Senator John McCain (R-AZ) is the top recipient of campaign contributions from large Internet service providers like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast over the past two years, according to a new report from the Sunlight Foundation and the Center for Responsive Politics. McCain has taken in a total of $894,379 (much of that money going to support his failed 2008 bid for the presidency), more than twice the amount taken by the next-largest beneficiary, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. ($341,089).

Meanwhile, McCain has emerged as the ISPs' biggest champion against new "network neutrality" rules from the Federal Communications Commission, which voted Thursday to move forward in the process to adopt such rules. Shortly after the FCC vote, McCain introduced a bill (the "Internet Freedom Act") that would block regulation of the nation's largest broadband networks.

Net neutrality rules would amount to a federal mandate that broadband providers cannot block or hinder the internet traffic of any web site or service, regardless of whether or not that site or service completes with a similar site or service offered by the ISP itself. In other words, a telco ISP could not limit bandwidth used for Skype VoIP traffic, while maximizing bandwidth available for its own VoIP service.

Originally posted by reasonable
well whadda ya know?....

www.pcworld.com...

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) is the top recipient of campaign contributions from large Internet service providers like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast over the past two years, according to a new report from the Sunlight Foundation and the Center for Responsive Politics. McCain has taken in a total of $894,379 (much of that money going to support his failed 2008 bid for the presidency), more than twice the amount taken by the next-largest beneficiary, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. ($341,089).

Meanwhile, McCain has emerged as the ISPs' biggest champion against new "network neutrality" rules from the Federal Communications Commission, which voted Thursday to move forward in the process to adopt such rules. Shortly after the FCC vote, McCain introduced a bill (the "Internet Freedom Act") that would block regulation of the nation's largest broadband networks.

Net neutrality rules would amount to a federal mandate that broadband providers cannot block or hinder the internet traffic of any web site or service, regardless of whether or not that site or service completes with a similar site or service offered by the ISP itself. In other words, a telco ISP could not limit bandwidth used for Skype VoIP traffic, while maximizing bandwidth available for its own VoIP service.

Originally posted by Traffic
Am I reading this wrong or did everyone else read it wrong?

You are NOT reading it wrong. You've got it. Many people ARE confused, however. That's the purpose of the title of the bill. Internet freedom for the telecom corporations to come in and control my access.

The reason John McCain wants to do this is that the telecom companies are giving lots and lots and lots of money to do so.

Why anyone would trust self-confessed, computer illiterate McCain with their internet "freedoms" is far beyond me. Well, it's not really. If it's anti-Obama, then it's the right thing, they figure.

Originally posted by reasonable
The only reason people in here are supporting it is because Fox News told them too..

Exactly. Glenn Beck couched Net Neutrality as a threat to Freedom of Speech. Thinking that his minions are dumb enough to fall for it...

This is a case where the FCC is actually protecting the people and the people don't even realize it!

Originally posted by vkey08
Do you WANT more government controls on your life?

Not all government control is bad. How do you know that the meat you buy in the supermarket is not going to kill you when you eat it? Government control. How do you know that, when something says it doesn't contain MSG that it's true? Government Control. How do you know that the medicine you feed your baby is safe? Government Control.

If you want telecom companies and Internet Service Providers to be able to prevent you from accessing certain sites and to slow your access to certain sites, then you support this bill of McCain's. If you want it to stay as it is now, then you don't support this bill.

Look, we have no more interest in child porn than we do a pair of Lady Gaga Heartbeats, but any time we hear of internet providers having either the right or responsibility to block content, we get an uneasy feeling in the pit of our libertarian stomachs.