Posted on 10/09/2014 5:50:19 PM PDT by Olog-hai
That’s right. In its former iteration, it was nothing more or less than an attempt to forcibly bring the quantity of liberal propaganda up to the level of conservative truth.
This keeps getting lost in the debate.
We believe the Internet shouldn't be censored by the world's tyrants. That means President Obama should reverse his disastrous decision to hand over control of Internet domain names to the U.N., where it will come under the thumb of authoritarian regimes like Russia and China.
America invented the WWW and the corporations based here should run it not foreigners nor some pointy-head bureaucrats who can't even park their bicycles straight.
No it doesn’t get lost. It’s about government control over the ISPs.
Yep.... if this guy had his way he’d tax it and then give government assistance for democrats.
I submit that the two are not mutually exclusive and that he can be both.
At the risk of hewing to Godwin’s Law, Hitler was an ideologue too but obviously waged an effective campaign (many of them, in fact) to put his agenda in place.
Obama is no doubt an ideologue but he is, as usual, attempting to modify a pocket watch with a pipe wrench and frustrated by the results.
First and foremost it gets the corrupt, politically-motivated FCC involved with net traffic.
Today it’s ‘correcting inefficiencies and putting packets on equal footing,’ tomorrow it’s inevitably ‘policing hate speech.’
We’ve all seen this film dozens of times before with various technologies and industries. Simply the thin end of the wedge.
The USA is not a one-party state and there is significant opposition among the populace; Nazi Germany was (never mind abandoning “democracy”) and also had a significant number of its population on board. Apples and oranges comparison.
Oh please FO, you liar
You guys are internationalizating control of the Internet to the UN.
They, are not interested in neutral anything.
That they are. Surrendering ICANN was the first step.
I'll be as kind as I can:
Anyone who believes Net Neutrality is good for them or the country...or Liberty...IS STUPID and/or NAIVE.
It's how the Federales will censor the internet. It's their nose in the tent.
ALL you need to know is Obama, the Dem Party (everyone)Google and Silicon Valley not only supports it, it's VERY high on their list.
Don't be STUPID Freeper.
Exactly. Supposedly the eevil giant corporations are shaping the bandwidth on ISPs they control so co-owned, allied, affiliated etc. content gets preferential treatment. And that may be so at some place and time where I have never been.
And I am no fan of horizontal concentration or vertical integration in media enterprises and indeed, I actively boycott certain entities who are offensive to those scruples, and if I bought naked internet service at,say, 100mbps I would want all of that bandwidth to be available for any source from which I choose to use content, even though VIOS (or whomever) might rather throttle non users of its premium content at peak times.
BUT, that having been said, any fool knows that if any form of content and bandwidth monitoring and control is given to a commission of political appointees, the cure is GUARANTEED to be worse than the disease.
DO. NOT. WANT.
Folks, let me TRY to educate. I've been in this business for 30 years.
Government and CONTENT providers, especially Google and Apple want to prevent the backbone providers (There's only a few, AT&T is one, Sprint...Verizon...UUNET...etc.) from offering a better Class of Service (something done on EVERY other corporate and National network, worldwide) for those willing to pay a higher fee to access the backbone.
This is a service only VIDEO or TELEPHONY content providers will want to pay for.
Nobody else, and no other content will be effected.
I promise.
Indeed. Does anyone remember when OBOLA said with regard to the Obolacare FUBAR, “I’d fix it myself in a half day but I don’t write code” (?) Really? Gee willikers, Barry finally admitted something he can’t do.
Hang on. Hitler didn’t waltz into a ready-made scenario although some of the movement existed prior to his involvement - he was, for better or worse, there from the start i.e. before the one-party state existed.
But that is a diversion, admittedly introduced by me, from the original point: that while Obama may be an ideologue he is still president and wildly ineffective at steering the ship of state because he wants tight turns at full throttle.
Actually, most of the movement was in place before 1933. Ever heard of the Dolchstoßlegende, alternately called the Dolchstoßlüge?
But even with the most noble intentions, the cold, hard fact is force of government can only push down.
In the instant application, the pResident wants the cost of a service to be severed from the market value of providing it. That's what he wants. It has nothing to do with neutrality, and in his core principles it really has nothing to do with the Internet, either, per se.
The problem of throttling is nonexistent in any measurable sense, and the fact is, all packets are NOT the same. I want my ISP to give banking and email priority to kids downloading P2P porn.
I would be glad for someone to explain how I'm wrong.
You are not wrong but there are probably hundreds of naive Freepers that would disagree.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.