rawstory.com— 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.
Oct 22, 2009View in Crawl 4
He is just doing his job can you blame him?He was paid to ensure big companies had priority access to the Internet. He is following through on the million dollars of financing given by those companies. Just as he follows through on the promises made to insurance companies and oil companies.
I imagine that anything that means freeing us from corporate domination seems almost impossible. The government is of the people, by the people, for the people in the United States, but that is true everywhere as well. The government is 'us'. Corporations and others right and left try to claim that 'the government' is out to 'get you' and that therefore we should defend their freedom to tell us what to do against the 'government's' supposed ability to do the same. People have swallowed this for so long, they cannot see that government 're-regulation' is actually a way to free us from some pretty awful practices to which we are currently subjected--and will be all the more should McCain's amendment be voted in.
What is it with republicans wanting controls on the internet now? I always thought that interference with the markets was bad. Unless of course some of your biggest contributors are telecommunications/ISP companies. This really has a bad stench to it! Major FAIL McCain!
I'm kind of shocked about all of this support for net neutrality. I figured the internet community would be up in arms about it. Getting the government involved to make the internet MORE free? Please.
Him putting an Internet bill forward feels a bit off. Why him? Couldn't he get someone with at least non-negative credibility on the issue to propose it?
Closed AccountOct 24, 2009
Telegraph? He used a freakin smoke signal.
maximmOct 24, 2009
He is just doing his job can you blame him?He was paid to ensure big companies had priority access to the Internet. He is following through on the million dollars of financing given by those companies. Just as he follows through on the promises made to insurance companies and oil companies.
bigother1Oct 24, 2009
I imagine that anything that means freeing us from corporate domination seems almost impossible. The government is of the people, by the people, for the people in the United States, but that is true everywhere as well. The government is 'us'. Corporations and others right and left try to claim that 'the government' is out to 'get you' and that therefore we should defend their freedom to tell us what to do against the 'government's' supposed ability to do the same. People have swallowed this for so long, they cannot see that government 're-regulation' is actually a way to free us from some pretty awful practices to which we are currently subjected--and will be all the more should McCain's amendment be voted in.
tbechtxOct 24, 2009
What is it with republicans wanting controls on the internet now? I always thought that interference with the markets was bad. Unless of course some of your biggest contributors are telecommunications/ISP companies. This really has a bad stench to it! Major FAIL McCain!
banditboydavidOct 26, 2009
What business does the government have doing anything with the internet?
Closed AccountOct 28, 2009
You, sir, are wrong.
glassmentalityOct 29, 2009
Just don't take away my Wednesday porn surfing spank night!
Closed AccountNov 2, 2009
OK, but how would that get more taxpayer money and Chinese loans to the Military and War Industry then?
Closed AccountNov 3, 2009
I'm kind of shocked about all of this support for net neutrality. I figured the internet community would be up in arms about it. Getting the government involved to make the internet MORE free? Please.
vegetablelambNov 3, 2009
if they want to control something it's a necessity, if someone on the left suggest a control its big government socialism
rwk2of3Nov 8, 2009
Him putting an Internet bill forward feels a bit off. Why him? Couldn't he get someone with at least non-negative credibility on the issue to propose it?