Obama will veto anti-net neutrality legislation

[LBJefferies]

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/11/obama-pledges-net-neutrality-veto/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Index+3+%28Top+Stories+2%29%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

Finally, he gets something right. The internet was funded and developed by DARPA, a US Government agency. It belongs to us, the people of the United States and the world. It does not belong to corporations to manipulate and restrict for their own financial gain. It needs to stay open and free otherwise it will be the next cable television with shitty content, overpriced subscription fees and bloated with advertising.

[Dozyproductions]

good quote from one of the posters on wired: words /= action.

[joshh]

He's simply looking for votes. Trying to look more friendly than he has been.

[mrsleeve]

^

That is about the size of it, but this is something I think I can support his action on

[Kershaw]

He's simply looking for votes. Trying to look more friendly than he has been.

if he is doing what i want him to do, i dont care about his reasons.

you have an invalid argument, sir.

[z31maniac]

if he is doing what i want him to do, i dont care about his reasons.

you have an invalid argument, sir.

That's what I was thinking.


And saying "X politician is only doing Y for votes," well, that's just STUNNINGLY INSIGHTFUL commentary.

[pureaudio]

If politicians only made decisions based on getting votes then we would probably have a decently run government.

[joshh]

^

That is about the size of it, but this is something I think I can support his action on

If you want to look at it that way. But we both know he still wants that control. So there's no fucking way i support him on it because I know better.

if he is doing what i want him to do, i dont care about his reasons.

you have an invalid argument, sir.

So if the guy goes right back to wanting control of the net (if he gets reelected) that's all cool by you? See you missed it again.
He still wants it but because he knows the election is coming he wants to seem more buddy buddy with being less of the dictator he has been being. It's called PR for a reason. It's false hope. I don't start supporting a guy because he *has* to change the way he has been being because he wants to seem more friendly just so he can get elected.

That's what I was thinking.


And saying "X politician is only doing Y for votes," well, that's just STUNNINGLY INSIGHTFUL commentary.

Typical from a guy that has a limited spectrum of thinking.

If politicians only made decisions based on getting votes then we would probably have a decently run government.

Maybe better, but we'd probably have Jerry Springer as President as well. Americans voted in Obama...that's a clear sign the *average* American can't think beyond a campaign slogan and a false promise. Same goes for many Republicans.

[Wiglaf]

I would also like to see him take a stance of outright veto on the current SOPA/PROTECT IP legislation, which is to date the scariest peice of work that the RIAA/MPAA has managed to buy in.

[BraveUlysses]

I would also like to see him take a stance of outright veto on the current SOPA/PROTECT IP legislation, which is to date the scariest peice of work that the RIAA/MPAA has managed to buy in.

No way, Biden has been busy polishing their knobs for years now. Last thing Obama needs is for Biden to do any more public speaking.

[Wiglaf]

yeah really.
Well, betwen SOPA and E-PARASITE, enough IT companies are making noise against it to hopefully nuke it off the map. Collectively they make more $ and employ more people than the recording industry. And they have a solid argument for how badly this will affect jobs out there.

We can only prey that the recording and movie publishers run out of money before any of this garbage gets passed. I still can't beleive they really think piracy is the main problem, or that anything but better service and better prices would reduce it. Artists are doing great without them.

[tjts1]

If politicians only made decisions based on getting votes then we would probably have a decently run government.

And thats the cold hard truth.

/thread

[Ryan Stewart]

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...le+Feedfetcher

Finally, he gets something right. The internet was funded and developed by DARPA, a US Government agency. It belongs to us, the people of the United States and the world. It does not belong to corporations to manipulate and restrict for their own financial gain. It needs to stay open and free otherwise it will be the next cable television with shitty content, overpriced subscription fees and bloated with advertising.

While I support net neutrality your comment is completely wrong and ignorant. The govt (and colleges) created the fundamentals but they no longer have a hand in any of it other than regulation. Companies like Sprint own the fiber carrying the information of the world and others create the content. The internet is no difference from cable TV, telephone, etc.

I think the regulations in themselves are bullshit but then again they should be raping companies like Comcast because they have artificially created regional/local monopolies.

[mrsleeve]

And thats the cold hard truth.

/thread

that it is but its the getting votes part when they promise give the most shit away is why they get the votes. And there for we have the system we have. Your liberal idealism is showing though a little bit


Please see my sig for further insight

[Kershaw]

If you want to look at it that way. But we both know he still wants that control. So there's no fucking way i support him on it because I know better.

you are insane.

you are almost as bad as that "IM SHURE OF MYSELF" guy. jimjim69 or whatever his name is.