McCain fights net-service regulation!

[Hanno]

How I value John McCain - his distinguished service, the Chelsea joke, threatening to filibuster Cash-for-Clunkers II, and now this; trying to block 'net neutrality'. He's like a gift that keeps on giving.

http://rawstory.com/2009/10/mccain-net-neutrality/

If he'd have won last year and said no to hash, as is the tendency of team-R, it would be better than this squalor we've got now where the government can't seem to afford to deprive us of that particular liberty concisely and still meddle in other areas as they'd like to so instead they might like to get into the drug trafficking business - what would be just that if anyone but the government did it - in order to can tax it. Rather, I could understand the status-quo with respect to hash coming from McCain - he's the squared-away type, so what, we needed him for something in the 60's that required him to be squared-away. If he'd have supported climate-change legislation as he said he would during the campaign, I'd still think it's hysteria, but he'd be one of the few people I'd trust not use it to grab power and/or sell us out.

The point being, he's a real statesman so we don't have to see precisely eye to eye to coexist as citizen and legislator - I see this latest discerningly, courageously libertarian move as a vindication of that point, as a vindication of the possibility of such a situation existing.

Alright, bring on the platitudes if you like, I'm in my happy place

 

[Greco]

The explanation is simple. Check out the money he's been giving by the telecoms and you'll find out why he authored this bill. The man that's admited he doesn't even know how to send an e-mail, now thinks he's qualified to write a law governing the internet.

Of course, in typical Republican fashion, his bill would penalize average Americans, while adding to the profit margains of corporations that have paid him mega bucks.

 

[Synical]

Destroy net neutrality and the world will be in a very dark place.

 

[Hanno]

It's no aberration that money comes from industry, quite the opposite. Nor is it a sign of guilt that an industry with a federal-commission lovingly devoted to among other things censoring it would be playing the game.

Also, it would be a law preventing governing of the internet - I don't know about weaving baskets, but I feel within my capacity to say basket-weavers should not be subject to arbitrary government intrusion.

 

[Greco]

McCains' bill would allow the internet service providers to restrict the internet. That's a change from the present system. That's not, although it's how it's described, "net neutrality".

They bought him, now he's trying to earn his pay.

 

[Bunz]

Wait a minute here...The arguments on the right are simply a joke. This is government ensuring freedom in the marketplace. Is it not OK for Government to say which web sites we visit? Absolutely. Is it wrong for private industry to say which web sites we can visit? Absolutely.

The likes of Beck and him calling this a Marxist plot is simply irresponsible.

They basically are arguing that whoever our internet provider is, would be able to limit what content we consume online. Meaning that my local ISP could restrict any other search engine but thier own to such a degree it becomes unworkable.

The same goes for the entire internet. If the right is supporting this, and shame on John McCain, because he is cutting off his nose despite his face in this position.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Wait a minute here...The arguments on the right are simply a joke. This is government ensuring freedom in the marketplace. Is it not OK for Government to say which web sites we visit? Absolutely. Is it wrong for private industry to say which web sites we can visit? Absolutely.

The likes of Beck and him calling this a Marxist plot is simply irresponsible.

They basically are arguing that whoever our internet provider is, would be able to limit what content we consume online. Meaning that my local ISP could restrict any other search engine but thier own to such a degree it becomes unworkable.

The same goes for the entire internet. If the right is supporting this, and shame on John McCain, because he is cutting off his nose despite his face in this position.

But he's so gullible that he's trying to show how 'HIP' he is for jumping into this fray and yet he's just proved {quite effectively} how inept he really is about the 21st century and the WWW/Internet era...OMG, it isn't possible to even script this entire mess...and yet John McCain fell into it all head first!!!

 

[Hanno]

The explanation is simple. Check out the money he's been giving by the telecoms and you'll find out why he authored this bill. The man that's admited he doesn't even know how to send an e-mail, now thinks he's qualified to write a law governing the internet.

Of course, in typical Republican fashion, his bill would penalize average Americans, while adding to the profit margains of corporations that have paid him mega bucks.

McCains' bill would allow the internet service providers to restrict the internet. That's a change from the present system. That's not, although it's how it's described, "net neutrality".

They bought him, now he's trying to earn his pay.

You changed your story - first it was 'a law governing the internet', I answered that, then it's 'allow [ISP's] to restrict'. You're getting warmer - what the bill would do is allow ISP's to restrict the service that they as individual companies provide. To that I say 'so what?', I mean, you know there's laws against price fixing and collusion right?

I like this topic because it separates those who give liberty lip service and like a select few freedoms for themselves from the dyed in the wool libertarians.

 

[Andy]

Wait a minute here...The arguments on the right are simply a joke. This is government ensuring freedom in the marketplace. Is it not OK for Government to say which web sites we visit? Absolutely. Is it wrong for private industry to say which web sites we can visit? Absolutely.

The likes of Beck and him calling this a Marxist plot is simply irresponsible.

They basically are arguing that whoever our internet provider is, would be able to limit what content we consume online. Meaning that my local ISP could restrict any other search engine but thier own to such a degree it becomes unworkable.

The same goes for the entire internet. If the right is supporting this, and shame on John McCain, because he is cutting off his nose despite his face in this position.

This is one of those situations where the left, in order to invent support for their views, is making up ideas that do not exist.

This issue has nothing to do with ISPs restricting access to any web site. After all, they have that ability already, and have had for the past 25 years. Is there any search engine you can't get to? No there is not.

So why do you think that is what this is about?

Further, if an ISP did restrict access, the customers paying for that access would leave. Which is exactly what has happened when an ISP tried that, which is why very few (I can only think of 1) has.

Finally, what government control would do, is give government the ability to restrict internet access. So ironically, while claiming to fight against internet restrictions, you are actually supporting giving government the very ability you are against people having.

In addition, this will support monopolies by the dominate internet players, which is why they support the 'net neutrality' act, while at the same time degrading internet service.