Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

This article does not give enough information to make an educated decision. It lists potential bad points about McCain's bill, but then lists nothing in detail about what "net neutrality" covers.

Poor reporting with a very obvious bias towards government beaurocracy, and you guys complain about my sources.
 
Here:
http://www.computerworld.com/s/arti...uces_bill_to_block_FCC_s_net_neutrality_rules

In short, McCain wants to:
keep the FCC from enacting rules prohibiting broadband providers from selectively blocking or slowing Internet content and applications.

He doesn't like that:
Providers could use "reasonable" network management to reduce congestion and maintain quality of service, but the rules would require them to be transparent with consumers about their efforts.

And he also:
protested the FCC's proposal that wireless broadband providers be included in the net neutrality rules.

Which makes him an:
onerous oppressive corporate Republican

Is that enough information for you?
 
Here:
http://www.computerworld.com/s/arti...uces_bill_to_block_FCC_s_net_neutrality_rules

In short, McCain wants to:


He doesn't like that:


And he also:


Which makes him an:


Is that enough information for you?

Sorry in the delay in response, being on the road doesn't allow me much time on the internet.

After reading the whole article, I am leaning more against the FCC. It's still not enough information though. These articles are like campaign soundbites. They don't actually give you any valuable information, just some bullshit either side wants you to hear.
 
Ok, excuse me for not going to the lengths to post a transcript of all the congressional debates surrounding this bill, but seriously - how much clearer do you need it to be? The basic idea is that the FCC is trying to keep telcoms from limiting access to content in a way that's not in the interest of consumers. I don't see how the following McCain quote:
"Today I'm pleased to introduce the Internet Freedom Act of 2009 that will keep the Internet free from government control and regulation," McCain said. "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."
could be taken out of context to present him as more bull-headedly opposed to any possible form of FCC regulation than he most likely is. Since when did your standards for primary source information become so high?
 
Good for you, but unless you have some basis for that belief I really don't care. At least if they sneak in extra provisions that dick over the average citizen there will still be something fundamentally good coming from the whole thing, whereas the very purpose of McCain's bill is to dick over the average citizen. This is Internet freedom we're talking about, for christ's sake, not the goddamn auto industry or something.
 
Holy SHIT:

State's high court dismisses juvenile convictions
Friday, October 30, 2009
The Associated Press

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court yesterday dismissed thousands of juvenile convictions issued by a judge charged in a corruption scandal, saying that none of the young offenders got a fair hearing.

The high court yesterday threw out more than five years' worth of juvenile cases heard by disgraced former Luzerne County Judge Mark Ciavarella, who is charged with accepting millions of dollars in kickbacks to send youths to private detention centers.

The Philadelphia-based Juvenile Law Center, which represents some of the youths, said the court's order covers as many as 6,500 cases. The justices barred any possibility of retrial in all but a fraction of them.

"This is exactly the relief these kids needed," said Marsha Levick, the center's legal director. "It's the most serious judicial corruption scandal in our history and the court took an extraordinary step in addressing it."

The Supreme Court had previously overturned hundreds of juvenile convictions involving low-level offenses. Yesterday's ruling covered all cases heard by Mr. Ciavarella between 2003 and 2008, including ones involving more serious crimes.

Children routinely appeared in front of Mr. Ciavarella without lawyers for hearings that lasted only a few minutes. Mr. Ciavarella also failed to question young defendants to make sure they fully understood the consequences of waiving counsel and pleading guilty, showing "complete disregard for the constitutional rights of the juveniles," the Supreme Court said.

After being found delinquent, the youths were often shackled and taken to private jails whose owner was paying bribes to the judge. Federal prosecutors have said that Mr. Ciavarella and another Luzerne County judge, Michael Conahan, took a total of $2.8 million in payoffs.

"Ciavarella's admission that he received these payments, and that he failed to disclose his financial interests arising from the development of the juvenile facilities, thoroughly undermines the integrity of all juvenile proceedings before Ciavarella," the Supreme Court said.

The judges pleaded guilty in February to honest services fraud and tax evasion in a deal with prosecutors that called for a sentence of 87 months in prison. But the deal was rejected in August by Senior U.S. District Judge Edward M. Kosik, who said the two hadn't fully accepted responsibility for the crimes, and the ex-judges switched their pleas to not guilty.

A federal grand jury then returned a 48-count racketeering indictment against the judges, who await trial.

The Supreme Court had previously overturned hundreds of juvenile convictions involving low-level offenses. Yesterday's ruling covered all cases heard by Mr. Ciavarella between 2003 and 2008, including ones involving more serious crimes.

"We fully agree that, given the nature and extent of the taint, this Court simply cannot have confidence that any juvenile matter adjudicated by Ciavarella during this period was tried in a fair and impartial manner," the court wrote.

Prosecutors in Luzerne County had agreed that none of the convictions should stand, but they wanted the right to bring dangerous offenders back into court for retrials.

The court said the district attorney's office may seek to retry youths who remain under court supervision -- a group that Levick said likely numbers fewer than 100. And those youths may challenge any attempt to retry them on double-jeopardy grounds, the court said.

Berks County Senior Judge Arthur Grim, whom the justices appointed in February to review cases handled by Ciavarella, will consider any retrial requests made by the DA's office and forward his recommendations to the high court.

Read more: http://post-gazette.com/pg/09303/1009500-100.stm#ixzz0VS4sEPHM

http://post-gazette.com/pg/09303/1009500-100.stm
 
Good reads. Google is indeed on the verge of becoming a search engine monopoly, and it'll be interesting to see how that turns out - or if net neutrality principles may eventually be applied to search engines as well...

As far as the three arguments presented in the Wired article, here are my replies:

1) "ISPs need the ability to manage high-bandwidth traffic to prevent congestion"

Certainly, and there's no reason there can't be a provision in the net neutrality legislation to allow for that kind of 'inequality'. That appeared to be on the table already based on the article I posted, and if the usual "oh god they'll sneak all kinds of bad things into the bill" cry is all the opposition's got right now, they might as well not allow the government to pass laws at all.

2) "Enforcement of the legislation will be difficult"

Of course. Again, what's the big deal? It may turn out that the law will hardly ever get invoked. But at least it will be there, and the ISPs will be accountable in case anyone ever does notice denial of service occurring on certain sites for no legitimate reason.

3) "The Invisible Hand of the Market Solves All Problems"

Fuck off, you cocksuckers. Just because "free and open networks" have "triumphed" for now doesn't mean special interest groups aren't going to eventually bribe ISPs collectively for censorship, if they don't already. Rather than wait for that to happen, why not put in place something that gives people WITHOUT huge sums of money a voice in the matter?
 
G
and if the usual "oh god they'll sneak all kinds of bad things into the bill" cry is all the opposition's got right now, they might as well not allow the government to pass laws at all.

No legislation is better than bad legislation.

2) "Enforcement of the legislation will be difficult"

Of course. Again, what's the big deal? It may turn out that the law will hardly ever get invoked. But at least it will be there, and the ISPs will be accountable in case anyone ever does notice denial of service occurring on certain sites for no legitimate reason.

TBH if an ISP blocks a site that is the business' right as owner of the service. If the demand for that site is great enough, people will switch to a ISP that doesn't block it. This is the free market working.It amazes me that the same people who believe in evolution are completely against the overall concept of "survival of the fittest" when practically applied to the market.


3) "The Invisible Hand of the Market Solves All Problems"

Fuck off, you cocksuckers. Just because "free and open networks" have "triumphed" for now doesn't mean special interest groups aren't going to eventually bribe ISPs collectively for censorship, if they don't already. Rather than wait for that to happen, why not put in place something that gives people WITHOUT huge sums of money a voice in the matter?

Much easier to just bribe the FCC than all the different ISPs. Kind of like how the FDA gets bribed now.

As I stated above, no legislation is much better bad legislation.
 
No legislation is better than bad legislation.

Except this isn't bad legislation. This is a much needed instrument of power for the common person over businesses that otherwise have the power to control who we communicate with, how we do so, and what we are allowed to say.

TBH if an ISP blocks a site that is the business' right as owner of the service. If the demand for that site is great enough, people will switch to a ISP that doesn't block it. This is the free market working.

The free market isn't a replacement for human rights. ISPs can get by fine without having the power to censor our communications. The Internet is the most important communication medium ever created, we are becoming increasingly more and more dependent on it to function in our daily lives, and it should be painfully obvious to you, me, and anyone else how monumental a disservice to humanity it would be to sell off our freedoms to interact with others and to express ourselves publicly in the name of protecting businesses from 'unnecessary regulations'.

It amazes me that the same people who believe in evolution are completely against the overall concept of "survival of the fittest" when practically applied to the market.

Right, because clearly the brutal kill-or-be-killed relationship between life forms that exists in nature is exactly how civilised humans should treat each other. Not sure why you even bothered posting that.

Much easier to just bribe the FCC than all the different ISPs. Kind of like how the FDA gets bribed now.

Except if people in the FCC take bribes to circumvent this legislation they would be doing something illegal, and stand the risk of getting caught/punished. The same would not be true in the case of unregulated telcoms taking handouts to censor web material that some rich dude doesn't like. Again, you fail to convince me that the anti net neutrality crowd is about anything other than "profits for the few above the good of the many".