<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Slog - Comments on More on Net Neutrality</title>
<link>http://slog.thestranger.com/2006/06/more_on_net_neutrali</link>
<description>Even though The New Republic evidently &quot;stands with the National Review and wingnutoshpere in their opposition to grassroots Democrats,&quot; they did publish a damn good editorial this week trashing the GOP&apos;s attempt to kill net neutrality. Here&apos;s a snippet: Under the original rules put in place in 1934, telecommunications companies can&apos;t give preferential treatment to one set of outgoing calls over another by, say, offering static-free calling to one company&apos;s telemarketers but not another&apos;s. The same rules initially applied to the Internet. Telecom companies couldn&apos;t charge website proprietors to have their content sent to consumers more expeditiously. But, last August,...</description>
<copyright>Copyright 2007</copyright>
<pubDate>Sat, 24 Jun 2006 21:22:08 -0800</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Jul 2006 06:43:42 -0800</lastBuildDate>
<generator>http://www.movabletype.org/?v=3.34</generator>
<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs> 

<item>
<title>Comment by Will in Seattle</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>One Rule for the Lords<br />
Another For the Peasants.</p>

<p>Under King George<br />
Peasants must not travel the Royal Road<br />
But must bow and worship his Mighty Lord<br />
And step into the mud and muck.</p>

<p>... I remember a time when America stood for Equality, Opportunity, and Education, but under the corrupt and incompetent rule of King George, those days are fast disappearing.</p>]]></description>
<author>Will in Seattle</author>
<link>http://slog.thestranger.com/2006/06/more_on_net_neutrali#c382416</link>
<guid>http://slog.thestranger.com/2006/06/more_on_net_neutrali#c382416</guid>
<category>Politics</category>
<pubDate>Sun, 25 Jun 2006 12:39:34 -0800</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by KB</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Excuse me, Will, but don't lay this problem all at W's feet.  A lot of Democrats are whoring themselves out to the major telcos on this issue, too.</p>]]></description>
<author>KB</author>
<link>http://slog.thestranger.com/2006/06/more_on_net_neutrali#c382464</link>
<guid>http://slog.thestranger.com/2006/06/more_on_net_neutrali#c382464</guid>
<category>Politics</category>
<pubDate>Sun, 25 Jun 2006 15:38:30 -0800</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Josh Feit</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>The vote on the Markey/Inslee net neutrality amendment went like this:</p>

<p>Yes/ 140 Democrats, 11 Republicans, 1 Independent  (Total-152 for)</p>

<p>No/211 Republicans, 58 Democrats (Total-269 against)</p>

<p>Washington's delegation:<br />
 <br />
Baird, Brian, Washington, 3rd YES<br />
Dicks, Norman D., Washington, 6th YES<br />
Hastings, Doc, Washington, 4th NO<br />
Inslee, Jay, Washington, 1st YES<br />
Larsen, Rick, Washington, 2nd NO<br />
McDermott, Jim, Washington, 7th YES<br />
McMorris, Cathy, Washington, 5th NO<br />
Reichert, David G., Washington, 8th YES<br />
Smith, Adam, Washington, 9th YES</p>]]></description>
<author>Josh Feit</author>
<link>http://slog.thestranger.com/2006/06/more_on_net_neutrali#c382499</link>
<guid>http://slog.thestranger.com/2006/06/more_on_net_neutrali#c382499</guid>
<category>Politics</category>
<pubDate>Sun, 25 Jun 2006 17:18:09 -0800</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Will in Seattle</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Sure sounds like a Republican whorefest to me ...</p>]]></description>
<author>Will in Seattle</author>
<link>http://slog.thestranger.com/2006/06/more_on_net_neutrali#c382628</link>
<guid>http://slog.thestranger.com/2006/06/more_on_net_neutrali#c382628</guid>
<category>Politics</category>
<pubDate>Sun, 25 Jun 2006 19:12:11 -0800</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by KB</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Yes, the vote tally for the net neutrality is accurate, but what was the amendment to, meaning, the actual bill?  It was the so-called COPE act, which is/was nothing but a multi-billion dollar giveaway to the telcos.  What was the delegation vote on that bill?</p>]]></description>
<author>KB</author>
<link>http://slog.thestranger.com/2006/06/more_on_net_neutrali#c382677</link>
<guid>http://slog.thestranger.com/2006/06/more_on_net_neutrali#c382677</guid>
<category>Politics</category>
<pubDate>Sun, 25 Jun 2006 19:42:55 -0800</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by TMW</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Good for Reichert on crossing over for this important legislation.</p>]]></description>
<author>TMW</author>
<link>http://slog.thestranger.com/2006/06/more_on_net_neutrali#c382989</link>
<guid>http://slog.thestranger.com/2006/06/more_on_net_neutrali#c382989</guid>
<category>Politics</category>
<pubDate>Sun, 25 Jun 2006 22:43:53 -0800</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Josh Feit</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Microsoft is lobbying for the net neutrality amendment. So, it makes sense that Reichert supported it. But, yes, good on Reichert for voting the right way on it. Although, given how lospsided the vote was—it was an easy bone for him to throw to his district w/out pissing off the GOP leadership. </p>]]></description>
<author>Josh Feit</author>
<link>http://slog.thestranger.com/2006/06/more_on_net_neutrali#c382990</link>
<guid>http://slog.thestranger.com/2006/06/more_on_net_neutrali#c382990</guid>
<category>Politics</category>
<pubDate>Sun, 25 Jun 2006 22:48:49 -0800</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Cool site</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>www.tut.by</p>]]></description>
<author>Cool site</author>
<link>http://slog.thestranger.com/2006/06/more_on_net_neutrali#c394096</link>
<guid>http://slog.thestranger.com/2006/06/more_on_net_neutrali#c394096</guid>
<category>Politics</category>
<pubDate>Thu, 06 Jul 2006 06:43:42 -0800</pubDate>
</item>


</channel>
</rss>