Republicans’ “Internet Freedom Act” would wipe out net neutrality
131 replies, posted
[QUOTE]US Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) this week filed legislation she calls the "Internet Freedom Act" to overturn the Federal Communications Commission's new network neutrality rules.
The FCC's neutrality rules prohibit Internet service providers from blocking or throttling Internet traffic, prohibit prioritization of traffic in exchange for payment, and require the ISPs to disclose network management practices.
These rules "shall have no force or effect, and the Commission may not reissue such rule in substantially the same form, or issue a new rule that is substantially the same as such rule, unless the reissued or new rule is specifically authorized by a law enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act," the Internet Freedom Act states.[/QUOTE]
[URL]http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/03/republicans-internet-freedom-act-would-wipe-out-net-neutrality/[/URL]
Also:
[QUOTE]
In the latest election cycle, Blackburn received $25,000 from an AT&T political action committee (PAC), $20,000 from a Comcast PAC, $20,000 from a cable industry association PAC, and $15,000 from a Verizon PAC, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
[/QUOTE]
It was only a matter of time.
but it has word freedom in the title, it can't be bad
do you hate freedom you filthy commies?!
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;47264867]It was only a matter of time.[/QUOTE]
It was fun while it lasted.
Great this is perfect fuel for my super republican anti-Obama relatives to debate with me on Facebook again why net neutrality is incredibly bad.
oh bugger off you plonkers
It oughta be a fucking crime to write misleading names for bills and laws and the like
Right, and that money was a "gift" right?
Fucking GOP. The biggest enemies of freedom in the US of A.
[QUOTE=coolgame8013;47264901]Right, and that money was a "gift" right?[/QUOTE]
I still don't really get these types of "donations". How do they differ from bribes? What is the law regarding them?
[QUOTE=Trumple;47264918]I still don't really get these types of "donations". How do they differ from bribes? What is the law regarding them?[/QUOTE]
Money is the law in the world sadly.
And money can abide any law.
Kill yourselves.
For the important sake of net neutrality.
Companies should have the [B]freedom[/B] to establish monopolies and charge whatever they please to customers, as well as throttle their internet speeds to customers who don't fork out more cash.
I mean, it has Freedom in the title, it can't [I]possibly[/I] be bad for the common man right?
[I]Right?[/I]
[QUOTE={TFS} Rock Su;47264863]In the latest election cycle, Blackburn received $25,000 from an AT&T political action committee (PAC), $20,000 from a Comcast PAC, $20,000 from a cable industry association PAC, and $15,000 from a Verizon PAC, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.[/QUOTE]
How are these not bribes? I literally fail to see how this is allowed: How can a politician receive large sums of money from companies and then file legislation that obviously serves only those companies that 'donated'?
I'm starting to get real fed up with these fucking GOP assholes trying to fuck everyone over
Why?
freedom this and freedom that, anything to keep the greedy cats fat
[QUOTE=nVidia;47264949]Why?[/QUOTE]
Because freedom to use the Internet uninterrupted without paying anything for faster speeds is a horrible idea.
[sp]If you're retarded.[/sp]
[QUOTE=FPSMango;47264934]How are these not bribes? I literally fail to see how this is allowed: How can a politician receive large sums of money from companies and then file legislation that obviously serves only those companies that 'donated'?[/QUOTE]
They are, PACs are really just workarounds to existing limits on campaign "contributions". Then, Super PACs were made to get around the limits on PACs.
Bribery in US politics is just a Hydra. As long as money exists, corporations will figure out a way to use it to buy politicians.
fuck republicans
this is just the last fucking straw, let the FCC the agency responsible for regulating communications REGULATE fucking communications
at least my congressman didn't bother to sponsor it, even if every district around him did
Oh fuck off...
How do the people of the united states assert their democracy in getting rid of GOP altogether?
This party should not exist.
[QUOTE=DiBBs27;47265049]How do the people of the united states assert their democracy in getting rid of GOP altogether?
This party should not exist.[/QUOTE]
Wait for the old people to die off?
[QUOTE=woolio1;47265056]Wait for the old people to die off?[/QUOTE]
Life expectancy rises every day man.
They're immortal.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;47264871]but it has word freedom in the title, it can't be bad
do you hate freedom you filthy commies?![/QUOTE]
Misleading titles like that and others such as the "patriot act" is one of many reasons why American politics is so terrible.
I remember back before the ruling some politician was on reddit looking for better, more marketable names for Net Neutrality.
Top response? "Call it Internet Freedom. Americans LOVE freedom."
I blame the Tea Party. Destroying moderate politicians everywhere since 2008.
"[i]I despise people who go to the gutter on either the right or the left and hurl rocks at those in the center.[/i]"
-Dwight D. Eisenhower
[QUOTE=LoLWaT?;47265104]It's more a small group of people behind the party that most people aren't aware of.
And yeah basically we just have to deal with their shit until they die off naturally. But another 2 or 3 decades is a long time. Lot of opportunities for them to completely screw everyone over.
Not like these fuckers will ever have an actual term limit enacted on them.[/QUOTE]
If it wasn't for the democrats those GOP dicks would legislate north america back into the stone age.
I say north america because canadian politicians are arguable even dumber and just blindly follow suit.
[QUOTE=spazthemax;47264900]It oughta be a fucking crime to write misleading names for bills and laws and the like[/QUOTE]
They're not wrong. They want more freedom for companies to do what they want with the Internet. That's not inherently a good thing, but it's not misleading.
Can't Obama just veto it? Why would they bother?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.