Fisamo
Premium
join:2004-02-20
Apex, NC
 ·VOIPo
·AT&T CallVantage
|  Looks good, but...
... it has the rest of the House to clear, then the Senate, then the Prez. Too many lobbying opportunities... 
As I read it, it looks pretty comprehensive, especially for a document that's only 5 pages long. 
•No interfering with content from content providers unaffiliated with broadband provider
•No enhancing a type of content from 'affiliated' providers, unless the same type of content is enhanced for all content providers
•No charging more for 'enhanced' delivery of content from an 'affiliated' provider |
|
envoid
join:2002-12-21
Duluth, GA
| said by Fisamo  :•No charging more for 'enhanced' delivery of content from an 'affiliated' provider This should really be
•No charging more for 'enhanced' delivery of content from an 'UNaffiliated' provider
If it's how you wrote it, then they can charge less for affiliates and more for anyone else... |
|
RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
 ·XMission
| reply to Fisamo
said by Fisamo :... it has the rest of the House to clear, then the Senate, then the Prez. Too many lobbying opportunities... Wait until the riders get tossed on. A rule making it illegal to call an illegal illegal. Another rule giving congress a pay raise. Another rule making Spanish the official language.
(Well, maybe I am silly, but that simple 5 page item could be a hundred more pages of garbage that should be vetoed by the time it gets to the prez, and of course Bush is a *blank* because in the process of vetoing 100 pages of garbage, the 5 pages we want will get caught in the crossfire. Congress is not stupid.)
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
2 edits | Bush doesn't veto anything, never has and never will. He just attaches a presidental signing memo stating that he doesn't agree with constitutionality of the law by his interpretation of it, and therefore will instruct the executive branch not to enforce it. Apparently he's done this 750 times already.. that's right.. 750. |
|
RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| I read that Bush recently broke the last record of days gone without a veto set by Thomas Jefferson (who also did not do a veto at all). Since 1789 there have been seven (not counting the current Bush) presidents that have not exercised any type of veto (although some people point out that times were different for those presidents). He has threatened a couple of times and apparently got the bills in question changed, so he does USE the power of veto, just has not exercised it yet.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | I would rather he veto the bills, as it gives the legistlature that chance to disagree with his interpretation. Instead he just says "Go ahead and sign whatever you want into law.. I'll just ignore it anyway." |
|
