The "party of the poor" is standing aside to let gigantic corporation pay for content delivery priority. The smaller startup companies will just have to cough up the money to complete or not bother trying to get into the market. Competition to demokrats is who has the deepest pockets wins. No wonder the lawyers are all demokrats.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38571113/ns/technology_and_science-the_new_york_times/

"The agreement could eventually lead to higher charges for Internet users. "

Thanks Obama, thanks demokrats, just what we need, a higher Internet access bill with fewer choices.

------------------------------------

twitter @EyeAmU

yeah, this sucks. i like the idea that if they want to serve content faster, they should make their network faster.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

It was the Bush Administration that decided the FCC does not have regulatory oversight of this industry.

I just love it when republicans complain when republican policies rule the day.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It was the Bush Administration that decided the
> FCC does not have regulatory oversight of this
> industry.
>
> I just love it when republicans complain when
> republican policies rule the day.


The FCC doesn't have oversight until Congress writes the law that gives them that right.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It was the Bush Administration that decided the
> > FCC does not have regulatory oversight of this
> > industry.
> >
> > I just love it when republicans complain when
> > republican policies rule the day.
>
>
> The FCC doesn't have oversight until Congress
> writes the law that gives them that right.

As was the decision of the Bush Administration. They could have decided differently...as in the case of Carbon emissions now under the jurisdiction of the EPA.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Vince(1) Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > It was the Bush Administration that decided
> the
> > > FCC does not have regulatory oversight of
> this
> > > industry.
> > >
> > > I just love it when republicans complain when
> > > republican policies rule the day.
> >
> >
> > The FCC doesn't have oversight until Congress
> > writes the law that gives them that right.
>
> As was the decision of the Bush Administration.
> They could have decided differently...as in the
> case of Carbon emissions now under the
> jurisdiction of the EPA.

And that will be overturned soon. The lawsuits on that issue will show the same result.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

This was a funny ruling onthe subject also wasn't it. Funny that the EPA and dozens of Democratic politicians sued the government to regulate carbon emissions - to what, drive up costs for the American consumers?

Justices Say E.P.A. Has Power to Act on Harmful Gases
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/washington/03scotus.html

Here is the key "out":

The court further ruled that the agency could not sidestep its authority to regulate the greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change unless it could provide a scientific basis for its refusal.

...

Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said the only way the agency could “avoid taking further action” now was “if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change” or provides a good explanation why it cannot or will not find out whether they do.

If they cannot provide scientific fact that it DOES contribute to climate change, are they then required to not act? So far the IPCC and the UN are not looking good on making a real argument for global warming any more - leastwise not as a result of man.

Texas sues EPA over limits on carbon dioxide emissions
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/02/16/85421/texas-sues-epa-over-limits-on.html

Can Lawsuits Stop The EPA's Carbon Rules?
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-vine/can-lawsuits-stop-the-epas-carbon-rules
Now, that doesn't mean the EPA's greenhouse gas rules won't bump up against more significant legal challenges down the road. Industry groups almost certainly won't be able to challenge climate science in courts, but they can still challenge the specific rules that the agency devises. For instance, as I mentioned in my piece, the EPA wants certain rules to apply only to polluters that emit more than 25,000 tons of carbon-dioxide per year—but this "tailoring rule" may be vulnerable to a legal challenge. So this isn't the last lawsuit we're likely to see.

Meanwhile, there's another entity that's working to stop the EPA—namely, Congress. Late on Friday night, eight coal-state Democrats, led by West Virginia's Jay Rockefeller, sent a letter to EPA head Lisa Jackson asking her to suspend regulations for coal-fired utilities and industrial facilities until Congress passes its own climate legislation. This is in addition to the 39 senators who are supporting Lisa Murkowski's bill to strip the EPA of its authority over greenhouse gases. That's not enough votes to stop the agency (especially since Murkowski's bill would likely have to overcome an Obama veto), but the push to stop the EPA does seem to be gaining momentum.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/06/2010 12:54PM by Registered Voter.

To limit the carbon emissions. SInce cap and trade..which would have allowed the market place to decide on carbon emission limiting technologies...has been thrown under the bus....it's up to EPA officials to do so.


But of course youhave steered the conversation away from the Bush Administration decsion to limit the FCC's power and to allow interntat neutrality be decided by large corporations.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Wait, why are Republicans complaining about special treatment of the rich? I thought the rich showered us all with jobs, and only needed periodic offerings of tax cuts?

Take the straw out of your mouth, it's obviously poking your brain.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

formerhick76 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wait, why are Republicans complaining about
> special treatment of the rich? I thought the rich
> showered us all with jobs, and only needed
> periodic offerings of tax cuts?

The rich also need monopolies to overcome their inability to compete.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Siad like a TRUE PAUPER!

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Siad like a TRUE PAUPER!


gotcha scum bag!

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.