Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
United States Government The Internet Politics Your Rights Online

Al Franken Says FCC Proposed Rules Are "The Opposite of Net Neutrality" 282

An anonymous reader writes "Senator Al Franken can be counted among the many who are at odds with the FCC's proposed net neutrality rules. From the article: 'Senator Al Franken has a pretty good idea of what the term "net neutrality" means—and that, he says, puts him head-and-shoulders above many of his colleagues in the U.S. Congress. "We literally have members of Congress—I've heard members of the House—say, 'We've had all this innovation on the Internet without net neutrality. Why do we need it now?'" he told TIME in an interview last week. "I want to say, 'Come on, just try to understand the idea. Or at least just don't give a speech if you don't know what you're saying. Please—it hurts my head."'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Al Franken Says FCC Proposed Rules Are "The Opposite of Net Neutrality"

Comments Filter:
  • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Sunday May 11, 2014 @08:44PM (#46975875)

    What the FCC is doing is the opposite of what people on the internet thought Net Neutrality is.

    But anyone who knew better was warning you what the FCC is doing now is what Net Neutrality being implemented actually was or would be.

    Yes, this is a told you so. And I will keep telling you all so until you realize asking the government to help you with something is like asking the man in the old windowless van to watch your kids for an hour while you go get a tan.

  • by Squiddie ( 1942230 ) on Sunday May 11, 2014 @08:57PM (#46975937)
    I agree. The whole competition thing is bullshit. I wanted to change providers, and I just now realized that there isn't a single competing carrier where I live. I'm stuck with what I have. How the fuck am I supposed to vote with my wallet this way? Not have internet?
  • by fightinfilipino ( 1449273 ) on Sunday May 11, 2014 @09:09PM (#46975977) Homepage

    he promised strong Net Neutrality on his platform, and yet his Administration appoints the CableCo foxes to live in the FCC hen house.

    sign this to demand Net Neutrality and to remove Tom Wheeler and other lobbyists out of the FCC! [wh.gov]

  • WRONG (Score:5, Informative)

    by bussdriver ( 620565 ) on Sunday May 11, 2014 @09:17PM (#46976011)

    Franken drew the map from memory BEFORE he was in office and during the campaign for office. He has served ONE term. He never spent tax payer money learning to draw the map.

    Given how politicians are sold like products and put on an act to get elected, it makes him no different than anybody else--- EXCEPT he is not a lawyer which automatically makes him better.

  • by cold fjord ( 826450 ) on Sunday May 11, 2014 @09:40PM (#46976075)

    Al Franken is one of the most intelligent, ethical, fair, and progressive-minded people in the Senate.

    Really? Then you'll be interested in the items below. I assume you'll agree with him since you describe him as " one of the most intelligent, ethical, fair, and progressive-minded people in the Senate."

    The NSA Has at Least 1 Liberal Friend Left: Sen. Al Franken [nationaljournal.com]

    It's pretty lonely to be the National Security Agency right now. The revelation of a massive data-collection program has left many progressive senators criticizing the agency, from Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., to Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn. But one of the other most liberal senators in Congress is so far speaking out in NSA's support: Al Franken.

    Franken, the Minnesota Democrat who is on the Senate Judiciary Committee, knew about the data-mining. Or at least that's what he told Minnesota's WCCO on Tuesday. "I can assure you, this is not about spying on the American people," Franken said. The senator also believes the data collection has saved American lives:

    I have a high level of confidence that this is used to protect us, and I know that it has been successful in preventing terrorism. There are certain things that are appropriate for me to know that is not appropriate for the bad guys to know.

    Franken defends NSA surveillance [thehill.com]

    The Minnesota lawmaker told the St. Paul CBS affiliate that he "was very well aware of" the classified government programs that gathered personal data on telephone and Internet users.

    “I have a high level of confidence that this is used to protect us and I know that it has been successful in preventing terrorism,” Franken said, adding that "this is not about spying on the American people." Franken also defended the program as striking the right balance between national security and the right to privacy, echoing recent assurances from the White House.

    “There are certain things that are appropriate for me to know that is not appropriate for the bad guys to know,” Franken said.

    The senator also said it was appropriate for the Justice Department to investigate Edward Snowden, the 29-year-old defense contractor who has claimed responsibility for the leak.

    Well, who can argue with Al Franken since he is "...one of the most intelligent, ethical, fair, and progressive-minded people in the Senate"?

    Unfortunately Al Franken owes his election to vote fraud.

    Felons for Franken - Illegal felon voters may have handed Democrats 60-vote majority. [wsj.com]

    Did illegal felon voters determine the outcome of the critical 2008 Minnesota Senate election? The day after the election, GOP Senator Norm Coleman had a 725 vote lead, but a series of recounts over the next six months reversed that result and gave Democrat Al Franken a 312 vote victory.

    The outcome wound up having a significant impact, giving Democrats the critical 60th Senate vote they needed to block GOP filibusters. Mr. Franken's vote proved crucial in the passage of ObamaCare last December in the Senate. The next month Democrats lost their 60-vote Senate majority with the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts.

    Ever since Mr. Franken was declared the victor, the conservative watchdog group Minnesota Majority has combed through records comparing lists of those who voted with criminal rap sheets. It found that at least 341 convicted felons voted in Minneapolis's

  • by fustakrakich ( 1673220 ) on Sunday May 11, 2014 @10:24PM (#46976227) Journal

    He also defends the NSA and SOPA. He looks like a regular politician [opensecrets.org] to me

  • Re:Al Franken (Score:5, Informative)

    by cold fjord ( 826450 ) on Sunday May 11, 2014 @10:45PM (#46976307)

    ...is the only person in the Senate who seems to have not been bought and sold by lobbyists.

    But he is a strong defender of the NSA [thehill.com]. Are we still here to praise him? Or can we criticize him without being mod bombed?

  • Re:Al Franken (Score:5, Informative)

    by fustakrakich ( 1673220 ) on Sunday May 11, 2014 @10:52PM (#46976327) Journal

    He is owned by Time Warner, among others [opensecrets.org] and is probably why we see him defending things like SOPA. And in regards to our privacy, he's busy defending the NSA. I am certain that the industries that support him expect a return on their investments.

  • by strack ( 1051390 ) on Monday May 12, 2014 @12:10AM (#46976649)
    I see what you did there. That article was cleverly worded to imply that the convicted felons voted illegally, when in fact in the state of Minnesota, voting rights are restored to felons after they have served their probation.
  • Re:Al Franken (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 12, 2014 @12:23AM (#46976717)

    ...is the only person in the Senate who seems to have not been bought and sold by lobbyists.

    But he is a strong defender of the NSA [thehill.com]. Are we still here to praise him? Or can we criticize him without being mod bombed?

    That's not all he did. He is also a big defender of the NSA [thehill.com]. Still a fan of Franken?

    You keep posting that link with an irrational seeming fervor, and it doesn't seem like that's something Franken would do so I checked it out. Have you even read it?

    "Sen. Franken voted against reauthorizing the FISA Act because of the lack of transparency after he cosponsored and voted for three separate amendments that would have improved the bill on transparency and privacy," Franken press aide Alexandra Fetissoff said.

    In the interview on Tuesday, Franken says he does think the government programs should be more open, even if there was a reason for some government secrets.

    “I don't believe that the American people should have to take the government's word for it," Franken said. "I think there should be enough transparency so that the American people understand what's happening.”

    It seems like he's saying not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. He's hardly defending the NSA vacuum everything position.

  • Re:Parent is a Troll (Score:5, Informative)

    by Aighearach ( 97333 ) on Monday May 12, 2014 @12:33AM (#46976765) Homepage

    In Oregon a felon's right to vote is restored when they have completed their sentences and post-release supervision. Gun rights can be restored by applying with the local Sherrif's Office. (usually granted)

  • Re:ya (Score:4, Informative)

    by AK Marc ( 707885 ) on Monday May 12, 2014 @12:42AM (#46976801)
    If your company isn't growing at 10% per year, stock will drop. 20% per year profit is great, but without growth, the stock price will drop. 0% per year with 20% gross revenue growth per year (and 0 profit growth) will probably trump actual returns for stock price.

    It doesn't make sense, but that's how it works. So everyone kills for 10% growth per year, even if unsustainable and borderline illegal extortion.
  • Re:ya (Score:4, Informative)

    by rtb61 ( 674572 ) on Monday May 12, 2014 @01:59AM (#46977073) Homepage

    Careful, you are pushing a lie in distinction between push traffic and pull traffic. Netflix traffic is traffic it generates a request for, it pulls traffic. End user traffic is the traffic the end user requests, it pulls for. There is also push traffic, unrequested traffic this is called advertising, generally packaged with requested traffic.

    Stop spreading the lie that content producer generate lots of traffic. Content producers connect a server to the internet, the server quitely sits there doing not much of anything and generating little or no traffic. What happens next it the end user, uses the bandwidth they have paid for to access that server via the internet and get it to send the requested data to them, the 'END USER" generated the traffic.

    Stop fucking lying liar, the end user the person who requests the content, the person who activates the server at the other end to send content, is in control, it is pull traffic, all controlled by the user who paid for their bandwidth.Netflixes traffic is their business traffic, the data their staff generates when they send emails, or request information from other servers on the internet. Making a server accessible and allowing end user to control the flow of data from that server to the end user is "END USER TRAFFIC" to and from.

  • Re:ya (Score:5, Informative)

    by Whip ( 4737 ) on Monday May 12, 2014 @03:08AM (#46977257)

    So, um, you do realize that there's not actually a technical differentiation between an ISP and anyone else peering with someone on the Internet, yes? None. A peer is a peer is a peer. There's a lot of companies that don't "pay an ISP for their bandwidth" because they're peering directly with all the big (and plenty of small) network players. The idea that a small handful of companies are "internet service providers" and everyone else must buy from them has never been an accurate representation of how the Internet actually works. And *I* most certainly *do* know the details.

    Do you also realize that even if Netflix doesn't have "an ISP," that they still have to transit their own traffic to whatever peering points they use, right? That's far from free. The only reason Netflix would pay "their ISP" to start with would be to move Netflix's traffic from wherever Netflix originates it, to one of their peering points where they peer with Comcast. Not having "an ISP" do that for them doesn't negate the need. The data just doesn't magically appear at a peering point somewhere.

    Also, do you realize that it's quite possible that Netflix would actually peer with Comcast in places that were actually *good* for Comcast? Netflix, in general, seems to want to offload their data onto end user's ISP's networks as close to those users as possible, since that's how their users get the best quality service. Doing so means that transiting Netflix's traffic is actually *cheaper* for Comcast, because they don't have to haul it as far across their network to deliver it.

    (This is why Netflix actually offers, to major ISPs, *free* servers that the ISP can put on their network in whatever locations they like, which will originate a large portion of Netflix's traffic. This means that the ISPs could put the sources of that traffic in the places that are cheapest and best for the ISP, at virtually no cost to them, and save them lots of money in the process (since they wouldn't have to transit the traffic from wherever they peer at. Hell, shove one of those in the same buildings that terminate all your customers in a major metro area, and you practically eliminate Netflix as a source of traffic on that ISP's backbone in that area...)

    Now, I realize you're just trolling, but I'm posting just in case someone out there doesn't realize that and tries to take you seriously.

  • Re:ya (Score:4, Informative)

    by Arker ( 91948 ) on Monday May 12, 2014 @04:14AM (#46977427) Homepage

    Netflix was already paying for transit. Comcast was already being paid by their customers as well. Comcast said 'hey that's a lot of traffic on the interconnect.' Netflix offered to (as they have done with many other ISPs) install cache servers on Comcast's network, which would have improved the service for Comcast customers without requiring Comcast to upgrade their infrastructure (which Comcast really should have done years ago anyway but why would they spend money on it when they can apparently use it as an excuse to extort more payments instead?)

    That's not asking for free bandwidth, that's making a very generous offer to help an ISP conserve bandwidth. Bandwidth, we should note, that the ISP already contracted with its customers to provide. Netflix is not a party to that and has no obligation to help at all, but obviously they do have an interest in making their own users happy, which is what they were after.

    If as an ISP you do not like their offer then fine, dont take them up on it. You still need to provide the bandwidth you have already sold, just like if they had made no offer. But trying to spin that as a shakedown for free bandwidth? Are you freaking kidding me?

    That's not just propaganda it's horrible propaganda, anyone that understands what you are talking about is going to laugh in your face.

Vitamin C deficiency is apauling.