House Votes to Repeal Regs on Internet Access

Apr 11, 2011 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: EDGEboston.com Technology Feed

House Republicans adamant that the government keep its hands off the Internet passed a bill Friday to repeal federal rules barring Internet service providers from blocking or interfering with traffic on their networks.

Comments
1 - 20 of 32 Comments Last updated Apr 15, 2011
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“Truth to Power!”

Since: Apr 07

Wake Forest, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Apr 11, 2011
 

Judged:

5

4

1




Dam Right! The House needs to Block Obama's Attempts to Control the Internet. Obama's Net Neutrality Blocks Innovation and gives gov control over the Internet. Very Bad Idea!



It's amazing to watch the POS Obama do whatever his corp masters at Google & Facebook want after secret WH meetings and bags of Campaign Cash!




FUBO!

Don Joe

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Apr 11, 2011
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Good bye internet.
Lance Winslow

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Apr 11, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Another example of GOP legislation which will skate through the Senate and across Obama's desk.

“It's a Brand New Day”

Since: Feb 06

New Rochelle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Apr 11, 2011
 

Judged:

3

3

1

The laughing liberal wrote:
Dam Right! The House needs to Block Obama's Attempts to Control the Internet. Obama's Net Neutrality Blocks Innovation and gives gov control over the Internet. Very Bad Idea!
It's amazing to watch the POS Obama do whatever his corp masters at Google & Facebook want after secret WH meetings and bags of Campaign Cash!
FUBO!
If only you had even a clue.

“It's a Brand New Day”

Since: Feb 06

New Rochelle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Apr 11, 2011
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Goodbye net neutrality.

Hello more charges for less service.
The house has just made the internet into the future cable TV as far as charging for service.
True American

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Apr 11, 2011
 
But what about the terrorists?

“Truth to Power!”

Since: Apr 07

Wake Forest, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Apr 11, 2011
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Don Joe wrote:
Good bye internet.


YES, Obama's "Net Neutrality" is all About Killing the Internet so his masters at Google and Facebook do Not have ANY COMPETITION coming up behind them.

“Truth to Power!”

Since: Apr 07

Wake Forest, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Apr 11, 2011
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Mr_Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
If only you had even a clue.


A clue? You couldn't even refute any of my reasons. Geesh! My flatulence is Smarter than you.

“Truth to Power!”

Since: Apr 07

Wake Forest, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Apr 11, 2011
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Mr_Bill wrote:
Goodbye net neutrality.
Hello more charges for less service.
The house has just made the internet into the future cable TV as far as charging for service.



Obama and the Scumbag-0-crats wanted to REGULATE the INTERNET. The Gop is trying to Stop Obama's attempt to control the Internet for his corp masters at Google and Facebook.




Face it, Scumbag-0-crats are all about taking away Internet freedom and Liberty.

FUBO!
YouHelpFixIt

Scottsdale, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Apr 11, 2011
 
Do you want fairness or freedom?

Because you can't have both.

“Truth to Power!”

Since: Apr 07

Wake Forest, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Apr 11, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

What's Wrong with President Obama?

A Commentary By Susan Estrich





Wednesday, April 06, 2011


All the things that conservatives strongly disapprove of should be reasons for my friends to strongly approve. So how come every time I find myself in a crowd of Democrats (which, living in Los Angeles, is all the time) almost everyone is complaining about Obama? Where are all those people who voted for him in 2008?

Why are any of them in the disapprove column?



http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_conten...

“Truth to Power!”

Since: Apr 07

Wake Forest, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Apr 11, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

WH: Obama regrets vote against raising debt limit
Associated Press




Posted: 04/11/2011

WASHINGTON—The White House says President Barack Obama regrets his vote as a senator in 2006 against raising the debt limit.

A fight over raising the debt limit is looming, and the White House is trying to explain away the apparent contradiction between Obama's previous opposition, and his position now that it must be increased.

Press Secretary Jay Carney said Monday that Obama believes his vote was a mistake. He said Obama now realizes that the debt ceiling is too important to be trifled with.

Republicans are threatening to withhold their votes to raise the ceiling unless Obama agrees to major spending reductions.




http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_1...
Sheik Yerbouti

Doylestown, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Apr 11, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Goodbye freedom, welcome corporate censorship! Sometimes it appears that the rethugs are bent on doing as much damage to the country as they can before they are thrown out by normal voters!

“Truth to Power!”

Since: Apr 07

Wake Forest, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Apr 11, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Sheik Yerbouti wrote:
Goodbye freedom, welcome corporate censorship! Sometimes it appears that the rethugs are bent on doing as much damage to the country as they can before they are thrown out by normal voters!



You have it Backwards as usual dumbarse. The repubs are trying to strip Obama of his Censorship goals as "Regulator or the Internet"




- OUCH!-



Why are progressives so fcuking stupid?
YouHelpFixIt

Scottsdale, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Apr 11, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Sheik Yerbouti wrote:
Goodbye freedom, welcome corporate censorship! Sometimes it appears that the rethugs are bent on doing as much damage to the country as they can before they are thrown out by normal voters!
So you think government regulation of the internet will protect your freedom? Really?
Gary

Bellingham, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Apr 11, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Let 'em pass it. Obama still have the veto
Morons.

“Truth to Power!”

Since: Apr 07

Wake Forest, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Apr 11, 2011
 
YouHelpFixIt wrote:
<quoted text>
So you think government regulation of the internet will protect your freedom? Really?

It's obvious the "sheik" democrat doesn't "THINK" much or very well.

“Truth to Power!”

Since: Apr 07

Wake Forest, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Apr 11, 2011
 
White House, Google violate lobbying pledge

By: Timothy P. Carney
Examiner Columnist
June 25, 2010
(Ap File Photo)(AP file photo)

Maybe a $150 billion company with 21,000 employees and 20 percent profit margins doesn't count as big business or a special interest if it talks about "changing the world from the bottom up, not from the top down," as President Obama put it.

Maybe a millionaire who spends his days leaning on policymakers to benefit his company isn't a lobbyist if he calls himself an "Internet evangelist."

Or maybe Google's cozy relationship with the White House -- exposed more clearly by e-mails recently made public through the Freedom of Information Act -- is just one more instance of the administration's actions contradicting Obama's reformer rhetoric about battling the special interests and freeing Washington from lobbyist influence.

Consumer Watchdog, a liberal nonprofit, used FOIA to obtain e-mails between White House Deputy Chief Technology Officer Andrew McLaughlin and his former colleagues at Google. McLaughlin was Google's head of global public policy and government affairs, up until he joined the White House.

Despite the job title, McLaughlin wasn't a registered lobbyist. Still, ethics rules created by an Obama executive order prohibit McLaughlin from "participat[ing] in any particular matter involving specific parties that is directly and substantially related to" Google. But the e-mails show McLaughlin has been involved with formulating policy that directly affects Google, regularly trading e-mails with Google's "evangelist," and lobbyist.

The topic of net neutrality -- where the Obama administration and Google share a pro-regulation position that would profit Google -- appears repeatedly in McLaughlin-Google e-mails.

When one news report suggested the White House was backing away from the pro-Google regulations, Google Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist Vint Cerf wrote a worried note to McLaughlin, asking, "Has there been so much flack from the Hill that you guys feel a need to back away?"

McLaughlin reassured his former colleague, "Don't be silly. No one's backed away from anything."

Later, when McLaughlin took heat in the media for publicly comparing AT&T -- Google's rival in the net neutrality debate -- to the communist Chinese government, Google lobbyist Alan Davidson sent McLaughlin a heads up that a reporter had called Google about it. Davidson assured McLaughlin that he would get the Open Internet Coalition -- a pro-net-neutrality lobby headed by Google -- to "have your back."

"Thanks," McLaughlin wrote back. Davidson followed up the next day, taking credit for killing the story.

McLaughlin knew he was barred from dealing with Google, the e-mails show. When Cerf passed him an e-mail about Google Earth and an issue regarding a border dispute in Cambodia, McLaughlin responded, "in my current position, I'm recused from anything having to do with Google."

When I asked the White House about McLaughlin's e-mails, Rick Weiss, a spokesman at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, responded that McLaughlin's "e-mails to Vint did not run afoul of the pledge since Vint is a federal advisory committee member with whom Andrew is allowed to communicate on matters of relevance to that committee."

But Cerf was using a Google.com e-mail address and writing about regulations Google was aggressively backing.

And only when I followed up with a question about the e-mails with lobbyist Davidson did Weiss admit "they did violate the President's Ethics Pledge," and note that McLaughlin had been reprimanded.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/col...

“Truth to Power!”

Since: Apr 07

Wake Forest, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Apr 11, 2011
 
"Net neutrality" has a nice, egalitarian ring to it. It sounds like it's good for "the people." Unfortunately, by getting the U.S. federal government involved in a phenomenon - the Internet - that has to date largely avoided regulation, "net neutrality" supporters are inviting the bane of this incredible communication system: the law of unintended consequences.

We don't know with much precision where the Internet is heading. But we can safely conclude that when government acts to "protect" a fast-changing, complex utility like the Internet, the biggest danger is not what it will then become, but what it will not become.

There is nothing neutral about network neutrality. As best we can, let's keep the Obama admin or Any government out of the Internet regulatory business.
Don Joe

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Apr 11, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

YouHelpFixIt wrote:
Do you want fairness or freedom?
Because you can't have both.
With the current government we get neither.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Federal Communications Commission Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Defeating Hate Talk Radio (Dec '08) Tue Chicagoan by Birth 266,257
FCC's dull plans for Internet get viral, angry ... Aug 10 Kelly 2
Philadelphia's WPVI-TV boosts signal strength (Jun '09) Aug 8 Carmine GraysFerr... 76
Net-Neutrality Proposal Faces Public Backlash Jul '14 Mad in Manhattan ... 1
www.myaccountaccess com visa (Mar '12) Jun '14 jamie 5
Audio Tooth Implants (Jan '14) Jun '14 Spencer 17
FCC mulls 1,400 negative comments about calls o... May '14 waja 1

Search the Federal Communications Commission Forum:
•••