Tech | October 23, 2009 | 104 comments

McCain introduces bill to block Net neutrality

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

Image
RFIDemocracy
Raw Story-Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) introduced a bill in the Senate on Thursday that would effectively allow Internet service providers to slow down or block Internet content or applications of their choosing.

The move came the same day as the federal government decided to move forward on an official Net neutrality policy that would prevent ISPs from making those types of decisions.

The FCC's new rules would prevent ISPs, for example, from blocking or slowing bandwidth-hogging Web traffic such as streaming video or other applications that put a strain on their networks or from charging different rates to users.

McCain's bill, the Internet Freedom Act, would block the Federal Communications Commission from making Net neutrality the law of the land. The rule preventing ISPs from slowing down certain types of content would create "onerous federal regulation," McCain argued in a written statement.
According to a report at NetworkWorld, McCain "called the proposed Net neutrality rules a 'government takeover' of the Internet that will stifle innovation and depress an 'already anemic' job market in the US."

But supporters of Net neutrality argue that the rule is needed to ensure that Internet providers don't censor content, or slow down traffic to Web sites that are in competition with their business allies.

FCC chairman Julius Genachowski argued that "reasonable and enforceable rules of the road" were needed "to preserve a free and open Internet."

"The Internet's openness has allowed entrepreneurs and innovators, small and large, to create countless applications and services without having to seek permission from anyone," he said.

But, the FCC chairman said, there have been "some significant situations where broadband providers have degraded the data streams of popular lawful services and blocked consumer access to lawful applications."

Two Republicans on the FCC also voted on Thursday to go ahead with the rule-making process, which will be open for public comment until January 14, but voiced misgivings about the plan.

NET NEUTRALITY A 'MARXIST PLOT'?

As the NetworkWorld article notes, McCain was on the opposite side of the Net neutrality debate from President Barack Obama during last year's presidential campaign. During his White House campaign, President Barack Obama came out strongly in favor of Net neutrality, which is backed by companies such as Google, Amazon, Yahoo!, eBay and consumer advocacy groups, but opposed by telecommunications, wireless and cable companies.

Republicans appear to be shifting against Net neutrality and aligning themselves with the telecoms and cable companies.

This week, media watchdog Media Matters criticized conservative news host Glenn Beck for what it said was Beck's allegation that Net neutrality is a "Marxist plot," and that the point of Net neutrality is to "control content," a perspective that prompted MediaMatters and other observers to question whether Beck understands the principle of Net neutrality.

In his announcement today, McCain appeared to agree with the notion that Net neutrality represents regulation and control, rather than a lack thereof.

His bill "will keep the Internet free from government control and regulation," McCain said, as quoted by Phil Goldstein at Fierce Wireless. "It will allow for continued innovation that will in turn create more high-paying jobs for the millions of Americans who are out of work or seeking new employment. Keeping businesses free from oppressive regulations is the best stimulus for the current economy."
  1. groups:
    Community,   News and Politics,   Politics,   Tech,   5 more
  2. tags:
    Internet,  John McCain,  Web,  Net Neutrality,  1 more
  3.     
    |

104 comments // McCain introduces bill to block Net neutrality

  • privateibber
    • 0
      privateibber  

    • Just wait until Verizon, ATand T and the other TELEPHONE COMPANIES WITH YELLOW PAGES ADS THAT ARE SUFFERING IN REVENUE SINCE THE INTERNET is a FREE YELLOW PAGES FOR ALL....START TO decide that commercial sites should pay for each area in which they have their now ALMOST FREE ADVERTISING!

      If they are a phone company they should be a phone company and not be able to provide ISP services unless they play by the same rules that govern them as PHONE COMPANIES, aka UTILITIES!
      FREE PRESS DOT NET has been begging people to become involved. Just like everything else, make sure you have your new IMAC and your new device but don't worry about the people who let you plug it in!

      Some people have all the good slogans and others win the fight.

      Perhaps not everyone worries about substance and factual information because they are too busy being FAMOUS for their presence on line.

      The regular package from Verizon DOES NOT INCLUDE CURRENT TV! That should give you a little taste of what is to come!

      So, if anything means anything to anybody anymore why don't you pick up the phone...WHAT"S THAT????? and call

      FCC Chair Julius Genachowski
      202-418-1000

      * sample script
      Introduce yourself and state your objection:

      Hi - my name is ___________ and I live in _________, State.

      I'm calling to tell Chairman Genachowski [jenna-kow-skee] not to cave on net neutrality. He must reclassify broadband under Title II so he can protect net neutrality and promote universal Internet access. Can I count on him to stand up to the industry pressure and do the right thing?

    • 1 year ago
  • lionessgrrl
  • sespian
  • J_Jammer
  • heimbachae
    • 0
      heimbachae  

    • freakin ehy i HATE this sort of talk. if the internet is "safeguarded" like this it's going to piss a LOT of people off... now, with that being said there are people out there that use WAAAAAAAAAY too much of the bandwidth and yes THOSE people should be throttled IMO. as for me though, the typical internet user/gamer/tv watcher online i don't see why i should get punished for the over usage of a few of the population.

    • 2 years ago
  • sugarlilly
  • RFIDemocracy
    • 0
      RFIDemocracy  
    • Image

    • USA Today 3/24/2008

      (...)Of the 66 current or former lobbyists working for the Arizona senator or raising money for his presidential campaign, 23 have lobbied for telecommunications companies in the past decade, Senate lobbying disclosures show.

      MORE: McCain pushed tax ban backed by telecoms

      McCain has netted about $765,000 in political donations from those telecom lobbyists, their spouses, colleagues at their firms and their telecom clients during the past decade, a USA TODAY analysis of campaign-finance records shows.

      It's unclear how much more money those lobbyists have raised for McCain. Eighteen of them are listed by the campaign as "bundlers," which are major fundraisers. McCain doesn't disclose how much each bundler has raised — unlike Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, who categorize their bundlers by the amount they raise. For example, Clinton's "Hillraisers" have brought in more than $100,000 each.

      McCain is a senior member of the Senate Commerce Committee, which oversees the telecom industry and the Federal Communications Commission. He has repeatedly pushed industry-backed legislation since 2000, particularly during a second stint as committee chairman from 2003 through 2005. His efforts to eliminate taxes and regulations on telecommunications services won him praise from industry executives.

      People who lobbied for telecom companies on those issues include McCain's campaign manager, his deputy manager, his finance chief, his top unpaid political adviser and his Senate chief of staff. Telecom companies have paid the lobbying firms that employed those top five McCain advisersmore than $4.4 million since 1999, lobbying records show.

    • 2 years ago
  • nathanday
    • 0
      nathanday  

    • How in the F*#k can John McCain, who has never used a computer let alone the internet have any say in the matter. This really grinds my gears.

    • 2 years ago
  • Toughth
    • 0
      Toughth  

    • Also wondder if the companys go net neutural how much Intell could the NSA lose by not reading e-mails. facebook and other back door methods of getting into our lives. Republican ideals have allways liked the ability to control information and communications under the guise of National security.

    • 2 years ago
  • PureEm
    • 0
      PureEm  

    • Here, Mccain. This is a coupon to a free introductory class of "how to use the computer" and "what are the internets", as well as "how to plug my series of tubes".

      When I see this, I remember those people in Brett Erlich's Dipping video on Infomania. I hear those same people calling Obama supporters idiots and f*cktards.

      Lesser of 2 evils, no?

    • 2 years ago
  • RickLD
  • CalgarC
  • J_Jammer
  • RFIDemocracy
  • keanu101
  • J_Jammer
    • 0
      J_Jammer [removed]  

    • We do not want to be Australia. Hell no. They have limits on what they can download.

      No thanks Grave Stone. No thanks.

      Proof that McCain would be the worse choice between the two vile evils of him and Obama.

    • 2 years ago
  • JonRaymond
  • Nephwrack
  • Crenshaw_Brothers
  • JRome
    • 0
      JRome  

    • I told you McCain is a McShame on all of us in AZ. He proved it when he walked for President and again when he pulled the Pileon from Alaska for VP. He, like me, is so OLD he should shut up and stop embarrassing us old farts. Do he no what a Internet is???? Thank GOD the twat don't tweet me.

    • 2 years ago
  • FrankOmazing
  • Mudboy16
  • WtfIsJuice
  • WtfIsJuice
  • bill1think2012
  • diode
  • JeremyTG77
    • 0
      JeremyTG77  
    • bill1think2012:

      Yeah, diode, and when the military starts confiscating all privately-owned firearms, don't forget I told you so.

      You obviously have no clue of what martial law really means, but then I wouldn't expect an Internet tough guy like yourself to anyway.

    • 2 years ago
  • diode
  • bill1think2012
  • bill1think2012
  • diode
    • 0
      diode  

    • i want my bandwidth unhindered thank you very much. sorry john but i gotta disagree with you on this. its ok, there's a first for everything

    • 2 years ago
  • spacemikey
    • 0
      spacemikey [removed]  

    • dammit man...What a bunch of shit. You know if it weren't for Mehgan being forced to going into pornography, as her only means of getting attention; I wouldn't have ANY respect for him....

    • 2 years ago
  • ReverendDK
    • 0
      ReverendDK  

    • I'm down for anything in the spirit of taking advantage of the religious emarston.

      How do I respond directly to someone's comment btw? If I'm using the mobile version of this site is that not an option? Or is it because I pissed off Jesus with my comment?

    • 2 years ago
  • HowdyDo
  • becktionary83
  • uroborus8
  • JeremyTG77
  • Nephwrack
  • dv627univ
    • 0
      dv627univ  

    • the net should remain neutral unless you just want to get ripped off for more money......

      greed is the smile on that face......

    • 2 years ago
  • sk8bs55
    • 0
      sk8bs55  

    • so apparently grandpa Mc Cane gets his news from glen beck because they both seem to think that it is a marxist plot.

    • 2 years ago
  • Hou_Kairs
    • 0
      Hou_Kairs  

    • No way!

      Internet bandwith should be the same as airwaves, Free for all the public to use. A right, not something for the government and corporations to control.

    • 2 years ago
  • carmalite
    • 0
      carmalite  

    • Write Letter to McCain and your Senators.

      They pay more attendtion to a letter than email or phone calls. It can be short and polite.

    • 2 years ago
  • carmalite
    • 0
      carmalite  

    • Show your true colors you greed old B............d. Support corporations first and make sure you stifle democracy.
      You were not talking like this whyen you ran for president, you scum.

    • 2 years ago
  • ksutherland27
  • emarston
    • 0
      emarston  

    • so, heres the deal. in the spirit of taking advantage of the religious i will start a Christian internet company the day this passes. We will block EVERYTHING including well everything. if your in let me know i need investors.

    • 2 years ago
  • CarlosIsDown
  • KIrbySuperStarForPresident
  • zphoenixdownz
  • magnusdeus
  • J_Jammer
  • zphoenixdownz
    • +1
      zphoenixdownz  
    • zphoenixdownz:

      horseshit. jon stewart might be the most relevant guy talking about news today. sure, he's asserted that his show isn't news, and it's not. it's largely comedic commentary on the news. but he's asked some of the toughest interview questions i've seen lately (jim cramer, betsy mccaughey, etc.) and continues to summarize coverage of world events in an efficient and sardonic manner. he points out the absurd and helps us laugh at it all. if that isn't relevant in a world as crazy as this one can be, than you may as well condemn the entire daily show audience as irrelevant, too.

      this specific video is relevant in illustrating how little some of our senators and representatives know about an infrastructure they seek to regulate.

      i could leave it there, but i'm more interested in your opinion on net neutrality. do tell.

    • 2 years ago
  • J_Jammer
    • 0
      J_Jammer [removed]  
    • zphoenixdownz:

      You mean like the left wants to regulate Talk Radio?

      what was the name of that stupid doctrine?

      I don't think the net needs to be regulated. It's unnecesary.

      I also don't care if you like Jon. He's not relevant until people who uses his videos state he's news. He doesn't say it because he needs to lie. As long as he lies he's still in that funny corner where he can say what he wants without getting into trouble about lying.

      He has to stay there or he's show would be less funny just because he changed how it was looked at via a term.

      His LIE, because that's what it is, is fine because that's TV. It is not ok to use his videos as if he's worthy of being heard if the people that are using them can't admit that they are newsworthy videos....

      Otherwise they are just like any other video----words from someone that needs attention.

    • 2 years ago
  • zphoenixdownz
    • 0
      zphoenixdownz  
    • zphoenixdownz:

      i wouldn't agree with regulations on talk radio either. people should be allowed to voice their opinions, no matter what they are. even uninformed drivel.

      i'm not saying he's news. he's not saying he's news. are you saying that he is news but he's lying by saying that he's not? wouldn't that be contrary to your original statement?

      regardless, i think we're just having a semantic disagreement about relevance, which is fine by me. i'll simply say that this is a comments section, and i used jon stewart's commentary to underscore my own comment.

    • 2 years ago
  • J_Jammer
    • 0
      J_Jammer [removed]  
    • zphoenixdownz:

      but you only do it because he's newsworthy.

      News just doesn't come from a station that says they are news. Commentators have news as well. They ahve a different perspective on what is going on because of their experience and such.

      To me any one who is a commentator is newsworthy and therefore I consider them a source of news. News source doesn't mean fact source. No one is really that.

      If he's not a news source or newsworthy are news anything then all he's doing is being funny and he cant' be used as anything---even backing. Because he's just a joke. He does not think he's a joke. He thinks he's a thinker and that he gets other people to think. I believe he likes it when people think just like him more than anything which has me question him on many levels.

      As for his hard hitting questions...has he done that with Obama?

      No.

      SO I find him disgustingly biased and therefore he's not only a news source but a liberal news source making him someone that has an agenda.

    • 2 years ago
  • zphoenixdownz
  • J_Jammer
    • 0
      J_Jammer [removed]  
    • zphoenixdownz:

      No video for people pointing him out to be wrong and him reacting?

      I am not resending anything.

      And he has not held Obama to the fire when speaking to him. Wow he can do it behind his back. That doesn't take balls.

      Everyone can do that here.

      And justifying bias as stating everyone does it doesn't take from what I already said about Jon. He pretends to be on the helpful side. He could be hurting America, but he wouldn't stop--would he? No. Crusaders rarely ever do.

    • 2 years ago
  • zphoenixdownz
  • J_Jammer
  • aswift1
  • alien1280
  • Nephwrack
  • J_Jammer
  • luthreads
  • maizein
  • michail77
    • 0
      michail77  

    • There is research that shows net neutrality would hurt jobs and stifle innovation???????

      The US government originally created the Internet to be neutral and decentralized. We used to have closed services (Prodigy, Compuserve, etc.) that had complete control over content. They faded away in the neutral world of the Internet in the mid 90s.

      I'd gather a true conservative would support net neutrality as long as their head wasn't too far up their elephant's back end.

    • 2 years ago
  • Maven_25
    • 0
      Maven_25  

    • If you don't think that both want control and the FCC wouldn't regulate what goes on the Internet, you're sadly mistaken. Just look at main stream media. As the Internet currently allows us access to all free information in and out of the US--this will soon change either way.

    • 2 years ago
  • Amber_Taylor
    • 0
      Amber_Taylor  

    • McCain is freakin' idiot. That guy is so deep in ATT, and Cable Money his brain has a million channels of bologna. They republicans are trying to spin net neutrality as government control? Are you serious? Remember the neutrality part in the name. McCains bill throws the name freedom in there so the uneducated support it. Morons can you say payola?

    • 2 years ago
  • CritiqalPete
  • revolutioninamerica
  • Maven_25
  • bombastinator
  • good_stuff
    • 0
      good_stuff  

    • Don't all of the internet companies that would benifit by having a neutral net employ more people than the cable/phone companies? Wouldn't forcing cable/phone companies to put fiber in the ground to increase bandwidth capacities also create more jobs?

      I think the above post was correct. You can't have old people making rules/laws about technology that they don't even understand.

    • 2 years ago
  • bombastinator
    • 0
      bombastinator  
    • good_stuff:

      McCain isn't actually stupid, I suspect he has people who know the score. It could be he just got lobbied really well, but I doubt it. If I had to make a wild guess about what is going on it would be that net neutrality is likely a weak point in the democratic caucus

      Because every state has phone and cable companies, every legislator, Republican or Democrat, has unhappy major constituents. The democrats still haven't really gotten their voting caucus together the way the Republicans have, and getting a bill like this through would show that the republicans can pass legislation, breaking the obstructionist rep the Republicans are developing, and weaken Democratic solidarity to boot. Ironically this bill actually is obstructionist in character since it is basically attempting to stop a presidential campaign promise.

      This could be one of those things where reasons and justifications aren't always in synch.

    • 2 years ago
  • bombastinator
    • 0
      bombastinator  

    • The republicans must really want this, He's just about the only one left with visibility, credibility, and clout. I have a nasty feeling this one may get through.

      Al Gore voted the internet in, McCain is gonna try to vote it out again. And yes the internet will go. Without net neutrality it'll eventually be AOL all over again.

    • 2 years ago
  • Future_America
    • 0
      Future_America  

    • John McCain voted against Senator Al Franken's amendment, Senate Amend. 2588, that would have required defense contractors to allow their employees access to U.S. courts in cases of rape or sexual assault. Now McCain is trying to block net neutrality. I really don't like him anymore.

    • 2 years ago
  • Chique
  • Nephwrack
  • J_Jammer
  • vinicius
  • islek
    • 0
      islek  

    • I don't want service providers to decide which sites I can view, or when, or have to pay an extra fee to see them, or be forced to wait for longer loading times as an attempted deterrent to stop using other companies.

      More people need to understand how vital Net neutrality is, or the won't be happy when everything changes and they start to feel cheated. Call you rep and tell them to keep Net neutrality! I've been doing that for three years and I plan to keep calling.

    • 2 years ago
  • mcjones
  • Nephwrack
  • ETmusic310
    • 0
      ETmusic310  
    • mcjones:

      "President Barack Obama came out strongly in favor of Net neutrality, which is backed by companies such as Google, Amazon, Yahoo!, eBay and consumer advocacy groups, but opposed by telecommunications, wireless and cable companies."

      lets not get too riled up... this entire bill is merely a battle between corporate lobbyists. both have ulterior motives about loose internet regulation that would better/worsen their business.

      personally i like the idea of net neutrality and the cable companies providing a faster, more regulated internet. there will definetly be less viruses, but their might even be less pirating (illegal downloading of media) because they will probably crack down on copyright laws.

    • 2 years ago
  • TopScruffy
  • bc_f
    • bc_f [removed]  
    • This comment was removed as a violation of community guidelines.
  • vinicius
  • Incredulous
    • 0
      Incredulous  

    • if this move doesn't make it crystal clear whose best interests are being represented by the GOP, then not much else will get through to their mindless supporters.

    • 2 years ago
  • Ricky84
    • 0
      Ricky84  
    • Incredulous:

      Are you seriously trying to say net neutrality is the defining issue behind the selection of a political party and those who choose wrong are mindless idiots based on their inability to recognize the significance of net neutrality over all else? Sweet Jesus you’re kidding right? You do know the current administration supports indefinite detention right?

      Call me crazy but if a bad choice on net neutrality disqualifies and ENTIRE POLITICAL PARTY from consideration than a bad choice on indefinite detention should at the very least call for an immediate nuclear strike of the offending political party.

    • 2 years ago
  • RFIDemocracy
    • 0
      RFIDemocracy  
    • Incredulous:

      "You do know the current administration supports indefinite detention right?"

      Unfortunately I do.
      Moreover, the incumbents also have supported extending the Patriot Act including all it's worst provisions and renewing FISA basically as is, and numerous other items that I object to that don't come to mind right at the moment.
      That said, Republicans would support all of those in spades, as well as they'd deny the country anything in the way of meaningful health care reform and oppose net neutrality, gay marriage, stem cell research, just about anything remotely progressive.
      So, yeah, the Democratic Party is still the lesser of two evils by a country mile.

    • 2 years ago
  • J_Jammer
  • nodonjuan
  • tommytripper
  • delas78
    • 0
      delas78  

    • Coming from a guy who doesn't know what "an internet" is.

      Some lobbiest must have written it, and hand delivered it to McCain with a campaign contribution check stapled to it.

    • 2 years ago
  • vinicius
  • KSirys
    • 0
      KSirys  

    • Leave him alone, he's old enough to be my great great great gran dad! He doesn't know what's going on...

      The people complaining should be upset at the people that voted him in, that's who you should be upset at.

    • 2 years ago
  • hpseaton
    • 0
      hpseaton  

    • Yeah because keeping those pesky banks from oppressive regulations was definitely a great stimulus for the current economy.

      McCain find your balls again and get out of bed with the religious conservatives. Or retire. To think I used to think you were a political maverick.

    • 2 years ago
  • vinicius
  • Progresshiv
  • Amber_Taylor
more from Tech:
from the community

top videos