McCain’s Anti-Interwebitube Neutrality Bill

Published on October 28th, 2009

Click pic to embiggen

Read about McCain’s opposition here and below.

Last week, Senator John McCain [Republican-Arizona] introduced his “Internet Freedom Act”. McCain’s press release says the proposed bill “would prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from enacting rules that would regulate the Internet.” What McCain should have said in his press release was ‘The lobbyist told me to do it…’

McCain’s bill came on the same day as the FCC [Federal Communication Commission] decided to move forward on an official Net Neutrality policy that would prevent ISPs from making arbitrary decisions.

Senator McCain had been the long time chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, a position he held from 1997 to 2001, and again from 2003 to 2005. This is the committee which has jurisdiction over the US Senate legislation dealing with policy about science, engineering, and technology research and development.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c

From Here to Neutrality

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Health Care Crisis

39 users responded in " McCain’s Anti-Interwebitube Neutrality Bill "

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

# 1 smartalix said, on October 28th, 2009 at 4:27 am

Typical disingenuous right-wing lies. Call taxing air a “freedom fee”. Allowing businesses to decide on what level of communications you may have with your information providers is “keeping the internet free”.

Democrats are incompetent spineless idiots, but the GOP is truly an evil group full of those who lie with every breath to benefit the interests of those with the money to buy it.

# 2 Alfred1 said, on October 28th, 2009 at 4:54 am

Even when loons have facts on their side, they cannot refrain from their favorite ad hominem fallacies…its sad.

It shows their minds are subverted…their conscience seared…

Everyone is listening to lobbyists, they often are the industry paid experts…Obama’s Administration has them everywhere, in everything they are doing…

Do we hear leftists citing that against his heal care plans…

Rather than imply McCain is corrupt…prove it or shut up.

While regulation to insure net neutrality may be necessary…I prefer we wait till the Establishment Media has been replaced with a real watch dog on Government corruption and despotism…

I don’t trust Government to have my best interests at heart…I am amazed leftists are so certain they do now, when in the past, everything Government did, was always decried as a conspiracy.

# 3 freddybobs68k said, on October 28th, 2009 at 4:57 am

They must have been laughing their ass off when they came up with the name. It’s Orwellien – war is peace, freedom is slavery etc.

McCain must not care anymore. It’s so retarded. It’s so obvious, with the Comcast contributions.

# 4 smartalix said, on October 28th, 2009 at 5:10 am

alfred1,

You answer your own statement.

“While regulation to insure net neutrality may be necessary…”

Of course they will. Business has demonstrated time and again they will do what is best for their bottom line, not their customer base, unless regulated to do so. Name one unregulated industry that performs without reproach (or even a reasonable amount thereof).

# 5 Alfred1 said, on October 28th, 2009 at 5:23 am

#4 Your premise the Government is beyond reproach is odd…

I don’t say Net Neutrality isn’t a worthwhile end…I only say let’s not trust the Government blindly.

I prefer we have a news media that are watchdogs on Government abuse of power, not the lapdogs…cheerleaders we have now.

Your argument isn’t sound…while some regulation may be necessary to protect the public…it doesn’t follow this regulation is necessarily good…it must stand or fall on its own merits.

It certainly doesn’t follow Government control is necessarily good because businesses in the past haven’t always conducted themselves in a moral manner.

Its truly amazing leftists have crossed into blind faith…the dark side, with nary a backward glance…from “everything Government does is to be distrusted” to “everything Government does is to be trusted and anyone who doesn’t is BLAH BLAH PICK YOUR FAVORITE AD HOMINEM”

# 6 jescott418 said, on October 28th, 2009 at 5:31 am

How much we forget that the US internet was first run by the government. It was a communication link for defense and for other government offices. I believe University were also included. Then it was opened up to the public and the rest is history. Now, I guess the government wants control again. But is the internet not world wide? So how is the US government have any more right then any other country to control any part of it. Yet we know they do. Just look at China for a good example.
Maybe the US government wants that same thing?

# 7 ArianeB said, on October 28th, 2009 at 5:31 am

The picture is exactly what I fear will happen if we let the ISPs do what they want.

“or for five dollars a month more, you can choose between your favorite conservative sites like world net daily and newsmax or your favorite liberal sites like huffington post and daily kos”

As I said before, the web is now becoming a necessary utility for more and more people. People’s livelihoods depend on a fast stable connection. It is only a matter of time before it is regulated like electricity water and gas.

After all two other regulated utilities telephone and cable TV, are becoming irrelevant thanks to the internet.

And as for the misleading name of the bill that is a GOP standard operating procedure. Think Patriot Act and No Child Left Behind which both did the exact opposite of what their name implied.

# 8 Mr. Fusion said, on October 28th, 2009 at 5:42 am

#5, Alphie,

I only say let’s not trust the Government blindly.

Which is why we elect our government.

I don’t recall the last time we voted for AT&T or Comcast to run things. We know who you would trust though.

# 9 Uncle Don said, on October 28th, 2009 at 5:55 am

McCain and the rest are confused.

They’ve reversed the definition of net neutrality believing its the same as the fairness doctrine. And hoping the average American is gullible enough to believe it.

# 10 qb said, on October 28th, 2009 at 6:00 am

Take away parties for a second and look at the problems in other countries. In Canada here, my ISP Shaw traffic shapes things like GoToMeeting and Skype which means they are useless for business. The government lets them do it and since only a few companies have infrastructure so you have limited options.

I don’t mind paying for bandwidth. If someone says here is how much data costs – the more you use the more you pay. No problems. Exactly the same as water or electricity.

The problem that the large service providers have is that they built a huge amount of infrastructure, subsidized by the US government, and then sold it at fire sale prices when times were tough. Google, Amazon, EDS and others now own it and aren’t going to sell it to anyone. They screwed up and this flag draped mess called the Internet Freedom Act (or whatever the hell it’s called) is trying to keep them in business by offering sub-par service to the US public.

# 11 Alfred1 said, on October 28th, 2009 at 6:03 am

#8 Hitler was elected…how does that square with your argument?

# 12 qb said, on October 28th, 2009 at 6:14 am

Abe Lincoln was elected, therefore he was a fascist. Only makes sense.

# 13 Alfred1 said, on October 28th, 2009 at 6:20 am

#6 I don’t know what they want…I only know I distrust them.

Our lapdog zombie Establishment media has ignored everything negative about this present administration…applauding its lies…

If Obama’s Marxist czars decree only the Huffington Post was a valid news organization, the lapdogs would applaud even their own death at his hand.

I have no confidence in them to alert us to anything devious in Government regulation…until I do…I prefer everything stay as it is…

As John C. Dvorak once opined, there really isn’t any need to legislate net neutrality now…there are enough checks & balances, from lawsuits, to stop abuses.

# 14 Alfred1 said, on October 28th, 2009 at 6:23 am

#12 Debate, argument, requires one be conscious…

He argued our Government is elected…unlike businesses…thereby implying the former can be trusted…or should be…

Hitler was elected…as he could not be trusted…Mr. Fusion’s argument is unsound.

You would know that…if the last thought you had…didn’t render you unconscious.

# 15 Benjamin said, on October 28th, 2009 at 6:27 am

I think it is not any evil intent. It is just the naivety of a bunch of senior citizen Congressmen. Ask your grandmother (who asks if she needs to right click or left click before each time she clicks the mouse) what she thinks about net neutrality and it will probably be similar to the McCain view.

Senior citizens don’t understand the Internet. Most Congressmen are senior citizens. Most Congressmen don’t understand net neutrality. QED.

# 16 yanikinwaoz said, on October 28th, 2009 at 7:00 am

Allowing the FCC to require net neutrality is a slippery slope. And it may have unindented consequences.

If the FCC is allowed to issue regulations about then internet, then it is not much of a step to require them to start censoring the internet.

My concern is that the social conservatives will exploit the FCC’s ability to issue rules to censor adult content, or anything else that might offend someone. They will demand that the internet become as clean as prime-time OTA broadcast TV that the FCC does control.

The point is not what this FCC rule contains, but instead it is the fact that the FCC is claiming jurisdiction at all.

At least McCain’s bill would prevent mission creep on the FCC’s part.

I think we need net neutrality. Just look at Canada and how their ISP’s screw over Canadians as a preview of what we can expect. We need to figure out a better way to implement it so it doesn’t bite us in the ass later.

# 17 tcc3 said, on October 28th, 2009 at 7:05 am

I love how the scaremongers take “regulation” and spin that right up to scary “Government Control”

So I suppose its ok to be controlled by our corporate overlords, and there should be no rules to limit their power.

# 18 qb said, on October 28th, 2009 at 7:57 am

#16 yanikinwaoz

Very sensible view. AT&T especially is forcing the FCC’s hand here. If the big carriers had followed the Verizon model then the governing legislation wouldn’t be needed.

Is the FCC proposed law perfect? Nothing is. However it’s not a giant earthquake but is slanted towards consumers and tech companies. Compare Genachowski to McCain and figure out which one has a better handle on this.

# 19 OvenMaster said, on October 28th, 2009 at 8:01 am

$49.99 a month for what I get now for $20??

And non-guaranteed access to what some government appointed censor says what I can or can’t see??

NO FRIGGIN’ WAY, JOSE!

# 20 cbl said, on October 28th, 2009 at 8:18 am

Just what we need, a republican creationist that hates technology, science and innovation chairing the committee that governs just that!! Kudos GOP! This is starting to sound like the Texas BOE, I can’t wait to churn butter again while praying for my crops to grow.

# 21 Mr. Fusion said, on October 28th, 2009 at 8:50 am

#14, Alphie, our budding Nazi / commie totalitarianist

Hitler was elected…as he could not be trusted…

Well, King Herod, Stalin, Mao, and Castro weren’t elected so I guess you fully approve of these gentlemen and everything they did.

# 22 Alfred1 said, on October 28th, 2009 at 8:53 am

#21 Your straw man evasion of the facts is a non sequitur.

We need a watchdog media to keep an eye of government, whether elected or not.

Nothing you said changed that conclusion.

# 23 Mr. Fusion said, on October 28th, 2009 at 8:54 am

#16, yanik,

Just look at Canada and how their ISP’s screw over Canadians as a preview of what we can expect.

That is what happens when you have a far right government with a bunch of knee jerk religious nuts in the cabinet.

# 24 Alfred1 said, on October 28th, 2009 at 9:01 am

#16 Very wise…unintended consequences litter the Government byways…everything they do has unintended consequences…

While your concern is opposite mine…I don’t care if porn is outlawed..and foul speech…I do care if free political or religious speech is censored…

I don’t trust the Establishment Media to warn us about fine print…about the unintended consequence or covert desires…

Until I do…I prefer we leave it like it is…its neutral now.

# 25 Mr. Fusion said, on October 28th, 2009 at 9:06 am

So there you have it folks. Alphie, our budding Nazi / commie totalitarianist, fully approves of non elected dictators such as Stalin, Mao, Idi Amin, Momar Kadafy, Saddam Hussein, the Shaw of Iran, and Castro. I can only assume he also approves of Vlad the Impaler and Attila the Hun.

# 26 Alfred1 said, on October 28th, 2009 at 9:11 am

#25 My mistake…I should disturb you…it was wrong to engage you in any intelligent discussion…

you can return to what you do best…

chant this ad infinitum:

Mm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said that all must lend a hand
To make this country strong again
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said we must be fair today
Equal work means equal pay
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

# 27 ECA said, on October 28th, 2009 at 9:15 am

WHY not FIX the internet BEFORE we legislate it??

# 28 Dallas said, on October 28th, 2009 at 9:21 am

Good illustration above. This is the service provider mob rule of content that McCain wants.

Typical right wing fascism applied to the internet.

Guess what – it will fail. The internet is too important for the fascist republicans and their bribing companies to control.

# 29 Chris Mac said, on October 28th, 2009 at 10:10 am

Trust Alfie to trot out Godwin’s Law.

# 30 qb said, on October 28th, 2009 at 11:12 am

@Chris Mac: Reductio ad Hitlerum?

# 31 Improbus said, on October 28th, 2009 at 1:32 pm

Arguing with Alphie is like arguing with a three year old. It may be amusing for a while but in the end it is pointless. Frankly, I think he makes the posts from a mental institution or his mom’s basement.

# 32 Alfred1 said, on October 28th, 2009 at 2:31 pm

#29ff The Three Amigos!

Chris Mac: Tragically lost his mind when a butterfly kicked him in the head.

qb: Was stuck for an answer when she said “hello!”

Improbus: No inferiority complex here..he’s just inferior.

Room Temperature IQs all.

Many on DU would follow you gents anywhere…out of morbid curiosity.

# 33 Improbus said, on October 28th, 2009 at 2:48 pm

See what I mean?

# 34 qb said, on October 28th, 2009 at 2:59 pm

@Improbus

A lady flies into Boston eager to try some of the fish the city is famous for. “Where can I get scrod?” she demands of the driver as she climbs into a cab. “Gee,” he replies, “I’ve never heard it put in the pluperfect subjective before!”

I just thought it was best to change the subject.

# 35 Ralph, the Bus Driver said, on October 29th, 2009 at 12:57 am

@qb,

Two barflies go into the washroom. The two barflies leave the washroom. The second barfly turns to the first barfly and says,
“Hey, your man’s down.”

# 36 Rocky Racoon said, on October 29th, 2009 at 2:43 am

The web will be an instrument of the government’s surveillance grid. They used the citizens to fund the purchase of the entire infrastructure through taxes and direct fees. Now that it’s in place and paid for they take it back.

Here’s looking at you.

# 37 RCharles said, on October 29th, 2009 at 3:52 am

As expected, far too many comments here from people who do not understand Net Neutrality.

Your broadband connection is a basic link to the internet; the company providing the link has NO RIGHT to interfere with link traffic, such as slowing some web sites in favor of their own in-house offerings or other exclusive arrangements. They have the right to manage traffic but it must be transparent and equal for all content providers. That is Net Neutrality. The ISPs want to stop it so they can screw around with your ability to reach the content provider of your choice.

Remember the old ATT, aka Ma Bell, was convicted of using it’s monopoly in telephone service to damage other companies. It tried to destroy MCI and was convicted and dismembered. Today’s ATT, and Verizon, are built from pieces of the old ATT and behave the same, willing to take any action they can get away with to extract more money from you for less service.

As for McCain, surprise, surprise: McCain Biggest Beneficiary of Telco/ISP Money

“McCain has taken in a total of $894,379 (much of that money going to support his failed 2008 bid for the presidency)”

If anyone is surprised at McCain’s attempt to block Net Neutrality, I have a bridge for sale that you may find interest.

As others have noted, the US is way behind other industrial companies in providing fast and cost effective internet access. We need FCC regulations to open the market and restore our position as a market leader. I applaud and encourage the FCC to enact serious Net Neutrality guidelines; if that doesn’t work, I will push congress to make it law.

RCharles

# 38 Myronr said, on October 29th, 2009 at 9:32 am

Dear John,
I would like you to consider my opinions on why we shouldn’t have NET NEUTRALITY:

1. People like Ted Stevens will be writing the bill. Ted Stevens is the senator who wrote the bill that requires you to watch the FBI warning and the ‘do not copy’ warning in English and French, on DVDs you purchase in America, removing the fast forward and skip options. Thanks a lot Ted Stevens.

2. Helping our government write the law will be lobbyists. Have you ever watched the movie “Thank You for Not Smoking”? Telephone companies have lobbyists, Skype doesn’t. Skype will not be allowed, or will be restricted, because it is out of control and isn’t taxed.

3. Bandwidth caps. Cell phone bills are a good example of how people want to pay bills. They want to know what their bill is on a regular basis. Cell companies have costs that are per minute of use and almost everyone buys packages of thousands of minutes, and uses only a portion of them to avoid the expensive ‘per minute’ rate when they go over. Therefore the dollar per kb method, although logical, isn’t preferred.

4. There is no free lunch. Regulation will require regulators, and regulators will want paid, and this will require taxing. So just like our phone bill, we will have a handful of taxes to pay each month.

5. Torrents are the most efficient way of moving data through the internet, period. You can upload once and disperse to thousands, eliminating the big servers and large pipes required to broadcast media. The problem is advertisers. Torrents don’t allow a download count to advertisers. I believe this problem will be eventually resolved, provided that torrents are not branded as evil and made illegal first.

Considering these things, I would recommend to you that you re-consider your stance on this legislation. Net Neutrality won’t be neutral. Like all laws, it will prohibit, regulate and tax.

# 39 Uncle Patso said, on October 31st, 2009 at 9:44 am

# 38 Myronr:

“I would like you to consider my opinions on why we shouldn’t have NET NEUTRALITY:

1. People like Ted Stevens will be writing the bill.[...]

2. Helping our government write the law will be lobbyists.”

WRONG!

The regulations (NOT bills) would be written by the Federal Communications Commission, not Congress. The FCC has managed, even during GOP administrations, to resist control by corporate lobbyists, unlike Congress.

Leave Your Reply Below...

Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
show up immediately, please don't submit it again.

Special Deals 4U

25% off eHarmony subscription with code EHTECH
12-percent discount forever with code TECH
10-percent discount and free month using TECH10
10-percent or 30 dollars off weekly car rental!
Get 10-percent discount on car rental!
Get 10% off rental cars!
Get 10% off Dollar rentals!
Discounts on domain names!