GOP senators: Net neutrality rule making must be bipartisan

18 Republican senators yesterday told FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski that network neutrality is trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist, and that Genachowski had better not try to pass new rules without Republican support.<BR><BR><a href='http://meincmagazine.com/tech-policy/news/2009/10/republican-senators-net-neutrality-must-be-bipartisan.ars'>Read the whole story</a>

 

[madmikefisk]

I know there are elements to network neutrality legislation that members of the GOP support (at least, within some circles of the party), the question is what is "network neutrality" anymore. Considering the failure to coalesce around any cogent definition of the term, "network neutrality" ranges from stuff that there is almost no opposition to, to stuff that there is considerable opposition to.<BR><BR>I guess we shall see... but, considering how the last year or so has gone politically, my guess is that Democrats will say "who cares? We have the votes!" and pass whatever they want, regardless of bipartisan or public support for the end measure.

 

[polmbo]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This point—don't send in the hook-and-ladder trucks when there's no fire—was echoed in yesterday's Senate letter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Once again they don't want to build the fire station until half the town is burnt down and the other half is on fire.<BR><BR>If you can see a problem that is coming, doesn't it make sense to fix it before something bad happens.

 

[BaggerX]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fatherjones:<BR>A lot of you are saying that its okay for Tech articles like this to introduce their political views. And I agree to that to some extent. But your missing my point. This is fundamentally a technical site. So why is anyone talking about health care, wars in Iraq/Afghanistan, the religious right, or gay marraige? If you want to attack the "old farts" who make up the GOP I'm sure there are plenty of political forums you can join. It's fine for the writter to indicate whether he thinks Republicans are wrong on this issue or not, but he doesn't need to go out of his way to portray an entire political party as greedy, out of touch, ignorant, and beholden to the interests of the evil corporations. And honestly, I don't get the statement about Steele, whats inaccurate and ignorant about saying "the internet has been around for a while."<BR><BR>All I'm getting at is that this is a Tech forum. I read more than enough political crap from news sites and every other field. I would like to know what is going on with Net Neutrality law, but I'm sure there is a way to cover it without voicing your opinions on the Republican party as a whole. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Ok, aside from one shot at Michael Steele, which, I agree, was rather dumb, I don't see anything else in the article to complain about. What exactly do you see that portrays "an entire political party as greedy, out of touch, ignorant, and beholden to the interests of the evil corporations"? I'm not seeing it.

 

[ivanolo]

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by agrt:<br>I am not a republican although I vote republican way more often than democrat. </div>
</blockquote>
<br>If it quacks like a duck.... -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif --<br><br>Anyway, I'm not saying that Democrats are not beholden to corporate interests (just look at Max Baucus), but the GOP consistently puts corporate interests above everything else.

 

[GMBigKev]

Wow - there's such a huge disparity between this website and the Wall Street Journal. Apparently the majority of us Ars Technicers are Neo-Commies for wanting the internet to not be chopped up and regulated by companies who are out to make as much money as they can.

 

[Solid Jedi Knight]

Why does anyone even support the idiots in the Republican Party. The Party that got us the worst terrorism incident in American history? The Party of Hurricane Katrina? The real party of big, bigger, and biggest government? The Party of the Surge, because they didn't go properly equipped the first time? The party of No, Culture of Corruption, of Mark Sanford, and Tea Baggers?<BR><BR>Yet the fools who back them, want Americans to bring the Party of Failure back in power in 2010? What the hell are these folks smoking? Net Neutrality works just fine for me and everyone else. Its just some conservative idiots who want to horde for themselves the power and the privlidges.<BR><BR>I hope the Dems grow a Set and start telling these folks no. Just shove it down their throats and tell them to deal with it. You get those Blue Dogs in line by fundraising for their replacements. Once the Party makes sure that the Blue Dogs get in line or else, maybe then we can get some things done.<BR><BR>I just hope FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski stands up to these morons.

 

[GMBigKev]

@Solid Jedi Knight - Are you blaming the Republicans for the weather?

 

[Deleted member 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by kd9280:<BR>@Solid Jedi Knight - Are you blaming the Republicans for the weather? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>He's blaming the Republicans for what happened immediately after Hurricane Katrina: nothing. Are you dense?

 

[GMBigKev]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by chronomitch:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by kd9280:<BR>@Solid Jedi Knight - Are you blaming the Republicans for the weather? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>He's blaming the Republicans for what happened immediately after Hurricane Katrina: nothing. Are you dense? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Are you immune to humor?

 

[Deleted member 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by kd9280:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by chronomitch:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by kd9280:<BR>@Solid Jedi Knight - Are you blaming the Republicans for the weather? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>He's blaming the Republicans for what happened immediately after Hurricane Katrina: nothing. Are you dense? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Are you immune to humor? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Sorry. I can never tell if people are just shills or bystanders in these threads.

 

[GMBigKev]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by chronomitch:<BR>Sorry. I can never tell if people are just shills or bystanders in these threads. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>It's okay - I probably should have prefaced my post with an emoticon or something. I forgive you. Cappucino?

 

[Kalkin]

If the <I>First Amendment</I> and <I>anti-trust law</I> were applied as aggressively as they should be, we wouldn't need nonsense like "net neutrality".

 

[FrankDCat]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kalkin:<BR>If the <I>First Amendment</I> and <I>anti-trust law</I> were applied as aggressively as they should be, we wouldn't need nonsense like "net neutrality". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah, that's the problem with laws. You need a government that is willing and capable to actually enforce those laws (i.e. the executive branch & associated bureaucracy): that is what the conservatives are missing when they assume the rules will be followed without government intervention, as recent events in the banking and finance industries demonstrate (some of this was bad rules as well).

 

[alphadog7]

In a recent letter from the Senate;<BR><BR>"Your promulgating laws against murder seems to emanate from a fear that there may be some problems related to murders in 'the future'. Of the death-related disputes to date cited in your speech, one occurred five years ago. Our view is that it is harmful for the Commission to impose industry-wide rules based upon speculation about what may occur in the future."<BR><BR>The Government needs to get their hands off my murdering!!

 

[MattEcho]

Awesome piece of Republican bashing here! Apparently the neo-fascists on this site would rather give up their freedoms to an all-seeing, all-regulating federal gov't. What's wrong with this article? How about the the very first sentence! Republicans have been out of power in Congress (the focus of this article) since 2007. Nice way to paint the party as a bunch of cry babies who deserve their comeuppance.<BR><BR>The last time I commented on an article was another biased gem by Mr. Anderson. Way to go! Bow down to the almighty gov't. You people are a bunch of sheep. Do any of you so-called liberals care about civil liberties?

 

[Demondeluxe]

While I tend to distrust the government, and I bow to no one. If my choice is to side with a government that at least his a shred of accountability to the people it serves, or bow to corporate America as they buy and sell us all for the maximum allowable profit, I will go ahead and side with the government. <BR><BR>The bottom line is that on this topic, some of the GOP mouth pieces are vocal about not wanting anyone telling the ISPs how to run their business. In most normal industries I would agree, but the various cable companies and telcos that make up the majority of this nations ISPs are sitting on geographical monopolies. Free market only works if you have the option to leave a shitty business for a better competitor. That keeps them fighting over who has the best service in order to draw as many customers as they can. As it stands now the ISPs can fuck us all in the ass without a reach around because we cannot go anywhere else. I know where I live I have 1 option for cable internet and 1 for DSL. As I prefer cable I am stuck eating shit from that company if they opt to feed it to me. As I understand it most of the nation has the same problem. If the GOP does not want to see the FCC regulate the ISPs then maybe they should start busting up the monopolies the currently run the tubes.<BR><BR>Oh wait they aren't going to do that, they party with those guys.

 

[BaggerX]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MattEcho:<BR>Awesome piece of Republican bashing here! Apparently the neo-fascists on this site would rather give up their freedoms to an all-seeing, all-regulating federal gov't. What's wrong with this article? How about the the very first sentence! Republicans have been out of power in Congress (the focus of this article) since 2007. Nice way to paint the party as a bunch of cry babies who deserve their comeuppance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Wow. Why do Republicans have such a severe persecution complex? First sentence is a simple fact. The party out of power always preaches the virtues of bi-partisanship, at least until they get back in power. You're complaining about being labeled a cry baby, but are here doing exactly that over nothing.

 

[+Griz]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MattEcho:<BR>Awesome piece of Republican bashing here! Apparently the neo-fascists on this site would rather give up their freedoms to an all-seeing, all-regulating federal gov't. What's wrong with this article? How about the the very first sentence! Republicans have been out of power in Congress (the focus of this article) since 2007. Nice way to paint the party as a bunch of cry babies who deserve their comeuppance.<BR><BR>The last time I commented on an article was another biased gem by Mr. Anderson. Way to go! Bow down to the almighty gov't. You people are a bunch of sheep. Do any of you so-called liberals care about civil liberties? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>is there any evidence that the telcos can effectively regulate themselves? (no)<BR><BR>is there any evidence that the GOP seeks to act in the public interest instead of maintaining the status quo and the corporate profits that come with it? (no)<BR><BR>the GOP has become a joke party whose entire platform boils down to "if the Obama administration supports it, we wholeheartedly oppose it and will repeat blatant lies from corporate-sponsored studies until the public believes them"

 

[PunditGuy]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MattEcho:<BR>Do any of you so-called liberals care about civil liberties? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Rendition, Patriot Act, free-speech zones, hypocrisy. You own all four.<BR><BR>Did it occur to anyone that the GOP was brought into this discussion because, as the headline says, it was GOP senators who wrote the letter to the FCC? Reality has such a liberal bias.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by madmikefisk:<BR>I know there are elements to network neutrality legislation that members of the GOP support (at least, within some circles of the party), the question is what is "network neutrality" anymore. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Um, bullshit. This is maddeningly unnecessary obfuscation. There is no doubt about what "network neutrality" means. The only people who think that there is any leeway in the definition are people who are against the concept.

 

[swalsh76]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by +Griz:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MattEcho:<BR>Awesome piece of Republican bashing here! Apparently the neo-fascists on this site would rather give up their freedoms to an all-seeing, all-regulating federal gov't. What's wrong with this article? How about the the very first sentence! Republicans have been out of power in Congress (the focus of this article) since 2007. Nice way to paint the party as a bunch of cry babies who deserve their comeuppance.<BR><BR>The last time I commented on an article was another biased gem by Mr. Anderson. Way to go! Bow down to the almighty gov't. You people are a bunch of sheep. Do any of you so-called liberals care about civil liberties? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>the GOP has become a joke party whose entire platform boils down to "if the Obama administration supports it, we wholeheartedly oppose it and will repeat blatant lies from corporate-sponsored studies until the public believes them" </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Honestly, a year ago I would have just passed over this comment, but nothing demonstrates this truth more than the entire "get your government hands off my medicare" crowd. Absolutely amazing, and not in a good way.

 

[thekaj]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But do we really need this kind of overextended attempt to make an entire political party look out of touch by taking one quote out of context? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>How is a comment about keeping one guy away from talking on this subject an attempt to make an entire party look out of touch? The insinuation is that if it's just the one guy that needs to be kept from commenting, then there are probably other people within the party that can actually speak from a position of knowledge.<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Do any of you so-called liberals care about civil liberties? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The ironic thing about this rant is that it ignores the concerns expressed by a lot of conservatives who believe that the lack of net neutrality will make it harder for them to find a conduit to express their views. And let me quote myself from earlier:<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">[insert additional socialism/big brother/liberal scare tactics here] </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Thanks for your insertion!<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This is supposed to be a technical site. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>This is whatever site the editors and owners want it to be. There are a bunch of purely technical sites out there if this isn't to your liking. Frankly, I enjoy the political talk. As much as people poke fun at politicians not knowing much about technology, the reverse can often be said about people in technology not knowing much about politics.

 

[magnolia fan]

From the link if you didn't already read the proposal in the article: http://meincmagazine.com/tech-po...red-and-wireless.ars<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>This is not about government regulation of the Internet. It’s about fair rules of the road for companies that control access to the Internet. We will do as much as we need to do, and no more, to ensure that the Internet remains an unfettered platform for competition, creativity, and entrepreneurial activity.<BR><BR>This is not about protecting the Internet against imaginary dangers. We’re seeing the breaks and cracks emerge, and they threaten to change the Internet’s fundamental architecture of openness. This would shrink opportunities for innovators, content creators, and small businesses around the country, and limit the full and free expression the Internet promises. This is about preserving and maintaining something profoundly successful and ensuring that it’s not distorted or undermined. If we wait too long to preserve a free and open Internet, it will be too late.<BR><BR>Some will seek to invoke innovation and investment as reasons not to adopt open Internet rules. But history’s lesson is clear: Ensuring a robust and open Internet is the best thing we can do to promote investment and innovation. And while there are some who see every policy decision as either pro-business or pro-consumer, I reject that approach; it’s not the right way to see technology’s role in America.<BR><BR>An open Internet will benefit both consumers and businesses. The principles that will protect the open Internet are an essential step to maximize investment and innovation in the network and on the edge of it -- by establishing rules of the road that incentivize competition, empower entrepreneurs, and grow the economic pie to the benefit of all." </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>So the proposal that will eventually be offered as law would enforce the above quote. The republicans apparently are not in tune with this doctrine. Why not? Potential reasons: This new law will cause the cost for subscribers to go thru the roof if providers are not able to control bandwidth usage by applications that exist now and especially in the future. They want to keep costs low for consumers. OR, there is something else in the proposal we don't know about (very likely considering the lack of links to more material). OR, republicans believe the cost increases precipitated by the policy turned into law will become untenable and force the creation of government subsidies in the future to sustain equal access for disadvantaged citizens. Republicans hate the creation of entitlements. Not sure I'm on board with the 3rd one, but I'm pontificating. Sorry.<BR><BR>Edit: http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10374831-2.html<BR><BR><BR>Take my opinion or leave it. And after reading Nate's article myself, it was loaded.<BR><BR><BR><I>This comment was edited by magnolia fan on October 15, 2009 03:26</I>

 

[MyGaffer]

The republicans have long been in bed with big business and they get way more money than dems do from the telecoms. I think we know what side their bread is buttered.<BR><BR>Anyway, they don't have the power right now to seriously oppose this. I myself have e-mailed a letter of support for the proposed net neutrality rules to Genachowski and all the commissioners. I invite other Ars readers to do the same, their e-mails are on the FCC contacts page.<BR><BR>I think we've seen enough with caps, throttling, and rhetoric about Google "not paying for is bandwidth" to know that we need some STRONG net neutrality framework in the country.

 

[dfritschle]

Unless I'm completely blind I don't see a link to this supposed letter. If there is one, why not post a link. I for one normally vote Republican. That being said, I am also a "techie", and would like to know if my senator was one of the 18. If he is I will gladly call/send him an email letting him know that he's wrong about net neutrality.<BR><BR>Edit: Found a link to the letter. http://www.benton.org/outgoingframe/28772/1 By the way, can anyone actually read those signatures!!<BR><BR><I>This comment was edited by dfritschle on October 15, 2009 13:11</I>

 

[Naame]

The article covered most of what was necessary to state. That is, the GOP is trying to convince people that no problem exists and what is proposed is needless problem prevention. History has already proven that they are wrong between both what Comcast did and what is happening with all of the Mobile Carrier data policies.<BR><BR>I believe that the only reason why the ISPs and the carriers have not gone MUCH further with pursuing what they have already stated is what they want is because they know that if they do it now then it will seal the deal for the new net neutrality rules. However, what everyone needs to remember is that just because they are not doing it now that doesn't mean that they will not do it later once they are less threatened. We already know that is what they want to do based on both past actions and past statements. I believe that is enough to amend laws which preserve digital freedom. Isn't the preservation of liberty what this country is all about anyways? It is very clear that net neutrality will preserve such things for many more Americans than the absence will preserve.

 

[Naame]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by magnolia fan:<BR>OR, republicans believe the cost increases precipitated by the policy turned into law will become untenable and force the creation of government subsidies in the future to sustain equal access for disadvantaged citizens. Republicans hate the creation of entitlements. Not sure I'm on board with the 3rd one, but I'm pontificating. Sorry.<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I'll tell you this much. If the ISPs go through with raising rates like that then they will only be shooting themselves in the foot. It is already being argued A LOT right now regarding whether or not high speed internet access is becoming less of a luxury and more of a necessity considering how much it is being relied on right now for so many different things. For one, it is already a big cornerstone of our economy and it will only get bigger. <BR><BR>If the ISPs are stupid and decide to play hardball with rates rather than invest in infrastructure in order to gain more profit in the future without passing on the costs to the consumer then they will most certainly be aggravating the beast. They will further increase the chances of becoming a true utility which is precisely what they fear the most. Forget net neutrality rules...that's nothing compared to how much they fear becoming a utility.<BR><BR>Oh and I don't want anyone to tell me how the ISPs cannot afford the infrastructure without passing on the costs to the consumers. The only reason why they would choose to do that is out of greed and opportunity since there is a heavy lack of consumer friendly competition. Verizon is doing it right and they are not as big as AT&T and Comcast. They are the underdog who is competing with AT&T and Comcast which is one of the big reasons why they are not passing on the full costs on to the consumer. They are also very fortunate to be able to even stand a chance at competing since they are already very wealthy unlike any new ISP would be. Verizon simply "chose" to invest now in order to profit in the future and that is what good business is supposed to be all about.

 

[Lee L]

Wow, this is pretty funny reading here. Why is it that everyone demands the right to be heard when they speak on an issue, but want to stop the other side from having their say. Part of living with free speech is that the other guy is free to speak as well. Both sides attack the other with completely specious arguments that have little to do with the issue at hand because they just hate them and can;t allow that wnyojne else has a good idea. <BR><BR>Meanwhile the entire country goes to crap because both parties are so much more concerned with staying in power than actually doing a damn thing to actually look at an issue, consider the long term and fix things. (sometimes fixing theings requires the government stay the heck out and sometimes it requires them to get into something.)<BR><BR>The whole arguement about this particular issue is especially funny as the two GOP commisioners seem to be saying that if you are driving toward a cliff at top speed in a car with iffy brakes, as long as you have not actually flown off the cliff yet, you are still fine and there is no need to even test the brakes to see if they are working, much less actually apply them.<BR><BR>On the other hand, with so much bashing in this thread about how the Rebulicans are having to suck it due to being in the Minority right now, maybe they need to look at what has actually been accomplished with the Majority thus far. If Democrats think that there is not going to be a big change at the mid term elections, just wait. Over the long term, the American people like balance or at least the idea of balance, especially when one party has Congress and the Presidency but still can't get a thing done that was promised because they are too busy bickering amongst themselves or promised things that can't actually be done. Things will change yet again.

 

[Naame]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>The whole arguement about this particular issue is especially funny as the two GOP commisioners seem to be saying that if you are driving toward a cliff at top speed in a car with iffy brakes, as long as you have not actually flown off the cliff yet, you are still fine and there is no need to even test the brakes to see if they are working, much less actually apply them.<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Hehehehe

 

[BaggerX]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lee L:<BR>On the other hand, with so much bashing in this thread about how the Rebulicans are having to suck it due to being in the Minority right now, maybe they need to look at what has actually been accomplished with the Majority thus far. If Democrats think that there is not going to be a big change at the mid term elections, just wait. Over the long term, the American people like balance or at least the idea of balance, especially when one party has Congress and the Presidency but still can't get a thing done that was promised because they are too busy bickering amongst themselves or promised things that can't actually be done. Things will change yet again. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>You talk about how everyone should have their say, but then criticize Congress for "bickering" and not getting anything done. I think there are a lot of balls in the air right now, and especially with big issues like health care, they should take the time to hear what everyone has to say and do the best they can to get it right. Things like this can take a while to get done, especially when the two parties are dead set against each other and the issues are as ridiculously complex as they are. Part of me wishes the dems would just give the republicans the finger and pass it on their own with no attempt to make it bipartisan. I doubt they have the cajones for that though since it would mean assuming full accountability for it. I also think that some of the ideas that have come from republicans make sense, so I wouldn't want to see those thrown out.

 

[earl grey]

bipartisanship<BR><BR>Do as we say, not as we do...when we're in power.<BR><BR>Otherwise, we're gonna whine and carry on like a bunch of babies.<BR><BR>Oh, and by the way, when we're back in power, we're going to totally ignore you, share nothing, there will be NO bipartisanship, and we'll do everything we can to shut you down and shut you up.<BR><BR>I have to admit I vote across all party lines and claim no party affiliation; namely because i'm embarassed by all political parties who fail to represent the 95% of their constituency who aren't raving lunatics; who totally fail in supporting and maintaining the spirit and meaning of our constitution; and who allow themselves to be bought by one big business interest after another.

 

[Ars of Ares]

This wouldn't be so bad, as bipartisanship can be a good thing, but it's usually crap. Add to that the fact that these GOP folks are already muddying the waters by saying that there isn't even a problem (!) yet, and you have what smells like a steaming pile of corrupted crap.<BR><BR>Thanks, GOP, for once again fighting against my vote.<BR><BR>Douches.

 

[Naame]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaggerX:<BR>Part of me wishes the dems would just give the republicans the finger and pass it on their own with no attempt to make it bipartisan. I doubt they have the cajones for that though since it would mean assuming full accountability for it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>A lot of Dems do right now, but the blue dogs like Baucus don't.<BR><BR>Understand that while the GOP is publicly crying out for bipartisanship, the truth behind the closed doors is that they do not want bipartisanship at all. They are just taking what they can get considering the majorities in Congress right now in addition to the Dems controlling the White House. Most of the GOP's "bipartisan" suggestions so far this year are not bipartisan at all when it comes to representing the best interests of those who voted for them. They try to make them look like they are doing that but the truth is they are mostly "bipartisan" when it comes to representing their lobbyists and special interest groups and examples are everywhere. You got the ISPs and telecoms when it comes to net neutrality. You got the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies when it comes to health care. You got the oil and gas companies when it comes to energy. The list just goes on and on and on.<BR><BR><I>This comment was edited by Naame on October 15, 2009 17:02</I><BR><BR><I>This comment was edited by Naame on October 15, 2009 17:02</I>

 

[agrt]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fatherjones:<BR>Agrt has a point. This is supposed to be a technical site. I'm a little suprised to read such obviouse Republican bashing here. And you cant defend yourself with "oh, these are just the facts I am reporting, if you think they are biased then you must be completley biased yourself" when you post something like "Take the Christian Coalition, which defends American's 'godly heritage' by rallying support against the 'government takeover' of healthcare, the nonexistent return of the Fairness Doctrine, and gay marriage." Why do you have to bring stuff like this up if you are just reporting the facts? If I wanted to read some conservative bashing I would go to the Huffington post, but here I would prefer to just read about non-political tech news. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>This is exactly my point. The people that don't see the bias in the article don't want to see it, and I have no intention of wasting my time explaining something to them that will go in one ear and out the other. I usually just let it slide, but I come here for technical news and articles and not that kind of crap that has infected most other news sources.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">However I'm also for network neutrality. Just because some of the "old farts" in my party are cautiouse and skeptical of government involvement in it doesn't mean we are all evil. It just means that we all have a natural resistance and skepticism to government involvement. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I'm for network neutrality too for the record. I had an email conversation with our Republican representative (Lynn Westmoreland if you're curious) about some different topics including net neutrality. And I did not vote for him, because he stopped responding after he learned I wasn't with him on that subject. There was no cordial we'll have to agree to disagree. It was just silence.<BR><BR>Net neutrality is an important subject, and I care about it's outcome. Bringing bias into a news article is unacceptable. Keep that on the stupid blogs.

 

[Lee L]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaggerX:<BR><BR>You talk about how everyone should have their say, but then criticize Congress for "bickering" and not getting anything done. I think there are a lot of balls in the air right now, and especially with big issues like health care, they should take the time to hear what everyone has to say and do the best they can to get it right. Things like this can take a while to get done, especially when the two parties are dead set against each other and the issues are as ridiculously complex as they are. Part of me wishes the dems would just give the republicans the finger and pass it on their own with no attempt to make it bipartisan. I doubt they have the cajones for that though since it would mean assuming full accountability for it. I also think that some of the ideas that have come from republicans make sense, so I wouldn't want to see those thrown out. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>People being free to say what they want is not the same thing as "having their say". Both sides of the issue, in Congress and even here at arsTechnica are not satsified with merely being able to implement or govern to their ideology, they seem to want to suppress the other sides ability to say anything on the issue by namecalling and throwing out random facts that are not true.<BR><BR>And if anyone thinks the Republicans are why nothing has gotten done so far, that is why the Dems will give back much of their gains in 2010. It is inter-party and inter-coalition wrangling that has stopped most everything.

 

[Naame]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by agrt:<BR>Net neutrality is an important subject, and I care about it's outcome. Bringing bias into a news article is unacceptable. Keep that on the stupid blogs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I agree with you conceptually, but the parts of the article that you seem to be upset with and claim to be bias such as the part concerning the Christian Coalition were placed in their to show the readers that the Republican party is stuck between a rock and a hard place when it comes to what they should and/or shouldn't support. So many voters and organizations that traditionally support their party are split on the issue. On top of that, the ISPs are lobbying like crazy to get the Republicans to do things their way. I do not believe that Ars explaining such a thing makes them or the article bias.<BR><BR>What will be really interesting to see is whether or not the vast majority of Republicans vote against the new net neutrality rules or if the votes are split just like their Republican voters and supporters are split on the issue. If their final votes are not split then that is evidence that the Republicans in Congress are leaning far more towards their ISP lobbyist buddies than they are leaning towards their voters. Remember, they are on the phone with their lobbyist friends almost everyday but they only report back to their voters once every six years...<BR><BR>Also, it is true that this site is supposed to be about technology and it still is. It just so happens that technology also has a big political side to it so to ignore that would be to ignore a big part of what technology is all about.<BR><BR><BR><BR><I>This comment was edited by Naame on October 15, 2009 18:22</I><BR><BR><I>This comment was edited by Naame on October 15, 2009 18:22</I>

 

[NickN]

So let's see... You want to change something and I want to continue the status quo. I therefore insist that we continue the status quo until we can agree on what to change. Ta da! I win!

 

[BaggerX]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by agrt:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fatherjones:<BR>Agrt has a point. This is supposed to be a technical site. I'm a little suprised to read such obviouse Republican bashing here. And you cant defend yourself with "oh, these are just the facts I am reporting, if you think they are biased then you must be completley biased yourself" when you post something like "Take the Christian Coalition, which defends American's 'godly heritage' by rallying support against the 'government takeover' of healthcare, the nonexistent return of the Fairness Doctrine, and gay marriage." Why do you have to bring stuff like this up if you are just reporting the facts? If I wanted to read some conservative bashing I would go to the Huffington post, but here I would prefer to just read about non-political tech news. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>This is exactly my point. The people that don't see the bias in the article don't want to see it, and I have no intention of wasting my time explaining something to them that will go in one ear and out the other. I usually just let it slide, but I come here for technical news and articles and not that kind of crap that has infected most other news sources.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">However I'm also for network neutrality. Just because some of the "old farts" in my party are cautiouse and skeptical of government involvement in it doesn't mean we are all evil. It just means that we all have a natural resistance and skepticism to government involvement. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I'm for network neutrality too for the record. I had an email conversation with our Republican representative (Lynn Westmoreland if you're curious) about some different topics including net neutrality. And I did not vote for him, because he stopped responding after he learned I wasn't with him on that subject. There was no cordial we'll have to agree to disagree. It was just silence.<BR><BR>Net neutrality is an important subject, and I care about it's outcome. Bringing bias into a news article is unacceptable. Keep that on the stupid blogs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I don't understand your hypersensitivity here. I don't see how any of the things in the article show bias, except the Steele comment at the end. The statements you seem to take issue with were there because they are facts and are relevant to the subject. Check your own bias, you're reading things in that aren't there.

 

[Jackattak]

The part I find scariest about all the comments is how many readers still consider themselves Republicans. I read somewhere that only 20% of Americans were still considering themselves Republicans. That made me happy. Based on a lot of the comments from these readers, I'm seeing something a bit different (based on typical Ars readers' political demographics).<br><br>With so much hatred and jealousy (not to mention many other very, very negative human emotions) running so thick in that party, I find anyone's ability to still follow it completely imperceptible.<br><br>-- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif -- Sadness. Just goes to show that no matter what our country does to try and progress itself, the GOP will always be there to stymie it in any they can with FUD, greed, and corporate corruption.

 

[Tyler X. Durden]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by kray28:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mbushnell:<BR>I love it when old farts that know nothing about technology get to dictate all the rules. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Good news is that the GOP old farts get to dictate exactly jack and squat. Or so you'd expect. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>The bad news is that the odds of Democratic old farts getting to dictate it are significantly higher than that.<BR><BR>Say what you want about Al Gore's ego-stroking, ill-phrased statements, but here's to hoping that someone demonstrates the same foresight in this matter as when Gore championed the internet infrastructure build-out that has gotten it this far without being the equivalent of the national Interstate being built with tollbooths every 5 miles.<BR><BR><BR><BR><I>This comment was edited by Tyler X. Durden on October 15, 2009 20:36</I>

 

[spoof]

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"The Internet has been around a while, now." </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>So it has, and now that the politicians and corporations are involved, it's a long ways past the old UC Berkeley days of "rough concensus and running code."<br><br><br>(and my, my Republicans are sensitive nowadays, like a wicked diaper rash on a baby's ass. Stop poking them with a stick, Ars. -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif -- )