Posted on 06/11/2011 9:01:34 AM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
We have recently heard very much about the Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)-induced flood of released documents.
They show that the anti-free market group Free Press worked quite closely with Federal Communications Commission (FCC) uber-Democrat Commissioner Michael Copps in advance of the December 21 FCC Internet power grab, executed so that the Commission could then impose the ridiculous Network Neutrality.
This knowledge certainly helps explain why the technologically inept Free Press was cited fifty-three times in the FCC’s absurd write-up of their absurd December Internet folly.
...
Free Press continually acts completely insane – at which they are REALLY convincing – and continually asks for completely insane, Huge Government policy outcomes.
The FCC then does an obnoxiously large percentage – but not all – of what Free Press wants. Free Press goes on cue ballistic – and the Commission looks by comparison "reasonable."
(Excerpt) Read more at biggovernment.com ...
People generally come to free republic because they oppose big government. Yet there is an inexplicable phenomena where small government freepers support massive government net neutrality.
And they even overlook all the evidence. Every shred of evidence points to net neutrality being as dangerous to our freedoms as Obamacare is. Yet they turn a blind eye. Why? Who remembers the concept of "the overton window"?
Soros funded wikipedia does actually seem to lay it out pretty well.
That's exactly what's happening with Free Press and the FCC. FCC does the marxists' bidding, just not so radically so as to appear moderate. It's the overton window. The marxists are getting exactly what they want, it just doesn't appear that way because they are never satisfied.
An interactive demonstration of the Overton Window directly from the source. Scroll past the crap.
http://www.mackinac.org/OvertonWindow
Please take me off your ping list. You can put me back on it once you figure out that “net neutrality” and the “fairness doctrine” are not the same thing, and when I have several different broadband providers to choose from instead of one government-awarded monopoly provider.
Please keep me on your ping list. Even without the motives that may be behind this effort, there is the absolute certainty that government regulation will do nothing but protect the monopolies that we are supposedly going to be protected from. Instead of a vibrant market with new bandwidth providers that we can easily switch to, we will have one heavily regulated provider creating the conditions for the regulation of the content itself.
The telcos are actively trying to destroy the Internet as we know it. I don’t want them to do that. What options do I have? Those against ne neutrality giv NO other options. Well they do over “solutions”, but those are no better.
The solution is simple. Have the telcos stop messing with the bits/bytes on he Internet and those of us for net neutrality would change our positions. Unfortunately, the telcos would have you choose the lesser of two very big evils, while the telcos have the power to end this TODAY - buy they don’t want to.
Some are very simple, if you don't want to get a bandwidth cap, don't do gaming or online video or pay for a service without a bandwidth cap. Others are almost as simple. If you don't like the (for example) your telco's VOIP, then use Skype. If your telco tries to cut off Skype, then you can have Skype encrypt the channel and hide it in HTTPS at a small cost in throughput. If they cut off HTTPS they will be cutting off ecommerce, a nonstarter.
With encryption, content-based filtering is impossible contrary to the wails of the DPI fearmongers. The only thing your telco can do in that case is continually cut off access to servers provided by your service provider, an impossible losing game for them although an inconvenience for you at times. Eventually they will give up or just cap your bandwidth which is a perfectly legitimate tactic on their part unless you pay for unlimited bandwidth.
Some more stuff.
http://freestatefoundation.blogspot.com/2006/07/computer-inquiry-i-ii-iii-and-on-and.html
Thursday, July 20, 2006
Computer Inquiry I, II, III, And On and On
At the book forum on Tuesday announcing the release of the new book, Net Neutrality or Net Neutering: Should Broadband Internet Be Regulated, which I co-edited with my former colleague Tom Lenard, I made the point that the current campaign to impose “net neutrality” regulation on broadband service providers, in effect, is nothing more than an effort to re-impose the same type of strict non-discrimination common carrier obligations on the broadband ISPs that were at the heart of each the three Computer Inquiry proceedings that played out at the FCC during the 60s, 70s, and 80s. I said that the current attempt to impose neutrality mandates on broadband providers could just as well be called Computer V, Computer IV being the failed campaign of a few years ago to impose “open access” requirements on cable operators.
That’s an excellent graphic.
Thanks Halfmanhalfamazing!
We are not anarchists. We realize some regulation is necessary, both as a practical matter (such as in regulating the RF spectrum), and to maintain freedom.
The marxists are getting exactly what they want, it just doesn't appear that way because they are never satisfied.
You could claim the same thing the other way. From the left point of view, the FCC is the pawn of the rich corporate elite by allowing the Comcast takeover of NBC, and in fact allowing so much media consolidation to date. Face it, you have your view, and all facts must be turned to fit that view. It doesn't matter if the facts don't actually fit your view. For example, EFF is liberal, so all causes they support must be liberal, period. That they support causes conservatives support too makes you have to jump through some logical hoops.
——————You could claim the same thing the other way.-————
I’m not claiming anything.
The proof is right there. And of those things I can prove, you don’t dispute. This post is a good example. You have stuck with generalities, and generalities only.
-————For example, EFF is liberal—————
In the words of a freeper that you and I both know VERY well......
Follow the money.
Generalities? I'm trying to stick with the issue of net neutrality. You get into the possible motives and end-goals of proponents instead of arguing the issue, the general cry of a commie under every bed.
-—————Generalities?——————
Yep. Generalities.
Free press is getting (most of)what it wants on net neutrality. That’s specific. Now’s your chance to address it.
-————I’m trying to stick with the issue of net neutrality.——————
So am I.
The major drivers of this debate at all levels; Outside the FCC(except the telcos), inside the FCC, in the media/news, and in government(outside of the house) are all leftist. That’s specific. In four ways. Now’s your chance.
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.