Net Neutrality and Typical Republicans

The Senate is back and debating along lines on the net neutrality cause. Of course it's democrats vs republicans with one lone republican about to be feasted on for siding with "the enemy" (i.e. dems).

The republicans take on talk concerning net neutrality? You guessed it, avoidance.

Republicans cautioned that tinkering with the existing language could cause the entire 159-page proposal to collapse.

And what more could they ask for? Republicans want to pass the net neutrality for big business. They've probably got their hands in the cookie jars and their bank accounts ready to receive wired cash upon denial of net neutrality from the big corporations. And who's not in bed with someone offering up easy money in government? It's ridiculous we think anything will be passed because it needs to be. But I digress.

Also typical of government, their hard work is reflected in the hours they keep.

The committee, which adjourned because of floor votes after only two hours of debate, plans to resume debate on the Communications, Consumers' Choice and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006 (click here for PDF) on Tuesday morning

Personally, I'd only work 2 hours every 5 days if I could pocket what they do. Alas, my meager salary requires long hours often streaming into the night and taking away from the things that really matter. Yachting and schmoozing old fogies? No, family and hobbies like normal people.

But at least they seem to like paperwork.

More than 200 amendments on the numerous topics covered by the bill have been filed for consideration.

Or is that, they like giving their interns paperwork? Hmm. Think any of them read what they filed or is it more like when they passed the Patriot Act? Good jobs guys.

The big pull here is the implication meant by destroying the idea of net neutrality. What would keep big businesses from drowning out the smaller guys? What would keep the internet "level" for anyone who wanted to try their hand at being indexed, loaded, and seen?

Net neutrality, according to its proponents, centers on the idea that network operators must give equal treatment to all content that rides over their pipes. The Stevens bill has drawn attack from advocates of the concept because it wouldn't prohibit network operators from making deals with content providers for the privilege of, say, faster delivery or more prominent placement.

And no doubt this is correct:

Nevada Republican John Ensign sounded the loudest alarms against further regulations on Thursday. He flatly rejected the pro-Net neutrality camp's criticism of the bill, saying the proposal is a "good compromise" that fully protects their interests.

A Republican sounded the loudest alarms. You mean he used aggression and belligerence to get his point across. Interesting move. Last time I saw that one used it was an overzealous evangelical from a Protect the Family type organization. Really got the point across that he was right and we were all blundering idiots. No wait, I got that wrong. He was the idiot.