Net Neutrality: Obama's Internet words don't match his actions

You will know them by their fruits." This ancient wisdom is from the author of the Gospel of Matthew.

Sixteen centuries later, in his book "Will and Doom," the Rev. Gershom Bulkeley, paraphrased Matthew with, "Actions are more significant than words."

In the 21 st century this timeless maxim continues to serve as we hear resident Obama say, "I intend to protect a free and open Internet.

resident Obama treats the Internet as a political and diplomatic bargaining tool

If Obama's plans for the Internet come to pass, his words, "I intend to protect a free and open Internet," will not match his actions.

His words never match his actions. It is the defining approach of his whole presidency.

Do you want more healthcare? Would you like to save $2500 a year? Don't worry -- if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.

The words are fine.
The words are always fine.
Health care, energy policy, tax policy, foreign policy -- the words are always fine.

But the implementation never has anything to do with the words. The implementation is always bad for the people and bad for the country.

And its not by accident.

My three main Internet Predictions:

1. Universal, mobile, Wi-Fi speed and almost but not quite free Internet will eventually show up and you will (mostly) love it.

2. The government will eventually manage to get almost complete control over the Internet.

3. A wild, wild West Internet will emerge and that is where most Freepers will hang out.

You read it here first, probably.

> Follow the money.
For the Chicago Mob, it’s always about who is gonna make the big bucks via regulation/laws.

And control. He wants the ability to monitor and control the flow of information on the Internet without having to worry about silly FISA courts and subpoenas getting in his way. Imagine having the keys to the Internet and not liking what Democratic Underground has to say so you slow down the bandwidth to a crawl so people will stop going there, effectively shutting it down but doing so in such a manner that it would be very hard to prove that it wasn’t caused by other factors. You could let the flow of only conservative websites flow freely and over time people would begin to develop and believe only in conservative values and belief systems without any other sources of information. It would be a slick way to kill the 1st Amendment without the stupid sheeple even knowing it. And the current sheeple are the most complacent and stupidest that there have ever been having been softened up by decades of propserity and lack of want for anything with their morals and wisdom removed and their attention diverted to entertainment and extreme narcissism fueled by technology.

Thie man is most certainly being guided by Satanic forces preparing the world for the NWO whether he is aware of it or not but I’m betting he most certainly does knowingly and is getting paid handsomely for every objective that he accomplishes on Soro’s checklist.

their attention diverted to entertainment and extreme narcissism fueled by technology.

That is, IMO, the real point of federal control. It is not to try to promote or demote various sites or services or viewpoints. Rather it is to ensure that the internet is prioritized away from serious content of any sort and towards entertainment. The battle lines make it obvious. There are two main proponents of what Obama wants: Netflix and Google (YouTube). Those are the two bandwidth hogs that chew up more than half the total bandwidth (I have seen numbers as high as 80-90%).

The internet providers want to charge them more and/or throttle that content. The government would rather chew up the bandwidth with that content and thus leave less (in fact in many cases, none) for serious internet uses. The difference is circuses for the masses (what the government wants) versus information. Streaming video is quite simply garbage because serious content (even video) does not have to be streamed.

The idea that providers or the government can throttle or obstruct content on any other basis is proven false daily in China. There the government controls the internet providers and has extremely elaborate techniques to prevent its subjects from getting unauthorized content while still allowing internet access for national competitiveness purposes. The bottom line is that the government always ultimately fails. There is no way to cut off some content without cutting off all content. The workarounds are very simple: encrypt all content so the government can't view it and censor. Then the government censors all encrypted content. The next workaround is to transform encrypted content into fake actual content (e.g. steganography). The government tries to detect steg and fails.

Obviously the ultimate workaround for the censors in the government is to decrease bandwidth and make it impossible to perform all the needed layers of encryption and steg. That is what Obama will ultimately do with "net neutrality": make it impossible to hide anything. The only people who would have the bandwidth to do it would be Netflix and Google with the streaming video. But they are on the government's side, so they won't.

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.