguishes us from the Republicans, who think this is very nearly a logical contradiction. You don't have to be anti-corporate to be a Democrat. You can still be a Demcorat an think that 99.9% of the time favoring corporations as a whole favors the public. You just can't think that favoring corporations and favoring people is the same thing.
You can be a Democrat and make an argument against net neutrality -- it's an uphill battle, but it can be done. You just have to show a quid pro quo in which the public gives up the right to unfettered competition in Internet content, but gains something more valuable in return. It's hard to imagine what this would be though. With cable and the end of rules limiting ownership of broadcast outlets and newspapers, we're seeing the end of the traditional media as a marketplace of ideas, even if economic competition continues unabated. What will happen when corporations can favor their own Internet media as well?
"The Internet is not a free public good. It is a bunch of wires and switches and connections and pipes and it is creaky."
This is also completely wrong.
The Internet is not a bunch of wires and switches. It's a shared consensus on how to interconnect networks and computers. Granted consumers connect to the Internet over and individual vendor's equipment; in fact when you plug your computer into the network your computer becomes, technically speaking, part of the Internet. This doesn't mean you own part of the Internet. It means your equipment is participating in it.
It follows that no cartel of vendors should be allowed to sieze control of the Internet by aquiring control strategic pieces of it. That was what the medieval barons, who were really no than brigands, used to do. They'd build a castle on a river or at a mountain pass and bled the commerce that went through it.
You are who you quote? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:DailyKos is pathetic (Score:5, Funny)
Re:DailyKos is pathetic (Score:2)
Re:DailyKos is pathetic (Score:2, Informative)
Actually, it was
Mercenaries. Must be nice to be able to redefine the language for one's convenience.
Who's pathetic? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Who's pathetic? (Score:2)
Re:Who's pathetic? (Score:3, Interesting)
Very common. In fact, I would wager you use it as well (as does almost every other human being). Allow me to demonstrate:
s/Liberal/Nazi (I am in no way trying to equate the two; this is merely an academic exercise to indicate that if we change the source in question, you would react quite differently.):
"Dietrich proudly wears the label of Nazi And so he can't ever be correct, and anyone who listens to him is obviously
Re:Who's pathetic? (Score:2)
On a slightly more relevant note, one of my best friends is a pretty hardcore conservative, while my leanings are definately more liberal. Yet we still manage to have friendly discussion
Re:Who's pathetic? (Score:2)
"Dietrich proudly wears the label of Nazi And so he can't ever be correct, and anyone who listens to him is obviously a partisian Nazi as well. No need to consider what he said. Don't think about it, just reflexively discount it. If he knew anything about anything, he would be a non-Nazi."
So according to that logic, we should all start smoking.
So you're not going to bother with refutation? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:DailyKos is pathetic (Score:2)
Re:DailyKos is pathetic (Score:2)
I wish conservatives would stop attacking the messenger instead of the message. Look, are you for or against the message daily kos is saying? If the message is correct, it shouldn't matter who's saying it.
The message is shock that a democrat would sell out the people and the country.
This message is hillarious, its every bit as funny as mentioning that bush has accomplished quite alot as president and then seeing the democrats in the room have epileptic fits.
Its every bit as funny
Re:Best of luck on that base thing (Score:2, Insightful)
This is the base who's wondering why Bush slept at the switch for six years and then suddenly discovered this highly-divisive issue when his poll numbers were tanking. They're here. They are part of the economy. They are here SOLELY because they have discovered that employers will hire them -- and it is to the exploitative employers that the "base" directs our ire. These employers have lived in an
The GOP stand for sex for virgins ?? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Markos Moulitsas Zúniga (Score:2)
Past Hundred Years (Score:3, Informative)
Clintons surplus was non existent (see counting social security taxes as income and not counting the debt). The last real surplus was under Eisenhower and had a Republican congress.
National unemployment rate at 4.7 percent or full employment, gotta enjoy that decline.
Sir despite the above I will concede you the debate for I am crippled in that I argue from facts.
bullshit (Score:4, Interesting)
The Republican pattern of fiscal irresponsibility and anti-growth policies is also illustrated at the state level: there is a huge net flow of funds from Democratic states to Republican states.
Republicans like to talk a lot about growth and fiscal responsibility, but in reality, what Republicans primarily deliver is handouts to the rich, bloated government, and restrictions on personal freedoms.
It would be nice to have true conservative government: government that is frugal, government that respects traditional liberties, and government that limits its own size and scope; unfortunately, Republicans are the antithesis of that. The problem with Republican rhetoric isn't even that their criticism of Democrats is wrong, it's that they themselves are even worse.
Re:bullshit (Score:2)
Clinton did not have a surplus if you removed the false social security surplus the social security funds are there to be paid back later.
You also assume I am pro the current republican spending patterns I am not. But you raise a good point even if you cant understand it. The budget and spending are controlled by the congress not the president. So if you want to claim that there was a balanced budget during the clinton years
Re:bullshit (Score:2)
Re:bullshit (Score:2)
Re:bullshit (Score:2)
Employment (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:good thing, too (Score:2)
Re:good thing, too (Score:2)
Re:Middle of the spectrum? (Score:2)
We would vote for our conservatives, but not so many would vote for them if they were like yours...
Of course, we could be getting a misrepresentation from those notorious socialists in Fox news.
Re:keep your laws off my network. (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly! AT&T and Verizon only have YOUR best interests at heart in opposing network neutrality.
Re:Considering all sides of the issue... (Score:2, Insightful)
Excuse me, but as a content producer myself, I ALREADY pay for the bandwidth of my content. At the moment, it costs about $10/month [phpwebhosting.com], but in the event that my weblog [christakos.com] becomes much more popular than it is now, I'm going to have to start shelling out much more money.
Google already pays millions of dollars a month for its ban
Re:Considering all sides of the issue... (Score:2, Interesting)
And then some roads... would be just impossible to get on. What's that? You say you want to drive to Disneyland? Congratulations because now the roads to access the Disneyland parking lots all charge a sur-charge of 20.00.
What's this? Y
Re:Considering all sides of the issue... (Score:2)
You're only missing one word:
if you are a content producer you should pay ONCE for the bandwidth that is allocated for your content, period and end of story
The anti-neutrality side wants to get double-dip second, third, etc payments for that which has already been purchased.
Common Misconception (Score:2, Interesting)
Every backbone provider is being paid for use of their networks. I fault the "cloud" concept of the Internet for the public's ignorance, because people just assume their data magically gets to the other side through sheer benevolence on the part of the unseen network providers. When people say that Level 3 doesn't pay AT&T for carrying traffic, and then they use that premis