×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

607 comments

Enjoy. (5, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35437634)

you fools gave your houses to the right wing party. right wing parties anywhere around the world, always support corporations over people.

it doesnt matter what your reasons or excuses for voting for a right wing party. you may even be quite right and correct in your reasons. BUT, a right wing party will always support corporations over people, in every way they can. even their acts which appear pro-people, will end up being pro-corp in the long run.

Re:Enjoy. (2, Insightful)

hduff (570443) | more than 3 years ago | (#35437644)

you fools gave your houses to the right wing party. politicians anywhere around the world, always support corporations over people. .

FTFY

Re:Enjoy. (1, Flamebait)

rsilvergun (571051) | more than 3 years ago | (#35437696)

No, the right wing are the ones to watch for. They're the conservatives, meaning they're taking care of the old guard. The left wing are in liberals, they're in favor of change, so they're not as concerned with making sure the ones with family money keep it.

Yes, politicians say and do what they need to get elected. Yes, they can all be bought off. But if you're talking in general the right wing sides with people that already have money, and that's Corporate American and our current ruling class.

Re:Enjoy. (5, Insightful)

rbollinger (1922546) | more than 3 years ago | (#35437896)

Take a quick look at the campaign finances of President Obama and see if you can still make this comment with a straight face. He raised more than three times as much money as Senator McCain in 2008, including rather large contributions from: Goldman Sachs, Microsoft, Google, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Time Warner, General Electric, Morgan Stanley, and IBM. Granted I wouldn't call some of these new companies the 'Old Guard' but there are plenty on that list that fit the bill.

Source: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=n00009638 [opensecrets.org]

Re:Enjoy. (0)

Manfre (631065) | more than 3 years ago | (#35437948)

McCain often acts as if he is senile and Palin is a moron.

Source: Every time they open their mouths

Re:Enjoy. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35438096)

You're acting as if Palin is a moron, so you're right there with him.

Re:Enjoy. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35437978)

That list adds up to less than $14 million. Of the $388 million he raised. Less than 4%? Not really proving your point there.

Re:Enjoy. (3, Insightful)

Swampash (1131503) | more than 3 years ago | (#35438078)

No, the right wing are the ones to watch for. They're the conservatives, meaning they're taking care of the old guard. The left wing are in liberals, they're in favor of change, so they're not as concerned with making sure the ones with family money keep it.

Bear in mind of course that anywhere else in the civilised world the US Democratic Party would be regarded as ultra-right religio-fascists. They're only "left wing" to Americans.

Re:Enjoy. (-1, Troll)

khallow (566160) | more than 3 years ago | (#35438172)

When I read stuff like this, I wonder if any true "change" in political ideology has happened since the Age of Enlightenment. The US Constitution is one of the great works of that time. I see lesser men, such as yourself, as trying to destroy that work, just as they unmade much of the hopes and desires of that era.

Sure, it's too bad that business, particularly for-profit corporations, has too much power. But they at least have an interest in society and its functioning. When I read your empty words, I'm reminded that there are enemies of freedom who'd rather have vaporous predilections like "change" (you couldn't even say "change" was a promise or goal, it's something that the "left wing" "favors") rather than a society that works and which we can be proud of.

Re:Enjoy. (1)

guyminuslife (1349809) | more than 3 years ago | (#35438246)

I think it's more accurate to say that both the Republican and Democratic parties have a wide range of groups whose interests they tend to represent. Some of those groups are more represented by one party than the other, but corporations typically play both sides of the aisle. Of course, it's a misconception to think that there is only one Corporate America. Different corporations have different interests. Corporate America, as such, doesn't feel one way or the other---at the corporate level, net neutrality is a conflict between a number of Internet content providers and a number of ISPs. Oh, and there are users, but I'm not sure where they fit in.

You overlooked something... (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 3 years ago | (#35437674)

you fools gave your houses to the right wing party. right wing parties anywhere around the world, always support corporations over people.

We didn't give the government to them - at least not in the 2010 election cycle. Rather several decades (or more) ago we happily sold them to them. The only difference is that now the "two" parties are openly showing that there is virtually nothing different between them. We have a (theoretically) non-right-wing president who is continuing every last executive decision of his right-wing predecessor. Meanwhile congress is doing the same thing they did two years ago, which is what they did two years before that, which is what they did two years before that, etc ...

Sure, some people with power are now more openly right-wing, but in the end we don't have any politicians who are not right-wing.

it doesnt matter what your reasons or excuses for voting for a right wing party

Sadly, some people thought they were voting for a non-right-wing party. Now that the curtain has fallen they are realizing that indeed every politician comes from the same party now.

Re:You overlooked something... (5, Informative)

BBTaeKwonDo (1540945) | more than 3 years ago | (#35437762)

Did you see where the summary said, "voted 15-8 along party lines"? How does that support your thesis that every politician comes from the same party?

Re:You overlooked something... (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#35438048)

Did you see where the summary said, "voted 15-8 along party lines"? How does that support your thesis that every politician comes from the same party?

Every politician comes from the same party, but they have to appear to fight. Jets fans and Patriots fans will both agree that Soccer is for pansies, but if a Jets fan knows a Patriots fan is talking smack about Soccer, the Jets fan will pretend to support the lesser-known Futball.

Re:You overlooked something... (1, Troll)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 3 years ago | (#35438076)

Because every time Democrats do something bad, it's "both parties are equally corrupt." Every time the Repubs pull a fast one, it's "only the Right are corrupt." This is a remarkably consistent rule that you see around here all the time. It's being subverted by a previous poster and it evidently is causing minds to explode.

Re:You overlooked something... (2)

pitchpipe (708843) | more than 3 years ago | (#35438268)

Because every time Democrats do something bad, it's "both parties are equally corrupt." Every time the Repubs pull a fast one, it's "only the Right are corrupt."

I know right?! No one sticks up for the poor Republicans anymore. It's sad.

Re:You overlooked something... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35438200)

It's planned that way. They have to do something to differentiate themselves. If the other side voted for it then they would be against it, along the same lines.

It's a fucking game.

Re:You overlooked something... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35438240)

Aren't committees supposed to be evenly split? How come there were 15 on one side and 8 on the other?

Hotelling's Law (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35437822)

Two competing parties and almost perfect "market efficiency", in that polling is so sophisticated that the parties have almost perfect knowledge of the electorate. Hotelling's Law [wikipedia.org] says they they will end up being identical.

A corollary is that your vote is meaningless, since you have a choice between two sames. You cannot bring about change at the ballot box. The only ways to change things are:

  • Sway the electorate directly (advertising, preferably with lots of $$$, or grasroots), or
  • Start a new political party to disturb the equilibrium.

Re:Hotelling's Law (5, Insightful)

mug funky (910186) | more than 3 years ago | (#35438262)

there's a third option you missed that is having some success in the middle east.

Re:You overlooked something... (2)

Troll-Under-D'Bridge (1782952) | more than 3 years ago | (#35438114)

Sadly, some people thought they were voting for a non-right-wing party. Now that the curtain has fallen they are realizing that indeed every politician comes from the same party now.

Maybe this is something the ruling elite of de facto one-party states [wikipedia.org] [*] can learn from. By alternating at the top, they could give the people the illusion of regime change without jeopardizing their own privileges.

In a one-party system, there's only one party to blame when things go bad (an economic downturn or a disastrous war). With two parties, you can play good cop/bad cop with popular discontent by installing the other party. It's only important that neither party would seek an end to their mutual political privileges but would only clash on the numeric details (a 5% vs. 10% tax cut).

[*] Countries where only one party officially exists or where one party overwhelming dominates each election.

Re:Enjoy. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35437676)

The Democrats to the same thing. Two heads on one monster. Pwned.

Which one is left-wing? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35437712)

> you fools gave your houses to the right wing party.

Does America even have a left-wing party? Surely you don't mean those center-right Democrats?

Re:Enjoy. (4, Funny)

Kingrames (858416) | more than 3 years ago | (#35437768)

Democrats - owned by Hollywood/RIAA/MPAA
Republicans - owned by Big Oil/FOX/etc
Independents - get bought out by one or the other as soon as they're elected
Green - owned by smaller but equally extremist radical groups that wouldn't mind passing ridiculous legislation for their own interests
That drunk guy asleep at the park bench - We don't know his name or damn would he get our vote.

Re:Enjoy. (4, Insightful)

presidenteloco (659168) | more than 3 years ago | (#35438232)

Re: Greens. You are misrepesenting greens. Those "narrow interests" that they support are basically the interests of functioning, diverse, healthy eco-systems worldwide and all of the inhabitants of those ecosystems. Yep. Pretty "special interest". Pretty radical. Definitely evil. Those bastards are supporting life over money. They are supporting sense not dollars. It's a good thing Guantanamo is still open.

Re:Enjoy. (4, Insightful)

MrLint (519792) | more than 3 years ago | (#35437820)

Actually I think you are being over specific. These people cede their "free will" to whom they deem to be most powerful. That may be a talking head, a god, a politician, a rich person. I believe it comes from a lack of cynicism.

Re:Enjoy. (1)

flaming error (1041742) | more than 3 years ago | (#35438074)

I wish I hadn't just used up my mod points.

Although I'm not sure they cede to who they deem powerful, more like who they accept as an authority (translation: somebody who says what they like to hear).

QOTD: "No matter how cynical you get, it is impossible to keep up." -- Lily Tomlin

Re:Enjoy. (0, Flamebait)

reboot246 (623534) | more than 3 years ago | (#35437850)

The FCC has never had the power to regulate the internet. You want it regulated by the Feds? Then do it in a legal process. You can't have Federal agencies just assuming they have power without it being given to them by Congress.

I applaud this move by the House.

Re:Enjoy. (5, Insightful)

Microlith (54737) | more than 3 years ago | (#35437954)

Funny. The FCC has the ability to regulate telecommunications companies, and that is what they are being asked to do. Not the Internet. THE CARRIERS. The greedy, manipulative pieces of shit that hate the internet for what it is.

They could have marked them as Tier II carriers, and didn't for reasons I cannot fathom.

And fuck what is with this long-ass timer between comments on Slashdot?

Re:Enjoy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35437878)

Remember this at election time. The Republicans are also trying to make it harder for college students to vote because they see them as more liberal and thus the enemy. Anyone that says both parties are the same isn't paying attention. I'm not a fan of the Democrats but the Republicans are scary. If you vote Republican you get what you deserve.

Re:Enjoy. (3, Insightful)

bonch (38532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35437930)

And left-wing parties put government over people. You sound like a high school kid who just discovered political parties.

There was no reason for "net neutrality." There was no example its proponents could point to that warranted its existence. Having politicians in Washington dictate how sysadmins are supposed to regulate their private network traffic is insane. Media lobbies would have a field day influencing politicians to "regulate" torrent traffic. The fact is that ISPs are private organizations, and you only pay for an IP address on their private networks. They can regulate the traffic on their own networks however they wish.

P.S. You come off as more intelligent if you capitalize your sentences.

Re:Enjoy. (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35438210)

Which means I can't a dumb pipe in the consumer space. The dumb cunts at verizon claim to sell internet service and block port 25. How that is not false advertising I will never understand.

The point is carriers should be dumb pipes, at the very least they should be prevented from also being content or service providers. No reason to let TWC use its monopoly cable business to put vonage out of business by making that service not work for their customers. Private organizations have to follow laws and regulations all the time, no reason to let them abuse their power now.

Re:Enjoy. (2)

epyT-R (613989) | more than 3 years ago | (#35438016)

yes..and left wing parties support majority cliques at the expense of individuals.. how is that any better? net neutrality is not about choosing to get fucked..it's about which hole you want to be fucked in. either isps turn the internet into shitty ma-bell era pay-as-you-go services like cell networks, or you have government deciding what goes.. I'd like neither, but people like me who actually like freedom for individuals taking precedence over the blanket enforcement of irrational group-think policies, have no voice in government.

It does what, now? (5, Interesting)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 3 years ago | (#35437642)

FTA:

Walden added. "These regulations will cost jobs," he said.

I know, this is the standard-issue republican response to anything they don't like, but really could we have an explanation this time? Exactly how would net neutrality kill jobs?

Re:It does what, now? (4, Informative)

rsilvergun (571051) | more than 3 years ago | (#35437732)

The argument goes that net neutrality stifles profits as telecom companies struggle to keep up with bandwidth demand and cannot impose much needed controls on their own network. Also, content providers lose out because they can't guarantee a high quality of service. Yes, the arguments are holier than Swiss cheese, but there it is...

Re:It does what, now? (4, Insightful)

makubesu (1910402) | more than 3 years ago | (#35437742)

They claim that doing this will cut jobs, but have no qualms about their spending cuts which will cost 700,000 people their jobs: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/28/AR2011022802634.html [washingtonpost.com]

Re:It does what, now? (1)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 3 years ago | (#35438176)

As long as they are not in their own district. Mr. "so be it" Boehner had 0 qualms turning around almost immediately to argue against cutting the F-35 engine program because it would result in job losses*(In his district). More of the same old "All government spending that doesn't benefit me is waste" bullshit from our orange overlord.

Re:It does what, now? (4, Informative)

WillyWanker (1502057) | more than 3 years ago | (#35437794)

Yeah, I was thinking the exact same thing. This retarded statement seems to be the now de facto Republican go to phrase. According to them, everything Democrats want to do will "cost jobs". Funny tho how the Republicans, who seem to be so knowledgeable as to how to go about creating jobs haven't DONE JACK SHIT to create any. All they've managed to do is make richer people richer.

The upside to this story is that any bill they pass will get rightfully killed in the Senate.

Re:It does what, now? (1, Flamebait)

diamondmagic (877411) | more than 3 years ago | (#35438080)

What has the world come to? Government simply does not and cannot create (net) jobs. They can tax money from one group of people and use that to hire government employees, but that doesn't create jobs, that just creates government jobs. You can vote to not destroy jobs i.e. not tax and regulate companies out of existence. So I'll be taking your "DONE JACK SHIT" as a compliment, thank you very much.

As for "make rich people richer", since when was wealth and profit a bad thing? The economy isn't a zero sum game you know, one person's gain is not another's loss.

Re:It does what, now? (2)

WillyWanker (1502057) | more than 3 years ago | (#35438254)

Really dude, what fucking rock did you crawl out from? I'd say the 10+% of the population that's out of work, while corporations and their CEOs are raking in billion dollar profits is a perfect example of "one person's gain IS another's loss". Or are you trying to say that every time a factory gets moved overseas or an entire division gets outsourced to India all those lost jobs are a win/win for all parties involved? Haven't you been paying attention the last 30 years as the middle class has been systematically dismantled by the wealthy?

And government most certainly CAN create jobs. Jobs in education, construction, public works, defense, utilities, etc etc etc. But it takes money. Giving tax breaks to wealthy people with the expectation they will then turn around and create jobs is a FALLACY. Trickle-down economics doesn't work. It's been a proven failure for the last 30 years. Even George H.W. Bush has called it "voodoo economics" and urged his son Dubya to NOT use it (but he did anyway). When you give wealthy people tax breaks all they're going to do it pocket it. Or buy another yacht, mansion, or private plane; none of which would qualify as "job stimulus".

I don't have a problem with rich people wanting to get richer. I do have a problem when they pay a fraction of the taxes the rest of us do and still complain about paying too much. Or when their getting richer requires the rest of us to get poorer. Or lose our rights. Cause the only viable recourse at that point is a full-scale revolution. And that's just not pretty.

Re:It does what, now? (1)

aztektum (170569) | more than 3 years ago | (#35438284)

They've used the premise of killing jobs to their benefit before, RE: Boehner and his flaming the budget crisis flames.

Republicans de facto platform is whichever one will get them elected.

Re:It does what, now? (1)

Kingrames (858416) | more than 3 years ago | (#35437808)

Well, they need to hire a guy to put the traffic cones out on the information superhighway to reroute all traffic through their drive-through.

Sure, it'll kill business online for every single business out there that benefits even slightly from the Internet (100% of all business worldwide), but you gotta think of that one job. Or you won't get re-elected.

How they're going to get re-elected when all of their supporters find out that they're responsible for ruining all business worldwide? I have no idea.

Re:It does what, now? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35437872)

FTA:

Walden added. "These regulations will cost jobs," he said.

I know, this is the standard-issue republican response to anything they don't like, but really could we have an explanation this time? Exactly how would net neutrality kill jobs?

Look, the telecoms can't keep building more infrastructure to increase bandwidth for all this streaming video. Who's going to build all that shit? You can't outsource it to China. It's an impossible situation!

Re:It does what, now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35438160)

Net neutrality would create jobs as they would need to build more lines to handle the loads they are seeing. Stopping net neutrality means they can milk out existing lines indefinitely by just fiddling with priorities instead. Of course, priority goes to the highest bidder or their own content.

This doesn't mean much (5, Insightful)

rickzor (1838596) | more than 3 years ago | (#35437700)

from TFA: "If the Republican-controlled House approves the resolution, it would then move to the Senate, where Democrats hold the majority. The Senate is unlikely to pass the resolution."

summary fails to mention how this vote probably won't actually go anywhere.

Re:This doesn't mean much (4, Informative)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 3 years ago | (#35437816)

from TFA: "If the Republican-controlled House approves the resolution, it would then move to the Senate, where Democrats hold the majority. The Senate is unlikely to pass the resolution." summary fails to mention how this vote probably won't actually go anywhere.

Perhaps. But the folks who define science as witch-craft, speak in tongues and handle snakes (Mike Huckabee), think that if you're a good boy you get your own planet when you die (Mitt Romney), these people run things now.

The Senate will fall to these fools in time, and than it's all over.

Re:This doesn't mean much (1)

diamondmagic (877411) | more than 3 years ago | (#35438106)

An ad-hominem attack, you fail philosophy forever. Make a logical argument, please.

Or if you're convinced that it is logical, dare I point you to what Obama, Nanci Pelosi, Harry Reid, and various Obama administration officials think about their religions (all of whom are also ACTUALLY IN OFFICE WITH POWER).

Re:This doesn't mean much (1)

Ghengis Khak (1967518) | more than 3 years ago | (#35438152)

from TFA: "If the Republican-controlled House approves the resolution, it would then move to the Senate, where Democrats hold the majority. The Senate is unlikely to pass the resolution." summary fails to mention how this vote probably won't actually go anywhere.

Perhaps. But the folks who define science as witch-craft, speak in tongues and handle snakes (Mike Huckabee), think that if you're a good boy you get your own planet when you die (Mitt Romney), these people run things now. The Senate will fall to these fools in time, and than it's all over.

Yea. These beliefs are much sillier than those of the sitting president who believes in the invisible sky ghost.

Re:This doesn't mean much (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#35438220)

The Senate will fall to these fools in time, and than it's all over.

What will be all over? The world? The country? The economic prosperity? The tax 'n spend?
Don't be so melodramatic. Republicans have had the House and Senate before, and Armageddon didn't result.

Don't panic! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35437708)

The resolution will next go to the full committee, and if approved there, to the full House. If the Republican-controlled House approves the resolution, it would then move to the Senate, where Democrats hold the majority. The Senate is unlikely to pass the resolution.

...unless if course the Democrats will support this and in return the Republicans will support some Democratic issue.

Re:Don't panic! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35437990)

and in return the Republicans will support some Democratic issue.

HAHAHHAHHHA
That is the funniest thing I've read in a VERY long time

Not Surprised (4, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 3 years ago | (#35437714)

This is not surprising. With a mandate to repeal all of the worker's rights that where hard-won during the early 1900's, and legislating the idea that science is witch-craft, this is not unexpected.

We are entering a dark age.

Re:Not Surprised (0)

bonch (38532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35437984)

Public sector unions came into existence quite recently. By "worker's rights," you mean public worker unions who pay less in pensions and health care than the private sector average, and their collective bargaining agreements that fire people based on seniority rather than merit? States are going bankrupt.

Re:Not Surprised (4, Informative)

blankinthefill (665181) | more than 3 years ago | (#35438266)

I would just like to point out something that I heard recently:

Most of those pensions and benefits are the results of unions bargaining in good faith with the government. Employees generally are taking those options instead of a short term pay raise, or in lieu of any raises at all. It's not like they were getting the same pay as the private sector AND these fabulous benefits. Instead they are told that there are financial difficulties or money is tight or some other excuse, and they are promised compensation LATER for lower wages NOW.

Re:Not Surprised (1)

Bucky24 (1943328) | more than 3 years ago | (#35438104)

"legislating the idea that science is witch-craft"
Do you have factual evidence of this? I'd be very worried if this is truly something going through our legislature.

Re:Not Surprised (0)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 3 years ago | (#35438144)

Doom & gloom! It's the end of the world! Repent! The only cure is to vote for radical leftists! Workers of the world, unite! All you have to lose are your chains!

Seriously, buddy, get a grip. This is just the day-to-day "watching sausage being made" of politics. Saying net neutrality will reincarnate the Triangle Shirtwaist Company is just a setting up a strawman argument which is distressingly all too common these days. "Dark age"? You sound grimly serious, like a man-on-the-stree from the 50s saying that just because there were a few socialists in government that we're going to repeal free speech and start establishing prison camps in the Southwest for dissenters JUST LIKE THE SOVIET UNION BECAUSE THEY'RE SOCIALIST TOO! And yet the false dichotomy is disregarded.

Re:Not Surprisedl (1)

joocemann (1273720) | more than 3 years ago | (#35438216)

Defensive much? All of your posts in this thread are silly attempts to downplay the bad side of the GOP or equate big sellouts like this to dishonesty over a bj. You sell out just like your party. So be it.

Once you admit your an idiot... (3, Interesting)

goodgod43 (1993368) | more than 3 years ago | (#35437738)

FTA: "The FCC lacks legal authority to pass the rules, and government intervention would hurt the Internet, said Representative Greg Walden, the subcommittee's chairman and an Oregon Republican. "The Internet works pretty well -- it's the government that doesn't," he said." He's against government involvement. That I understand. But he's admitting that he, as a member of the government, doesn't really understand the problem. He's admitted to being the problem, so why should he have his way?

Re:Once you admit your an idiot... (3, Interesting)

XanC (644172) | more than 3 years ago | (#35437824)

So... He shouldn't have his way, and you would make him be in charge of something he doesn't understand?

Why in blazes would we expect people in government to be omniscient? It won't be. That's why we decided it shouldn't be omnipotent either, except that something like 50% of people have completely forgotten about that idea.

Re:Once you admit your an idiot... (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#35438264)

Why in blazes would we expect people in government to be omniscient?

Because they have access to a free and open Internet.

Re:Once you admit your an idiot... (2)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#35438026)

Some please tell the Jack ass the the internet wouldn't exist with out the government, please?

And in almost every project, the government word really, really well.

Re:Once you admit your an idiot... (1)

Bucky24 (1943328) | more than 3 years ago | (#35438150)

"Some please tell the Jack ass the the internet wouldn't exist with out the government, please?"
The internet itself got its beginnings in the government, yes, but the majority of the cable was laid by private corporations (yes they WERE subsidized but that's not the point) and most of the protocols were developed by entities that are/were not government entities.
Give credit where credit is due.

Re:Once you admit your an idiot... (0)

bonch (38532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35438146)

It's spelled "you're."

He's against government involvement. That I understand. But he's admitting that he, as a member of the government, doesn't really understand the problem. He's admitted to being the problem, so why should he have his way?

You're saying the government should have control because government officials admit the government fucks up?

It was a wonderful internet while it lasted. (5, Insightful)

kawabago (551139) | more than 3 years ago | (#35437754)

Republicans have just killed the goose that laid the golden eggs. The replacement goose's eggs are gold plated, cracked and spoiled.

Where there is a will, there's a way (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35437876)

Just remember, politics don't code, administer, or run network cables. If people really want net neutrality they will get it. It's really only a question of time.

Re:It was a wonderful internet while it lasted. (0)

bonch (38532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35438102)

There haven't been any actual examples of a need for "net neutrality" (a name as cynical as the Patriot Act--the government is the least neutral organization on the planet). Its proponents have never been able to point to anything.

The internet was a government project that was given to the public. It's fantastic news that we're not handing the keys back to the feds just to appease a liberal mentality to federally regulate absolutely everything. Governments are corrupt and destructive, and unlike corporations, you can't punish them. For some reason, there's a real terror from some people over the idea of letting things manage themselves without government intervention. It's a control freak mentality.

Most of the comments to this article have, predictably, been written by angry Democrats ranting about Republicans and right-wingers. That tells you everything you need to know about what was behind the movement for net neutrality.

Re:It was a wonderful internet while it lasted. (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35438122)

It's just the incentive we need to build something else, a bit more ad hoc..

Re:It was a wonderful internet while it lasted. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35438288)

Something more along the lines of a wirelessly-connected sneakernet, maybe?

The Circle is Complete... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35437796)

One of the republicans supporting this resolution is... Mary Bono Mack [wikipedia.org] .... wife of the late Sonny Bono, the Copyright Term Extension Bonehead... so one Bono fscks up copyright, and the other Bono fscks up the Internet. "The Circle is Complete" another dark-sider would say.

Latency and neutrality (0, Offtopic)

Twinbee (767046) | more than 3 years ago | (#35437806)

Bear in mind that the recent discovery of bufferbloat [slashdot.org] we've seen inside networks all around the world could be partially to blame. According to Jim Gettys (who was the subject of an earlier slashdot story), big services are being affected by bufferbloat too. Here's the full article:

http://gettys.wordpress.com/2010/12/07/bufferbloat-and-network-neutrality-back-to-the-past/ [wordpress.com]

Let's get this insidious Bufferbloat fixed first, and THEN worry about whether we really need network neutrality or not. There are apparently many things we can do to enhance and optimize queuing and sorting of packets before we add another layer.

What's Wrong With That? (0, Troll)

extraordinaire (2010224) | more than 3 years ago | (#35437834)

Can someone explain to me, in simple terms, why Net Neutrality is needed? What are we worried about? This just means, to me, that we're going to be able to pay a bit more and get a bit better internet experience. Similar to, if I want to take a toll road, which is less congested than the rest of the highway system.

Why should Verizon, for example, be forced to prioritize gaming traffic at the same rate as, say, high speed internet for a Doctor's Office that is looking up records in a central database?

Re:What's Wrong With That? (4, Informative)

mlingojones (919531) | more than 3 years ago | (#35437888)

DeReggi told lawmakers he may want to block services like Netflix because they take up too much bandwidth for WiMax-based broadband.

I think that about sums it up.

Re:What's Wrong With That? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35437920)

As soon as Verizion pays full market rate for the land their cables go over and under then we can talk. Verizon and the others love it when government forces people to let them build under / across private property but they do not want to do anything in return for that access.

Re:What's Wrong With That? (3, Insightful)

enoz (1181117) | more than 3 years ago | (#35437956)

Similar to, if I want to take a toll road, which is less congested than the rest of the highway system.

I think the cause for concern is that without Net Neutrality you will no longer have any choice in the matter. If you wish to visit certain destinations the toll road is the only way. I guess it is like Pay-Per-View for the internet.

Re:What's Wrong With That? (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35437980)

Similar to, if I want to take a toll road, which is less congested than the rest of the highway system.

What if said toll road only took you to cities that had paid to be connected to that road, or paid to block access to other cities in order to increase their own tourism/local business revenue? This is essentially what a lot of people are afraid is going to happen. Companies will have deals where they pay the internet provider to block/cripple your access to their competitor. Parts of the internet may be blocked off depending on who your provider is.

Re:What's Wrong With That? (0, Troll)

bonch (38532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35438056)

I'm afraid you're not going to get an unbiased, objective answer. This community is wildly anti-capitalist and anti-corporation, even though the very computers they use to post with are products of capitalism. Nonetheless, Internet access is not some constitutional right; it's a technological privilege. A modern convenience. ISPs run their own private networks for which you simply pay to gain access to, and they should be allowed to regulate them however they wish.

You'll never get an example of what exactly net neutrality is supposed to solve, because there haven't been any examples. It's entirely a hypothetical need. In the manic expansion of government that took place in the first two years of the Obama administration, net neutrality rose to the forefront as another way to centralize control of things that were once free and self-correcting.

Re:What's Wrong With That? (1)

mlingojones (919531) | more than 3 years ago | (#35438198)

You'll never get an example of what exactly net neutrality is supposed to solve, because there haven't been any examples.

Ha! Hahahaha. Surely you jest, bonch. Not only can examples be found in abundance, but there's a nice fat juicy one in TFA—and straight from the president of an ISP, no less!

DeReggi told lawmakers he may want to block services like Netflix because they take up too much bandwidth for WiMax-based broadband.

That is it in a nutshell.

Also, let's rid ourselves of this false notion that "ISPs run their own private networks." Who paid for these networks? The government. Who owns the land under these cables and towers? The government. It is a specious claim to say that the ISPs' networks are "their own."

Re:What's Wrong With That? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35438086)

This makes sense to me. In my town the speed I can drive my car is based on the social value of my trip. For example, I can drive 55 mph if I am going to help my mother, 50 mph if I am driving to buy food for dinner but only 30 mph if I am buying a dessert. Tomorrow I attend a town meeting where a contingent of Vegetarians want to restrict my speed to 5 mph if I have meat in my car. I am very opposed to that but also disagree with some of my friends who want to restrict cars to 5 mph if the car contains broccoli.

"Road neutrality" makes no sense/

Re:What's Wrong With That? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35438090)


Can someone explain to me, in simple terms, why Net Neutrality is needed? What are we worried about?

Monopolies, or near monopolies like Comcast using unfair advantage of their power to make content providers either pay them, force them out of business, or influence the content to favor them.

This just means, to me, that we're going to be able to pay a bit more and get a bit better internet experience.

And if you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you. It's real cheap, the city of NY is trying to unload it to solve the budget crisis!

The lie of Big Business is that they're just trying to provide you with the best service possible. Wrong. Business is in the business of making money. The service or product is just a means to do that.

Why should Verizon, for example, be forced to prioritize gaming traffic at the same rate as, say, high speed internet for a Doctor's Office that is looking up records in a central database?

Huh? Is this a serious example? The only thing we give priorities to are emergencies, like say an ambulance or a 911 call. If you're dumb enough to put critical medical records across the internet where for some reason a millisecond makes a critical difference, then the problem ain't the prioritization of internet traffic, it's the dumb app designer, business analyst, or administrator that made the decision to do it that way.

Re:What's Wrong With That? (2)

KhabaLox (1906148) | more than 3 years ago | (#35438110)

Can someone explain to me, in simple terms, why Net Neutrality is needed? What are we worried about?

I don't think most people care about paying more for more bandwidth. That's the situation that exists today. If you want 10Mpbs, you pay more than if you want 5 Mbps (to get more realistic rates, multiply by a factor of 10 if you live in Europe or Asia).

What we are worried about is the fact that ISPs, like Comcast, who in the content delivery business, are increasingly getting into the content creation business, by merging/buying the likes of NBC. Now Comcast has an incentive to manage it's network in such a way as to drive traffic to the content it owns. And because the courts and the FCC have rolled back the provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which forced Tier 1 networks to resell their lines to others to foster a competitive market, we still have monopoly and duopoly status for the majority of Americans.

If there was a competitive market in which I could select a different ISP if my current one started degrading it's competitor's (in the content creation business) traffic to me, then Network Neutrality regulations wouldn't be needed, because the market could keep Comcast, etc. honest (at least in theory).

But, if Comcast is my only choice, then if they start degrading traffic from Netflix, or CBS, so that I can only watch it in 240p, while NBC or Blockbuster Online (which they hypothetically own) comes through at 720p, that's a bad thing because I can't vote with my dollar.

Re:What's Wrong With That? (5, Informative)

Gutboy (587531) | more than 3 years ago | (#35438128)

Let's take Comcast and Netflix. Comcast hates Netflix because Comcast is also a content provider. They want you to pay $6 to watch their on-demand movies. With Netflix I can watch tons of movies for $6, and Comcast has to carry the traffic. Without Net Neutrality, Comcast would tell Netflix "you use too much bandwidth. We're going to throttle you down until your movies are unwatchable unless you start paying us a fee. That fee will increase until we make as much money from people watching your movies as we would if they bought them from our service".

Netflix would have to increase prices until no one would pay, thus forcing them out of business and all you would be left with is Comcast, which then jacks up the prices for their on-demand movies.

Net Neutrality provides choice.

Re:What's Wrong With That? (1, Insightful)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35438214)

Net neutrality is necessary for the same reason why "be neutral" is applies as a rule to the phone service, or electric company, or natural gas provider.

They are government-created monopolies and need to be regulated so they don't abuse their position (as Comcast has done multiple times over the last twenty years).

Although: I'd sooner have this solution:

- Government owns cables that are 50-optics bundled together, and runs them under (or alongside) the government-owned roads. The companies like MSN or AOL or Apple or Comcast or Verizon then lease those lines. That way customers would have upto 50 different companies to choose from - a true free market.

Thank you Republicans (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35437844)

Now that the government is off our backs, there's plenty of room for mega-corporations to fuck us in the ass.

One of these days... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35437860)

One of these days, "we the people" will have to agree on enough to get these fools out of office. I refer to both of the parties; neither one seems to act in the interest of the people as a whole. They represent corporations, special interests, etc. But they don't represent the average Joe at all. Whether we can galvanize a vote to get them out someday, or it comes down to replacing the government by stronger measures - at some point folks will need to agree that something must be done to get government of the people for the people back in the US.

Keep the bad legislation coming. (4, Insightful)

pitchpipe (708843) | more than 3 years ago | (#35437868)

Every story like this gives me even more motivation to get my degree. That way when the effects of all of this shitty legislation in favor of the super wealthy begins to really take effect I won't have a problem emigrating to another country.

Re:Keep the bad legislation coming. (1)

guyminuslife (1349809) | more than 3 years ago | (#35438272)

HA! And which country would *that* be?

(No, seriously, I need to figure out which language courses to take.)

Point of Confusion (1)

sdemjanenko (1296903) | more than 3 years ago | (#35437922)

Seeing as how doubtful it is that the House Members could implement this change themselves, it would need to be performed by us geeks. Geeks of the world Unite! As long as none of us aids them, it simply won't get done.

Re:Point of Confusion (1)

Bucky24 (1943328) | more than 3 years ago | (#35438126)

I work for a small time ISP. I can tell you that even if we don't agree with this, if something actually becomes MANDATED (not just, oh, you CAN do this if you really want, but you MUST do this), then we will implement it, and myself and my fellow engineers will write the code to put it into place. I have no desire to lose my job (which is what will happen if I refuse to do something my boss gives me) and the company has no desire to be fined (which is likely what would happen if they refused a government regulation).

I may be wrong but I expect that the majority of other "geeks" would do the same.

Why are we at all surprised? (2, Insightful)

enaso1970 (759924) | more than 3 years ago | (#35437946)

Republicans represent the interests of very very wealthy people. They are against changes, innovations, new ideas and anything that benefits anyone who isn't in the club. Because from a rich person's viewpoint, everyone is out to grab some of what they have. (oh, and I am not claiming that Democrats got it all right).

Regulatory Capture (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35438012)

Regulatory Capture [wikipedia.org] is why we don't want to have 'Net Neutrality'. It amazes me that all the people who claim they hate big corps and never stop complaining about how big corps own the government tend to be the same people who want bills like this to pass. This is a way for Internet companies to control their industry, that's all it is, and this is not good for the little guy and will do nothing to protect consumers.

NN is not regulation. (2, Insightful)

Palmsie (1550787) | more than 3 years ago | (#35438042)

I'm sorry but there seems to be a discrepancy with regard to how representatives view NN. It is not a government regulation anymore than the first amendment 'regulates' that speech must be free. Likewise, NN 'regulates' that information must be unbiased. This notion of forced freedom as a form of regulation is probably the most far fetched form of 'regulation' that I have seen. But it should be clear that NN merely forces information to be unbiased. Regulation is a form of constriction on some greater pool. In other words, regulation selects a subset of options from a grand set. NN could not be regarded as regulation because it restricts corporate regulation. NN is, therefore, the antithesis of regulation.

Re:NN is not regulation. (0)

XanC (644172) | more than 3 years ago | (#35438148)

The First Amendment doesn't say anything remotely like "all voices must be equally loud". That's what Net Neutrality does. The First Amendment simply says that the federal government won't get involved in regulating speech. ...Which pretty much shoots down Net Neutrality right there, come to think of it.

Mo' Money, Mo' Money, Mo' Money (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35438132)

Buying a pol is the greatest return for any corporate investment. The fucking revolution on elected whores in America is long overdue.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...