×

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!

Net Neutrality: Lobbyist McCurry Raises Ire

Hemos posted more than 7 years ago | from the the-battle-of-words-is-joined dept.

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.""

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

251 comments

My eyes! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15471300)

Fuck, what kind of crap is this? Did Slashdot get hacked by an evil cyber-terrorizing uglificionist?

Re:My eyes! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15471310)

Yes! He have been identified as CowBoyNeal!

[OT] New skin (0, Offtopic)

cynicalmoose (720691) | more than 7 years ago | (#15471331)

It's the result of the competition for a new skin that we had a bit ago. See cmdrtaco's journal [slashdot.org].

Frankly, I didn't think this was the best of the final 3 (to me, there was clearly a nicer skin [insitemotion.com]).

What I'm really waiting for, is our new-found CSS capabilities used to allow user-selectable stylesheets. It can't be too hard; after all, they hacked the stylesheet for April 1 (when it went all pink).

Re:[OT] New skin (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15471352)

Yeah! We want the ponnies skin! OMG!!!PONNIES!!!

Re:[OT] New skin (-1, Offtopic)

Tx (96709) | more than 7 years ago | (#15471356)

What I'm really waiting for, is our new-found CSS capabilities used to allow user-selectable stylesheets. It can't be too hard; after all, they hacked the stylesheet for April 1 (when it went all pink).

You already can, just install the Stylish [mozilla.org] Firefox extension (assuming you use Firefox of course).

Unfortunately I don't think there are any compatible slashdot styles on userstyles.org yet (the ones there now are designed for the old slashdot code), but they'll come soon enough. I'm working on one myself.

It is hideously ugly (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15471440)

My god, it's really ugly.

At first, I thought, "Oh, new look. It's attractive".

But after looking it over for 20 minutes, my eyes are actually starting to burn.

How do you do that with just white, black, grey and a few bits of blue & green? Whoever they hired to do this should be hired by the pentagon to get info out of those guy in Gitmo, because honestly, it hurts my eyes so bad that I would turn over my wife and kids to the gestapo after staring at this for a few minutes.

Really awful.

Re:My eyes! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15471522)

I agree - it's awful. Sans serif fonts are hard on the eyes. This is so bad I may have to give up my Slashdot addiction just to save my eyes for real work.

Democrats and Corporations (5, Insightful)

cynicalmoose (720691) | more than 7 years ago | (#15471305)

Plenty of democrats are paid by corporations. But the unions continue to contribute a heck of a lot, as well as other groups who aren't great fans of corporate power. There's no reason for democrats to shy away from criticising corporations just because corporations fund some Dems, and some middle-of-the-roaders aren't opposed to corporation-bashing. OTOH, the reflexive bash-the-corporation responses that some Dems exhibit (and Republicans too - espc over oil prices, where "price gouging" - aka charging what the market will bear - gets screamed each time the gas price rises due to exogenous factors) do not make them seem very credible. It's hard to trust people who have routine scapegoats; it suggests they don't think enough.

And it's hard to trust (2, Informative)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 7 years ago | (#15471340)

Corporations that
-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 (1)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 7 years ago | (#15471635)

-Have (unconfirmed, someone check) reserved 80% of the bandwidth in their fiber for their own TV service Ummm that coax cable that runs into your house serving you calbe internet does the exact same thing. I don't see whats the problem with running fiber TV service with internet piggybacking. So as long as the actual internet connection is open.

Re:And it's hard to trust (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15471945)

It's a problem when you restrict the bandwidth even while you aren't offering what it's presumably been restricted for. It's also a problem when you advertise a certain throughput and knowingly can't or actively won't deliver it.

Re:And it's hard to trust (1)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 7 years ago | (#15472070)

I think the problem would be when you roll out your fiber-delivered TV service, the best that any internet-based competing service could achieve is 1/4 the speed your own service gets. The competitor will look "broken" by comparison.

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 (2, Insightful)

Sandor at the Zoo (98013) | more than 7 years ago | (#15472183)

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 degrade service for Vonage or other IP service providers.

OMG NEW SLASHDOT IS TEH GAY (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15471308)

n/t

GOOD THING SO ARE ALL ITS READERS OLOLOLO FAGGITS (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15471327)

This is a shocker ?? (0, Troll)

Crashmarik (635988) | more than 7 years ago | (#15471322)

A clinton administration official demonstrates that his only loyalty was to the dollar. The worst you could say was he emulated his bosses.

Next thing you'll tell me is that Al Gore Didn't really invent the internet, or Bill Clinton went out and lobbied for an arab nation to take over Americas ports. I would be Shocked just Shocked.

good thing, too (0, Flamebait)

m874t232 (973431) | more than 7 years ago | (#15471553)

It's a good thing that the Democrats are "loyal to the dollar" because they have delivered economic growth and budget surplusses over the last 100 years, while Republicans pretty consistently delivered huge budget deficits and economic decline.

Past Hundred Years (3, Informative)

Crashmarik (635988) | more than 7 years ago | (#15471615)

Past Hundred years ???

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 (3, Interesting)

m874t232 (973431) | more than 7 years ago | (#15472007)

According to Congressional Budget Office (reported by Reuters in 2004, you can probably find the graph if you search for it), the only president that has had any significant budget surplus since 1963 was Bill Clinton. And if you want to argue that Clinton's budget surplus wasn't real, then the figures for the Republican presidents are even more disastrous than they were reported to be.

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.

he is exactly right (3, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 7 years ago | (#15471323)

"There are millions and millions of good Democrats who get paid by corporations,"

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. (1)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 7 years ago | (#15471362)

Not democratic reps. Accepting bribes etc.

Re:He's talking about employees, though. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15471733)

So an employee that does something shady for his boss is exempt from this?

You have morals, simply because you trade $$$ for giving up your morals and sell my credit information to another company or do other shady things does not make you any different than a Senator who has disney shoving $1000.00 bills in his pockets like mad.

Re:he is exactly right (1)

HoosierPeschke (887362) | more than 7 years ago | (#15471504)

I just think it's funny to assume that Elected, sitting in the House or Senate Democrats are paid by corporations. While it may be true that part of an elected official's salary is paid by corporations through taxes, don't I also pay elected officials? Oh, we're talking about hush hush <wink /> <wink /> type stuff, huh?

DailyKos is pathetic (-1, Flamebait)

furasato (715764) | more than 7 years ago | (#15471342)

Slashdot in now quoting DailyKos? No wonder that it seems lately slashdot is the liberal left party of computer geeks.

You are who you quote? (3, Funny)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 7 years ago | (#15471371)

The Kox piece has useful, good info in it. Give it a read. W quotes Jesus; that doesn't make him (W) God, though.

Re:You are who you quote? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15471505)

Nor does it make W a schizophrenic who died 2000 years ago.

One can only wish...

Re:DailyKos is pathetic (4, Funny)

Crashmarik (635988) | more than 7 years ago | (#15471378)

No comrade the Dailykos is a counterrevolutionary reactionary blog. Clearly his allignment with politically recidivist elements shows he is nothing but a tool of control for the masses. Clearly you should be modded flamebait for making a statement so devoid of observable evidence.

Re:DailyKos is pathetic (2, Interesting)

furasato (715764) | more than 7 years ago | (#15471438)

Really? Well, when a few contracters working for Blackwell were killed, burned, then hanged in Fallujah while guarding a simple shipment of a cooking oven, Markos's reply was "f'em, let them hang". Wishing death upon another. Sorry, but Markos is pathetic. That said, the net needs to be left alone, and run as it is now.

Re:DailyKos is pathetic (2, Informative)

MonkeyOfRage (779297) | more than 7 years ago | (#15471639)

Markos's reply was "f'em, let them hang"

Actually, it was

That said, I feel nothing over the death of mercenaries. They aren't in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them.
Mercenaries. Must be nice to be able to redefine the language for one's convenience.

Re:DailyKos is pathetic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15471501)

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.

Re:DailyKos is pathetic (1)

Crashmarik (635988) | more than 7 years ago | (#15471591)

Anonymous wrote

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 as watching the noted lefty Kos be so concerned about who is paying a person, rather than what he has to say.
And whats most funny is watching the left do everything the can only accuse the right of doing but not demonstrate.

Re:DailyKos is pathetic (1)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 7 years ago | (#15471741)

> bush has accomplished quite alot as president and then seeing the democrats in the room have epileptic fits.

The medical term is "gelastic seizure", more commonly known as laughter epilepsy.

Re:DailyKos is pathetic (1)

Maximilio (969075) | more than 7 years ago | (#15471744)

I don't think you're following very closely. One of the main things going on at DailyKos is not so much routine criticism of the right and its very clearly failed policies -- although that does happen. It's also a self-examination of the Democratic party -- ostensibly the party representing the needs of the left and the whole spectrum of greater (public) interest vs. concentrated (corporate) interests -- and why it has routinely failed to deliver any credible alternative. Very broadly, the people who assemble on DailyKos are of the opinion that the inside-the-beltway mentality of the DLC has given us a Democratic party with no cojones to stand up and oppose things that their base opposes. They have a strategy of backing down because they're more afraid of offending people than losing elections because they held to a principle. It's why one of the most important Kos discussions is not whether or not we can put a Democrat in the Oval Office -- it's whether or not we can remove people like Joe Lieberman, who registers Democrat but votes Republican, and replace them with actual Democrats. So in that context you completely miss what is going on with Mr. McCurry, who is in the opinion of the KosOSphere either a shill or a sellout.

But the discussion of what is going on in this nation has become so distorted that I suppose people on the right can't even figure out what people on the left are talking about anymore, and it may be mostly because you're letting Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly tell you what we think.

Best of luck on that base thing (-1, Flamebait)

Crashmarik (635988) | more than 7 years ago | (#15471827)

1. This is the base that wants amnesty for all illegal immigrants and their families brought over as well ?

2. This is the base that wants immedi

3. This is the base that wants abortion on demand for underage girls without parental or legal notification

4. This is the base that wants to raise taxes to promote economic growth

5. This is the base that applauds when dick durbin and jack murtha compare american troops to nazis

You should be thankfull you have the DLC to mask your base from the rest of the country.

Re:Best of luck on that base thing (-1, Flamebait)

dsgitl (922908) | more than 7 years ago | (#15471928)

Blah, blah, blah, I'm a conservative idiot.

These are things the GOP stands for:

1. The abolition of sex for anyone not white, married, or a virgin
2. The takeover of natural resources from any country because God chooses us
3. The Bible replacing all other printed word
4. Corporate welfare always, people welfare never
5. Willfull ignorance of science

See what a stupid exercise this is?

Re:Best of luck on that base thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15472194)

1. This is the base that wants amnesty for all illegal immigrants and their families brought over as well ?


This is a falsehood. Whoever told you this was either lying to you or is also misinformed.


2. This is the base that wants immedi


Well, I want immedi too, whatever that is. Any right-thinking person wants them some immedi.


3. This is the base that wants abortion on demand for underage girls without parental or legal notification


It's not quite that stark, although a small subsection are like that. Most of the base want want the majority of Americans want: Legal abortion as a choice. Only a minority of Americans want something else.


4. This is the base that wants to raise taxes to promote economic growth


Curious how lowering taxes since 2001 has lowered economic growth, with the amount of tax money taken in by the government being lower today than it was back in 2001, despite all these years of "economic recovery." Funny how that always works this way.


5. This is the base that applauds when dick durbin and jack murtha compare american troops to nazis


This is a falsehood. Whoever told you this was either lying to you or is also misinformed.

Re:Best of luck on that base thing (2, Insightful)

Maximilio (969075) | more than 7 years ago | (#15472316)

1. This is the base that wants amnesty for all illegal immigrants and their families brought over as well ?

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 atmosphere of wink-and-nod enforcement of immigration. We've had a global amnesty before -- it's a way to reset the system and make it honest. If you think you can jerk 11 or 12 million people out of our country without a noticable economic impact and also without initiating a concentration-camp style deathmarch you're dreaming. But what's going on has nothing to do with any kind of "gathering threat" and everything to do with pushing people's panic buttons to get them to the polls. See last year's gay marriage threat.

2. This is the base that wants immedi

This is the base that wants their public leaders to speak in complete, intelligible sentences.

3. This is the base that wants abortion on demand for underage girls without parental or legal notification

This is the base that wonders why the same people who insist we ban abortion won't stand up for readily-available birth control. This is the same base that views with something approaching complete revulsion the recent statements by scions of the religious community [newscientist.com] that vaccines for STD's are tantamount to a greenlight for sex. This is the base that can pretty easily see that the issue has nothing to do with "pro-life" and everything to do with people of one religion inserting their moral views into the legal code in violation of just about everything this country stands for.

This is the base that deplores legalized abortion but despises even more the inevitibility of illegal abortion that a full ban would bring, and would like to see some evidence-based strategy to reduce unwanted pregancy, rather than "abstience-only" programs based on religious flummery and wishful thinking.

4. This is the base that wants to raise taxes to promote economic growth

Clinton raised taxes. It certainly didn't kill economic growth. Don't tell me the 90's boom had anything to do with Reagan because that's been repeatedly debunked.

Bush cut taxes. We're stuck in stagflation now, and the dollar is crashing, and the national debt will be paid off by my children and their children. And in real terms, wages have been dropping. Don't tell me what a great economy this is. Go out into your community and ask your neighbors if they're better off now than they were six years ago. A clear majority of them will not agree.

5. This is the base that applauds when dick durbin and jack murtha compare american troops to nazis

Give me a source of both the quotes you imply and an opinion poll of the "base" agreeing with said quotes. Then we can talk about that statement.

You should be thankfull you have the DLC to mask your base from the rest of the country.

Currently the opinions of "my" base are in tune with the opinions of 71% of the rest of the country. The DLC is out of touch, and so are you.

Who's pathetic? (3, Insightful)

greenguy (162630) | more than 7 years ago | (#15471649)

Who the hell modded this insightful? Anyone who uses the phrase "liberal left," and then calls Slashdot a "party," is anything but insightful. This doesn't rise above an ideological thumbing of the nose, with all the insights that entails.

Re:Who's pathetic? (1)

cowscows (103644) | more than 7 years ago | (#15471791)

It's a pretty common tactic. Ignore the actual content, and just attack the messenger. Kos proudly wears the label of liberal. And so he can't ever be correct, and anyone who listens to him is obviously a partisian liberal 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 conservative.

Re:Who's pathetic? (2, Interesting)

Distinguished Hero (618385) | more than 7 years ago | (#15471977)

It's a pretty common tactic. Ignore the actual content, and just attack the messenger.
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 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 you see, dear reader, you are (probably) guilty of the very same thing.

Re:Who's pathetic? (1)

cowscows (103644) | more than 7 years ago | (#15472055)

You're just making an assumption about me. I happen to be a mild WWII buff, and I'm very fascinated by the Nazi weaponry technology. Despite the fact that a lot of it was developed by Nazi's. And a lot of US scientists and engineers were impressed with it as well, as captured V2's formed the basis of America's space efforts.

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 discussions about politics, and even agree on a lot of things.

The only type of person I would judge based on who they are, rather than the strength of their argument, would be clowns. I don't care what those freaky bastards say, they're all evil to the greatest degree imaginable.

Re:Who's pathetic? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15472140)

Being a Nazi has nothing to do with the validity of an argument. Is it your contention that Werner Heisenberg's ideas have been largely discounted on the basis of him being a Nazi?

When people disregard the ideas of 'Nazis' out of hand it is most likely in the realms where their premises are considered morally repugnant or bordering on mysticism. It is the premise and not the affiliation that is the problem.

But then I imagine your goal is simply to cheapen the level of discourse by suggesting that "everyone does it!"

So you're not going to bother with refutation? (2, Insightful)

Maximilio (969075) | more than 7 years ago | (#15471672)

The source of the comment is enough for your outright dismissal, I see. I can understand that: getting all sticky having an actual argument is so gauche.

Re:DailyKos is pathetic (1)

Otter (3800) | more than 7 years ago | (#15471687)

More to the point, shouldn't "BBCWatcher" be quoting ... I dunno ... the BBC and not some mouth-frothing from a blogoloony bin? I demand that he be re-nicked.

Markos Moulitsas Zúniga (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15471348)


now that's a traditional American name

Re:Markos Moulitsas Zúniga (1)

SenorPez (840621) | more than 7 years ago | (#15472019)

At least have the stones to attach your name to your racist, ignorant comment. Or did you not cut the holes in your white hood large enough, causing them to obscure the "Login" box?

So it's official now? (2, Funny)

Fhqwhgadss (905393) | more than 7 years ago | (#15471363)

Is this official confirmation that not only do the corporations run the GOP, but also the "Democratic" party? I'm glad we have it out in the open.

Re:So it's official now? (1)

kevin lyda (4803) | more than 7 years ago | (#15471439)

Political parties are made up of the people who show up to them. If you don't like that the GOP or the Dems are "run by corporations" then get active in one of them.

Either that or please offer some cheese with your pointless whines.

Re:So it's official now? (1)

Fhqwhgadss (905393) | more than 7 years ago | (#15471659)

The problem with actively participating in either of the US political parties is that their primary (and pretty much only) goal is to beat the other candidate in the next election. This stems from the first-to-the pole election process that is amplified by the electoral college and gerrymandering. The senior members of both parties need not concern themselves with the needs of the people as long as both parties consistently ignore those needs. No amount of "participation" at the grassroots level will change this because any effort that does not lead to "beating the other candidate" is considered wasted effort (just as voting for a different party is considered a wasted vote).

Consider the 2004 presidential elections where the 2 candidates were virtually indistinguishable from each other despite the absurd rhetoric that both parties bandied about to the contrary. Can you identify which candidate was the rich, white, male, Yale-educated war criminal? How about which candidate is a member of the Skull and Bones?

Until something drastic changes, or unless there's a compelling reason to vote at the local level, I'm casting my vote for apathy by contributing to low voter turnout.

Re:So it's official now? (1)

dsgitl (922908) | more than 7 years ago | (#15471723)

I think you're wrong. For better or for worse, the Republican Party since Goldwater has been committed to establishing a permanent Republican majority. This has gone beyond just winning two-year and four-year elections. They have installed sympathetic judges at all levels of government, had been proactive in gerrymandering congressional districts (and that's not to say Democrats haven't; it's just that the GOP is better), and have worked much harder to understand language and how best to influence the American people.

While I'm certainly tired of doomsday scenarios involving married gays burning flags and how that would piss off Benjamin Franklin, you certainly can't argue that that kind of rehtoric gets people in the ballot box. Again, for better or for worse.

And yes, you can say that Bush and Kerry were both rich white guys. But do you really think that John Kerry would be instigating war with Iran? Or repeal of the estate tax? Or Medicare Part D? Or tax cuts? These decisions matter, and there were definitely clear differences between the two candidates had you taken the time to look.

Re:So it's official now? (1)

kevin lyda (4803) | more than 7 years ago | (#15471821)

You're talking about one office - the head of one branch of government.

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 apathetic because you choose to be apathetic. People are acting on the things you mention. They need help. If you want to be apathetic and not help, that's your choice. But accept your own responsibility for that choice, don't blame outside forces for your own self-imposed apathy.

And Howard Dean is executing a 50 state strategy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15472276)

The only thing Dean is executing is the Democratic Party and it's voting base.

Remember, this is the guy who raised $60 million in 2000 and had only a handful of convention votes to show for it. He kept no books, so no one knows on what or where the money was spent. Deans spends money like a drunken social worker.

The Dems are in bad financial shape right now, they're raising funds OK. It's just that the money disappears as soon as it arrives, with no explanation.

If the Dems had a lick of sense - and they don't -, they'd get rid of Dean. Dean is Rove's best friends.

keep your laws off my network. (-1, Flamebait)

LukeCrawford (918758) | more than 7 years ago | (#15471379)

Does anyone really think regulation by the clueless is going to improve things?

Re:keep your laws off my network. (2, Insightful)

Professor_UNIX (867045) | more than 7 years ago | (#15471716)

Does anyone really think regulation by the clueless is going to improve things?

Exactly! AT&T and Verizon only have YOUR best interests at heart in opposing network neutrality.

Re:keep your laws off my network. (1)

LukeCrawford (918758) | more than 7 years ago | (#15471866)

And the government does? come now. Remember who owns the government. When it is private corporations, I can at least run my own T3s and route around the problem.

Two things... (4, Interesting)

CashCarSTAR (548853) | more than 7 years ago | (#15471382)

#1. Yes, DailyKos is a Democratic site. But at the same time, the DKos community is pretty much committed to lessening the influence of a whole wide variety of interest groups from the political process and increasing the power that the individual citizen has, on both sides of the aisle. From Unions straight through to Corporations.

#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?

And what one will the few, protected by barriers.. (1)

robbak (775424) | more than 7 years ago | (#15471472)

...want to destroy???

Re:And what one will the few, protected by barrier (1)

CashCarSTAR (548853) | more than 7 years ago | (#15471513)

Offhand....

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... (1)

Crashmarik (635988) | more than 7 years ago | (#15471493)

Funny I don't remember when Redstate.com became part of the left.

The motivations are different but the results are the same.

Re:Two things... (1)

CashCarSTAR (548853) | more than 7 years ago | (#15471640)

My apologies. The intention wasn't to say that only the left side of things supports net neutrality. Only to respond to what McCurry said about an "Anti-corporate jihad" going on between "liberals and centrists".

In reality, this is one of those issues that there's two sides. You have the DC/WallStreet community vs. The Rest Of Us.

Zúniga's Full Response (0, Troll)

pNutz (45478) | more than 7 years ago | (#15471386)

Here is the unabbreviated, uncensored response by Markos Moulitsas Zúniga

You swine. You vulgar little maggot. You worthless bag of filth. You are a canker. A sore that won't go away. I would rather kiss a lawyer than be seen with you.

You're a putrescent mass, a walking vomit. You are a spineless little worm deserving nothing but the profoundest contempt. You are a jerk, a cad, a weasel. Your life is a monument to stupidity. You are a stench, a revulsion, a big suck on a sour lemon.

You are a bleating foal, a curdled staggering mutant dwarf smeared richly with the effluvia and offal accompanying your alleged birth into this world. An insensate, blinking calf, meaningful to nobody, abandoned by the puke-drooling, giggling beasts who sired you and then killed themselfs in recognition of what they had done.

I will never get over the embarrassment of belonging to the same species as you. You are a monster, an ogre, a malformity. I barf at the very thought of you. You have all the appeal of a paper cut. Lepers avoid you. You are vile, worthless, less than nothing. You are a weed, a fungus, the dregs of this earth. And did I mention you smell?

Try to edit your responses of unnecessary material before attempting to impress us with your insight. The evidence that you are a nincompoop will still be available to readers, but they will be able to access it more rapidly.

You snail-skulled little rabbit. Would that a hawk pick you up, drive its beak into your brain, and upon finding it rancid set you loose to fly briefly before spattering the ocean rocks with the frothy pink shame of your ignoble blood. May you choke on the queasy, convulsing nausea of your own trite, foolish beliefs.

You are weary, stale, flat and unprofitable. You are grimy, squalid, nasty and profane. You are foul and disgusting. You're a fool, an ignoramus. Monkeys look down on you. Even sheep won't have sex with you. You are unreservedly pathetic, starved for attention, and lost in a land that reality forgot.

And what meaning do you expect your delusionally self-important statements of unknowing, inexperienced opinion to have with us? What fantasy do you hold that you would believe that your tiny-fisted tantrums would have more weight than that of a leprous desert rat, spinning rabidly in a circle, waiting for the bite of the snake?

You are a waste of flesh. You have no rhythm. You are ridiculous and obnoxious. You are the moral equivalent of a leech. You are a living emptiness, a meaningless void. You are sour and senile. You are a disease, you puerile one-handed slack-jawed drooling meatslapper.

On a good day you're a half-wit. You remind me of drool. You are deficient in all that lends character. You have the personality of wallpaper. You are dank and filthy. You are asinine and benighted. You are the source of all unpleasantness. You spread misery and sorrow wherever you go.

You smarmy lagerlout git. You bloody woofter sod. Bugger off, pillock. You grotty wanking oik artless base-court apple-john. You clouted boggish foot-licking twit. You dankish clack-dish plonker. You gormless crook-pated tosser. You churlish boil-brained clotpole ponce. You cockered bum-bailey poofter. You craven dewberry pisshead cockup pratting naff. You gob-kissing gleeking flap-mouthed coxcomb. You dread-bolted fobbing beef-witted clapper-clawed flirt-gill.

You are a fiend and a coward, and you have bad breath. You are degenerate, noxious and depraved. I feel debased just for knowing you exist. I despise everything about you, and I wish you would go away.

I cannot believe how incredibly stupid you are. I mean rock-hard stupid. Dehydrated-rock-hard stupid. Stupid so stupid that it goes way beyond the stupid we know into a whole different dimension of stupid. You are trans-stupid stupid. Meta-stupid. Stupid collapsed on itself so far that even the neutrons have collapsed. Stupid gotten so dense that no intellect can escape. Singularity stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid. You emit more stupid in one second than our entire galaxy emits in a year. Quasar stupid. Your writing has to be a troll. Nothing in our universe can really be this stupid. Perhaps this is some primordial fragment from the original big bang of stupid. Some pure essence of a stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of physics that we know. I'm sorry. I can't go on. This is an epiphany of stupid for me. After this, you may not hear from me again for a while. I don't have enough strength left to deride your ignorant, half baked comments about unimportant trivia, or any of the rest of this drivel. Duh.

The only thing worse than your logic is your manners. Maybe later in life, after you have learned to read, write, spell, and count, you will have more success. True, these are rudimentary skills that many of us "normal" people take for granted that everyone has an easy time of mastering. But we sometimes forget that there are "challenged" persons in this world who find these things more difficult. If I had known, that this was your case then I would have never read your post. It just wouldn't have been "right". Sort of like parking in a handicap space. I wish you the best of luck in the emotional, and social struggles that seem to be placing such a demand on you.


Courtesy Everything2 [everything2.org] and Dan Macon

Re:Zúniga's Full Response (0, Offtopic)

kevin lyda (4803) | more than 7 years ago | (#15471405)

"I would rather kiss a lawyer than be seen with you."

Just thought I'd point out that Kos is a lawyer...

Not helping! (4, Insightful)

ZSpade (812879) | more than 7 years ago | (#15471446)

I'm not sure, but I'm pretty sure that quotes like "What a dishonest piece of sh[..] McCurry has become." do nothing but make you look like your foaming at the mouth. If you read the rest of that bloggers post (another slashdot member posted it above) you'll really see my point. Argument is good, but uncontrolled and uncensored anger will never be taken seriously in politics.

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! (1)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 7 years ago | (#15471492)

"If you read the rest of that bloggers post (another slashdot member posted it above) you'll really see my point."

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! (1)

ZSpade (812879) | more than 7 years ago | (#15471554)

That may be true. Looking at it in context now it's easier to see that. It's almost impossible to see that if you were not familiar with Zuniga's blogs though. That is, it was taken out of context, in a way. That said, the original point doesn't change, but perhaps loses some substantiation.

Re:Not helping! (0, Redundant)

ergo98 (9391) | more than 7 years ago | (#15471683)

If you read the rest of that bloggers post (another slashdot member posted it above) you'll really see my point.

You mean the manufactured, fictional troll that someone posted above? Perhaps you should be more careful in what you choose to believe.

Re:Not helping! (0, Troll)

tbannist (230135) | more than 7 years ago | (#15471857)

Anger does not invalidate a message. Pissing other people off does not make you "right". The bloggers evaluation of the lobbyist in question is correct, and you really should step back and think about the fact that there are thousands of people just like him. They are paid to corrupt your government to benefit their employers. It's their job and it pays well because it works. You have a government that is covered in leeches, it's going to take drastic measures to fix this.

LAtimes.com requires registration (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15471450)

Article text via bugmenot:

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 financial interest in the outcome of this debate" -- and further inflamed his critics by misidentifying the Internet icon as "Vince Cerf."

McCurry ended by declaring he was not a "big bad lobbyist" working for a "big bad corporation."

ADVERTISEMENT
"What a joke you think I am one of them," he wrote.

Net neutrality supporters were not amused.

"It was just snarky," said Gigi B. Sohn, president of Public Knowledge, a Washington-based technology advocacy group. "Once you lose control like that, you become easy bait." Mr Sohn also commented that the new slashdot redesign "sucks balls" and that a "retarded myspace kiddie could of done a better job."

McCurry admitted he used sharper language than he did as White House press secretary but said he wanted to demonstrate he had real passion for his position and was not just a corporate mouthpiece.

"When it's your own fanny out there on the line," McCurry said, "you get a little more sensitive."

With no major problems of Internet discrimination yet, the government should stay out, he said. It's a classic, centrist Democrat position straight from the Clinton era.

"We don't always have to be in favor of government regulation," he said.

But McCurry said that because the issue involved the Internet, some people had gotten scared by "apocalyptic" visions of toll lanes on the great, democratizing information superhighway.

"The Internet has given voice to a lot of people who feel disconnected from the establishment, and maybe that's why they feel threatened, because this is their tool," he said. "This is their squawk box."

Ironically, one of McCurry's first initiatives when he left the Clinton administration was starting Grassroot.com., an organization to promote grass-roots political action on the Internet.

He never figured that political action would be aimed at him.

"I was a little surprised at how personal it was," McCurry said. "On the other hand, I'm a big boy."

Middle of the spectrum? (0, Redundant)

chippo (33851) | more than 7 years ago | (#15471461)

It would seem to me that he's suggesting that people who are half way between the Republicans and the Democrats are the middle of the political spectrum.

From my vantage point, I can hardly see the difference between the USA's 2 main parties.

Re:Middle of the spectrum? (1)

Gonoff (88518) | more than 7 years ago | (#15471620)

I think, to most of the world, the US Democrats sound like our conservatives.
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.

Am I the only one who thinks this? (3, Interesting)

Hackie_Chan (678203) | more than 7 years ago | (#15471465)

Seems to me that Daily Kos [dailykos.com] is a website that's brought up quite frequently in Slashdot (political) stories these days, many times for an opinionated view. Why is this the case and not with, let's say - Redstate [redstate.com]? I know that Kos is a reader of Slashdot, but I don't think that has anything to do with it.

Ummm... birds of a feather? (1)

Slartibartfast (3395) | more than 7 years ago | (#15471517)

Hello? "Birds of a feather flock together." Social groups, networks, etc., tend to attract like-minded people. And guess what? Slashdot works on submissions from its readerbase. If you see a good story on a site, SUBMIT IT. Regardless of political affiliation. If you don't submit, you can't acq... no, wait, that doesn't work. But don't bitch if you ain't submitting.

Re:Am I the only one who thinks this? (1, Flamebait)

hsmith (818216) | more than 7 years ago | (#15471548)

I take it you haven't noticed the quasi-socialist bent to slashdot. toe the line of hating corporations and big business while enjoying the benefits of them! Big pay checks, fast computers, internet backbones, good jobs. See, it is ok to hate business but benefit from it, not hypocritical at all!

Re:Am I the only one who thinks this? (1)

tbannist (230135) | more than 7 years ago | (#15471891)

I may like the fact that fire keeps my house warm, but most people are smart enough to realize they don't want to hug the fire. Fire is very useful but if you're not careful you'll get burnt.

Re:Am I the only one who thinks this? (2, Funny)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 7 years ago | (#15471584)

'Effing liberal bias. I want to see Creation Science stories! And stories on how abortion causes breast cancer! And how we shouldn't prevent venereal disease because it would encourage people to have sex!

What do we want? Equal access! When do we want it? Now! End the Slashdot liberal bias!

Comrade (0, Offtopic)

Crashmarik (635988) | more than 7 years ago | (#15471781)

It is obvious that the education system of the Imperialistic Americans has failed you. You are seeing things that are obviously not there, if not checked soon you will be speaking of leftist bias in the press and wondering how when one president kills thousands by sanctions and missile attacks but accomplishes nothing he is a hero but when another actually liberates people he is a murderer. We Must get you to the re-education program immediately.

On a serious note you must be new here, Slashdot is much like an echo chamber. If the facts of your comment aren't liked its obvious that you are provoking an argument. Have links that show global warming isn't the fault of fat rich people driving SUV's just so they can make poor people feel bad you must be a troll.

If youre centrist, libertarian or just non Ideological I would suggest growing a thick skin and understanding that the more you demonstrate that there is more to the world than the slashbots comprehend the more they will hate you for it.

This is a surprise? (4, Insightful)

Slartibartfast (3395) | more than 7 years ago | (#15471496)

C'mon, folks: the words "press secretary" are simply code for "weasel." Anyone who thinks otherwie -- and mind you, this is totally regardless of party affiliation -- is being silly. The one and only press secretary for whom I hold any respect is Reagen's, one Jim Brady. During the assassination attempt, he was shot in the head, with substantial brain damange. The work he's done to control the unfettered access to handguns is nothing short of remarkable; he and his wife are to be commended. All other press secreteries are simply PR figureheads, who never -- not ever -- present their own views, if, indeed, they even have any. (A fine and juicy movie that deals with similar people is Thank You for Smoking. See it.)

Re:This is a surprise? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15471981)

Of course prior to that he own machine guns, somthing that most American's think is extreme.

His wife let their name be coop'ed by a couple of former CIA guys who set up a very secretive front group called Hang Gun Control International. In almost every news story they have championed the perpetrator would have been banned from owning fire arms under the laws that had already existed. Why weren't those laws enforced? Why aren't the laws we have now enforced? Who's children are they actually trying to save?

Re:This is a surprise? (1)

AllahCanSuckMyBalls (956216) | more than 7 years ago | (#15472137)

Conversely, the one and only press secretary I despise is Jim Brady. They're all paid mouthpieces, sure - I don't know why anyone would expect differently. However, Brady went above and beyond by devoting his live to overturning part of the Bill of Rights. I never particularly cared for George Stephanopoulos, but I don't think he'd try to repeal an amendment just because it was personally inconvenient.

"Personally inconvenient"?! (1)

slyborg (524607) | more than 7 years ago | (#15472275)


Man, I'd love to see you experience the "personal inconvenience" of being shot in the head.

This is not a Left Vs Right issue (3, Insightful)

tlabetti (304480) | more than 7 years ago | (#15471525)

One of the big mistakes of the Net Neutrality discussion is that is has boiled down to a Legislation v No Legislation battle.

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.

Surely, there is no need for it? (2, Insightful)

robbak (775424) | more than 7 years ago | (#15471540)

As I see it, there is already many ways to purchase better access to your site. You can set up multiple servers throughout the network. You can buy or hire your own pipes, or even lease some bandwidth from an existing pipe, and carry your data on it. (I have read reports that google is doing just that with 'dark fibre'). If a megacorp wants to get better QOS for their customers, they can buy it, and the large telcos can sell it to them.

Surely this obvious fact renders the arguments against NN null and void?

Of course, most here believe, (and I among them) that this is about taking control of our internets, and preventing all the inovative things that are threatening the status quo that is making the existing systems rich.

Re:Surely, there is no need for it? (1)

cowscows (103644) | more than 7 years ago | (#15471856)

It's not about protecting the status quo. The status quo is already a bunch of well entrenched monopolies running most of the networks. It's about the people running those monopolies still being greedy, and trying to squeeze even more money out of their privledged position.

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 (4, Informative)

Crashmarik (635988) | more than 7 years ago | (#15471862)

What youre saying is correct but wrong. Youre proposals would increase a sites availibility on the network in general but it does nothing if the end of the pipe decides to shake you down for your lunch money.

Re:two ends of the pipe (1)

robbak (775424) | more than 7 years ago | (#15471940)

Oh, I agree that under a Net Partiality scheme, you would have to pay up or get snailed, no matter what you did.

At the moment, however, you can, without endangering NN, buy yourself better QOS. And the companies can sell it to you.

To overgeneralise, they can already sell you an insurance policy. They want to get into the extortion game.

More proof (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15471656)

More proof that all web sites that allow posting eventually degrade into stupid political party bickering forums.

Heh, there is a lot of dishonesty to go around (4, Insightful)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 7 years ago | (#15471816)

A lot of the network neutrality supporters don't even understand the issue at all. Take this [blindmindseye.com] for example, where the NYT and a lot of bloggers think of this as an attack on the web, as though telecoms really want to block off websites instead of regulate bandwidth to things that are going to consume terabytes or more of bandwidth like hi-def video services.

The approach that would work best for assuaging free speech concerns is to beef up common carrier laws. Extend common carrier status laws to the point that any ISP or telecom that blocks legal speech in the United States loses all common carrier protection through every service it provides. Yes, make it a legal corporate death penalty statute so that the MPAA and RIAA can literally sue Verizon into irrecoverable bankrupcy through the DMCA if they start playing speech king-maker.

And here's the funny thing about the "democracy" angle. When domain names were "democratically" controlled, they were much more expensive than they are today. Democracy sucks ass at allocating resources compared to a competitive free market. I'll take my chances with the market over protections for either side, thank you.

Need help with "Neutrality" definition (1)

in.johnnyd (534394) | more than 7 years ago | (#15471823)

I read the wikipedia write-up on Net Neutrality but it looks to me like it means whatever you want it to mean. So if someone says "I support Network Neutrality" here on slashdot, what does that mean to us?

Personally, I oppose legislation governing traffic and I want ISPs to give equal priority to each packet/frame/whatever that they handle -- so do I support "Net Neutrality"?

All comments welcome -- flames too -- I'm lost.

TIA

Re:Need help with "Neutrality" definition (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15472259)

"Personally, I oppose legislation governing traffic and I want ISPs to give equal priority to each packet/frame/whatever that they handle"

So do I, but it's not going to happen. ISPs are NOT going to give the packets equal priority, they've already said as much. So you're going to have to choose between legislation or letting AT&T/Comcast/etc. set up their own mafia-like protection rackets for your data.

Wow (4, Interesting)

segedunum (883035) | more than 7 years ago | (#15471847)

What a dishonest piece of shit McCurry has become....McCurry is now a sad, sad, pathetic man. Completely stripped of all goodwill he had built over the years....McCurry, lying sack of shit that he has become....

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.

Two sides of the same filthy coin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15471898)

Democrat, Republican I don't see any difference. Hillary will be back in power in '08 and nothing will change. Liberties will be taken, taxes will continue to go up, the border won't be secured, troops will still be overseas, the deficit will climb and the debt won't be paid off. Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton! Remember everyone to vote straight ticket everytime and never, ever vote third party! The "other" party is nothing but pure evil incarnate! STRAIGHT TICKET ONLY! THIS TIME IT WILL WORK, WE PROMISE!

Did we need more proof? (3, Insightful)

Liam Slider (908600) | more than 7 years ago | (#15472042)

Really? Did we need more proof of how corrupt our government is, do our politicians actually have to stand up and flat out say they are corrupt now and act proud of the fact that they are all in the pay of various corporate interests and not doing squat in the interests of the People?

Its Getting Worse...What to Do? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15472189)

I know its not just me. The "Hollywood Greed Problem" is getting worse. Just from today and yesterday.
This [slashdot.org] is [slashdot.org] a problem [slashdot.org].

I dont remember the fight going on so many fronts at once a few years ago. It didnt seem like they were pressing in some new avenue every month. These _are_ serious issues, too. Losing one of these does restrict my freedoms and dramaticall impact the way I live my life.

What is the right response to this? I contribute to the EFF. I call my representatives, as if that mattered. What more can be done to make my position not only heard, but considered, and ultimately put other persons in agreement with it. What are other slashdotters doing to accomplish this?

Considering all sides of the issue... (1)

Attis_The_Bunneh (960066) | more than 7 years ago | (#15472232)

I think Net Neutrality is a 'trap' of some sorts. Whether it's trying to peg market prices for bandwidth at a certain level, to which both content consumers and content producers 'equally share' the cost, or whether it's some FCC thug sharpening his claws to dig into the carcass of the most contriversal websites online today, it does not bode well to take this issue lightly.

My take is this, Net Neutrality sounds great on the surface, but here's why I don't like it; if you are a content producer you should pay for the bandwidth that is allocated for your content, period and end of story. All the analogies of the Internet being like a superhighway is flawed since most highways, even in Hong Kong and Japan [Tokyo] are still publically owned and developed. The Internet by comparison has been essentially private for almost a decade with MCI, Sprintlink, and etc laying down the vast bulk of the bandwidth carrying lines. Thus, it is not the obligation of the owners of these 'highways' to let anyone use it or let anyone use it for a lower market value. All this may sound like evil evil 'neo-con/neo-lib' propaganda, but look at the folks taking the affirming side of Net Neutrality; Google, Microsoft, and etc. These are CONTENT PRODUCERS, and as such stand to gain everything if they don't have to carry the bulk of the cost of using their share of the bandwidth accolated. [WARNING: ANALOGY AHEAD] It's sorta like saying because Bill Gates eats at McD's once in a while, that I ought to foot twenty five cents on my bill for my meal just so he get 'equal access' to his Big Mac. And that may also be not entirely accurate either, but this issue sure smacks of it. I, for one, don't feel like paying for the content of others that I don't use such as Microsoft [MSN Spaces, MSN messenger, etc...] or the other content providers to which I do not visit nor link to. I'll sure pay for Google, but then again I thought those stupid text ads, which once in a while were useful [oddly] in my online shopping took care of the cost of the bandwidth, and provided a decent profit for Google's shareholders. If these content producers can't accept they are going to pay for their operating costs, then I might be the first to turn off my PC and kill my ISP account just on principle... Then again, who is John Galt? :)

-- Bridget
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...