TampaYankee

I don't know. It just sounds like an act of self abuse.

Net Neutrality Proposal Falls Apart JOELLE TESSLER | 09/29/10 09:58 PM | AP WASHINGTON — House Democrats have shelved a last-ditch effort to broker a compromise between phone, cable and Internet companies on rules that would prohibit broadband providers from blocking or degrading online traffic flowing over their networks. House Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., abandoned the effort late Wednesday in the face of Republican opposition to his proposed "network neutrality" rules. Those rules were intended to prevent broadband providers from becoming online gatekeepers by playing favorites with traffic. The battle over net neutrality has pitted public interest groups and Internet companies such as Google Inc. and Skype against the nation's big phone and cable companies, including AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc. and Comcast Corp. Public interest groups and Internet companies say regulations are needed to prevent phone and cable operators from slowing or blocking Internet phone calls, online video and other Web services that compete with their core businesses. They also want rules to ensure that broadband companies cannot favor their own online traffic or the traffic of business partners that can pay for priority access. But the phone and cable companies insist they need flexibility to manage network traffic so that high-bandwidth applications don't hog capacity and slow down their systems. They say this is particularly true for wireless networks, which have more bandwidth constraints than wired systems. The communications companies also argue that after spending billions to upgrade their networks for broadband, they need to be able earn a healthy return by offering premium services. Burdensome net neutrality rules, they say, would discourage future investments. Waxman's proposal, the product of weeks of negotiations, attempted to carve out a middle ground by prohibiting Internet traffic discrimination over wireline networks while giving broadband providers more leeway when it comes to managing traffic on wireless networks. The plan would have given the Federal Communications Commission authority to impose fines of up to $2 million for net-neutrality violations. For the broadband companies, Waxman's retreat is a setback. They fear the issue could now go back to the FCC, which deadlocked over the matter in August. The commission could impose more restrictive rules on the industry than a House compromise would have. "If Congress can't act, the FCC must," Waxman said in a statement. He added that "this development is a loss for consumers." Net neutrality was the Obama administration's top campaign pledge to the technology industry and a major priority of the current FCC chairman, Julius Genachowski, a key architect of Obama's technology platform. But frustration is growing – particularly among public interest groups – as the debate has dragged on over the past year without resolution either at the FCC or in Congress. Waxman's proposal, in part, fell victim to today's political climate, with Republicans hoping to rack up gains in the upcoming midterm elections apparently unwilling to help Democrats make progress on such a contentious issue. With an anti-government, anti-regulation sentiment sweeping the nation – and boosting Tea Party candidates – Republicans also were reluctant to support a proposal that opponents equate to regulating the Internet. Yet in what would have been a big victory for the phone and cable companies, Waxman's proposal would have headed off an effort by Genachowski to redefine broadband as a telecommunications service subject to "common carrier" obligations to treat all traffic equally. The FCC has been trying to craft a new framework for regulating broadband since a federal appeals court in April threw out its current approach, which treats broadband as a lightly regulated "information service." The agency had argued that this approach gave it ample jurisdiction to mandate net neutrality. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rejected that argument. It ruled that the agency had overstepped its authority when it ordered Comcast to stop blocking subscribers from using an online file-sharing service called BitTorrent to swap movies and other big files. With Congress making no progress to resolve this issue, several public interest groups on Wednesday called on Genachowski to move ahead with his proposal to reclassify broadband as a telecom service. "The FCC must act now to protect consumers by reinstating its authority over broadband," Gigi Sohn, president of the public interest group Public Knowledge, said in a statement. "We expect the FCC to do so to carry out one of the fundamental promises of the Obama administration." But Joe Barton of Texas, the top Republican on the House Commerce Committee, said Genachowski's proposal would "stifle investment and create regulatory overhang in one of the most dynamic sectors of our economy." See original article at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/29/net-neutrality-proposal-f_n_744625.html

I believe that Diane Sawyer had a spot on this on World News Tonight, tonight.

Hmmm... I don't recall any of those instances off the top of my head -- but I am not disputing you at all. My short term memory is not what it was I guess -- I really don't recall. We have no policy about cross posting. It is up to the poster where he wishes to place his posts -- at either site or both. We have no issue with borrowing an interesting topic from another site, with due credit given, although I wouldn't want to see it become commonplace. Topics can be of interest at both sites. I do not know how many MER members/visitors visit both sites. I suspect many do. Personally, I hardly ever visit daddy's site with the rare exception of an issue of overriding interest. I did visit for background on the Noah Driver case. I, maybe, have visited half a dozen times in that last three years, if I were to guess, a couple being the first instance of daddys forclosure/ donation issue and the Scott Adler episode. On rare occasion a poster of both sites has posted a link here to a post there rather than post it here, even if only a cut and paste. I pass on the link because I made a commitment to concentrate my interests on this site. Had the post been made here I probably would have enjoyed reading it. I do not believe that any site has the sole rights to a topic or a post. The same interesting topic can coexist. I was shocked that the Noah Driver episode was not mentioned over hear before it was or that I was not privately contacted about it at least. It certainly was germane to the site mission and the forums. I guess the bottom line is that neither site should be a carbon copy of the other but that interesting topics and posts might be of interest at both sites. It's a call for the individual poster who wishes to make the contribution. No one should be keel-hauled for it.

Au contraire, mon frère, I have wrapped myself in and around some of the finest Candian beauty both on the West Coast and in Montreal on many many occasions. I have often remarked with friends that it must be something in that cool clear Canadian water. I know what is meant when I hear 'Oh Canada!'

I appreciate that one might be embarassed after getting taken. As a newbie I was embarassed when I allowed myself to be no-showed by the same escort three nights in a row. As I reflect back on that, wow!! I really wanted to see that guy. I didn't lose any money thankfully, but I did lose self-respect in my eyes. The embarassment doubled or tripled when I posted a review about the sad experience but, for me, it was important to warn others about this guy. Also, truthfully, I wanted the guy to know that there was a price to pay for treating clients that way. In retrospect it was small fish compared to the treatment that you and others have been subjected to. Yeah, it might be embarassing but know that the shame and the stain falls on the other party, not you.

Having met Ralph shortly after he turned 18, I am confident this photo is kosher.

Canada looks better and better every year and it looked damn good in the first half of this decade. If it weren't for those winters... I'm sure this will put the Conservative's panties in a bunch. I love it when they get a bee in their bustle. Down here too.

Very nice catch, indeed.

And here I thought you were going to reveal some juicy local dish on Oz.

I have one coming.It's been in the works for some time. No wine before its time, you know.

Why? I'd only forget it. Me thinks you are trying to separate a lame brain from the scarce pennies he has. (I'm not sure what all these icons mean but I hate to see them not used. Sorta like abandoned orphans a bit. ) Wow!! I now have an avatar thanks to Oz. First one ever. I think it is so you guys can see me coming.

And poeple say I don't know how to retaliate!! Now if I can find a way to turn the pic of that whining brat into Jerry Falwell climbing out of that mule's asshole... my mission will be complete. Out of embarassment I erased my intended response about you blaming me for your sprained wrist and my recommendation of lube to soften your calluses, but the moment had passed. I see that you are stuck on reading your old posts too... We are more alike than not but I do not have calluses and you don't have dimentia.

It says much more about humanity than war. War is hell and can transform in some indeterminate way many who participate, surely, However, as far as I know, the human species is the only one with the capacity for senseless killing. Other specices kill for food, territory, mating rights. I am unaware of any other species that kills simply for the sake, or is it the thrill, of killing. We are truly set apart from all other life forms in that capacity.

I thought this pretty much a no-brainer... you know, Moses out of Egypt and all that. Now I find out that its a bunch of old religious guys reading biblical tea leaves. (Why do I get the mental image of the right hand side of the Supreme Court bench huddled around a great big tea cup channeling the Founding Fathers, who, no doubt, had their own cups in hand, filled with something that definitely wasn't tea. That's it... I've run out of commas.

Pretty remarkable. Stuff like this makes coming to work more than a pleasure... more like lots of fun.

Sounds like Ft Lauderdale of the West... without the water. Did they hire this Chief away for FTL? I knew that eventually China would evolve to American standards of Human Rights and enlightend law enforcement. It just took time.

It seems Google and Verizon have won, carrying the other wireless providers on their backs. It's actions like this that give me insight into those who chose not to vote because they feel it makes no difference.

Net Neutrality Bill Gives FCC No New Rulemaking Power By Eliza Krigman Monday, September 27, 2010 1:42 PM The FCC will not have rulemaking authority under a network neutrality bill that key House Democrats plan to introduce soon, according to a recent draft obtained by Tech Daily Dose. Instead, the commission will deal with enforcement on a case-by-case basis. Broadband providers who violate the law will face a maximum penalty of $2 million by the FCC, under the bill. The absence of the rulemaking authority, along with other provisions of the bill, is consistent with information reported by Tech Daily Dose last week. The bill is a last-minute effort by House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman to shepherd net neutrality legislation through the lower chamber before recess. Waxman hopes to advance the measure through the Senate during the lame-duck session after the November elections, according to an industry source. Under the proposed legislation, the FCC would be prohibited from reclassifying broadband under Title II of the Communications Act, a change FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has proposed in order to allow the government to impose rules designed to preserve the Internet's openness. Although he has sought to protect broadband from more onerous regulatory requirements under Title II, such as price regulation, the industry regards the reclassification approach as the "nuclear option." To ensure net neutrality, the House bill would stipulate that wireline providers may not block lawful Internet traffic and or "unjustly or unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful traffic over a consumer's wireline broadband Internet access service." Notably, the nondiscrimination language does not apply to wireless providers. The legislation would prohibit wireless providers from blocking lawful websites, but leaves open their ability to block applications and peer-to-peer activity. The draft bill also sets a Dec. 31, 2011 deadline for the FCC to deliver to the House and Senate commerce committees a report regarding additional authority needed by the commission to implement its national broadband plan and ensure the further protection of consumers with respect to their Internet use. The draft includes a sunset provision calling for the enacted measure to expire at the end of the 2012 calendar year. All of the rules regarding Internet traffic are subject to "reasonable network management," the draft bill says. "This bill represents a giant retreat by some of those who claim to support net neutrality and sends the wrong signal to the FCC who will ultimately deal with this issue," said a source familiar with the situation. See original article at: http://techdailydose.nationaljournal.com/2010/09/net-neutrality-bill-gives-fcc.php

As long as you post within the policy and guidelines of the site and forums and you have an objective, factual story to help illuminate the circumstances of the thread topic you are welcome to share. One of the site missions is to share objective information about escorts that help others in hiring decisions. We are not going to preclude the sharing of such information with other members. Just keep it objective, factual and relevant. Please, no personal information of any kind or threats which might degenerate into a food fight. The Noah Driver episode is of importance to some in the hiring community. Anything that helps illuminate the truth of it is also important. Please don't let it be overtaken and sidetracked by differences between you and BN.

This thread has gotten way over my head. I need more oxygen of a sort. I'm heading over to lookin's for a few hits off his bong.

Personally, I believe that the Politics Forum is resposible for ten fewer points on my blood pressure. That varies by the day though. I could always achieve the same benefit by yelling at the TV... probably. Otherwise, I doubt I have won the hearts and minds of many... I mean any. But I feel better anyway -- the pounding in my head lessens. I do not fully understand it, I just know that I feel better calling an idiot an idiot and an asshole an asshole. Unfortunately, etiquette is at odds with some homeopathic self-help regimens. Why must I be a slave to convention?

I cannot venture a guess as to what you have in mind but please recall that you asked for a post to be removed, um... last week I believe. I didn't understand that one either but I did understand your request and acceded. It may or may not be the post to which you refer.

Suggestion heard. The Politics Forum is not our busiest but it is busier than several others. Even so the number of contributors is few. It is a fair question whether we have the content to support a separate forum. We are open to input? We have had a number of members express view that they dislike political discussion. I can appreciate that. We value those members also. That is one reason why we try to keep politics out of the other forums. I do not see that policy changing. Thus the question boils down to maintaining a Politics Forum or banning the discussion of politics altogether. Oz and I are always open to giving members what they want as long as it doesn't go against site policy or needs. So we can revisit banning Politics again if there is sentiment for it.

Sadly, I am coming to the conclusion that the Democrats really cannot govern nor do they deserve to. They are weak on commitment and unified vision, discipline and fortitude. The GOP is none of those. That is why they always eat the Dems lunch. The reason not to extend the Bush Tax cuts beyond income beyond the first $250K is the massive hole it puts in the deficit estimated at $700,000. This for people who hardly need the money to live and who economists tell us will make little difference on what they choose to spend and who will invest less in the present conditions. The middle class tax cuts, for those lucky enough to have a job, will also hurt the deficit. However, without the middle class having some purchasing power, the recovery of the economy is a moot point, unless we become an export heavy trade partner overnight. So much for wishes. Given the present circumstances and the long term deficit problem, I advocate extending the tax cuts only on the first $250K income for five years and then revisiting down the road under then current economic conditions.