Posted on 12/23/2010 5:18:47 PM PST by Halfmanhalfamazing
Net neutrality advocates in Washington have long insisted that eventual government regulations would be simple and easy to understand. Public Knowledge has called the Net neutrality concept "ridiculously simple," and Free Press said the rules would be "clear" and easy to understand.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.cnet.com ...
They didn't waste did they? It's been what......... two days, and the revolutionaries are already regulating content. Apps.
As an aside note, who here knows what the most unneutral iphone app is? I put my money on Rush's new app. That will be the first to go when they feel the time is ripe.
It took 38 years to get rid of the fairness doctrine.
Let's wipe this one in significantly less time.
No no no, they won’t regulate content! Honest! *sarcasm*
Here’s the deal.
First, they regulated the iphone/etc apps. But I don’t use an Iphone/apps. So I said nothing.
What and who’s next?
Or will you wait until you are all alone?
Please, help us.
Who’s taking bets on the first website or weblog to get their content regulated?
These things always start “small”.
The list, ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
BAM! Right off the bat - by definition, that is not net neutrality.
Big ass PC at home and all I do is FreeRepublic, snag urls and gif/photo stuff to post on FR.
What's this mean to me?
Ultimately I think I see a short wave base in my future.
What’s it mean to you? To quote Joe Biden, it means that it’s time to gird your loins. :-)
On one side of these people’s mouths, they say it’s all about the internet, internet providers, bits and bytes and so forth. That’s been the sales pitch. On the other sides of these people’s mouths, they’ve been remarkably honest that they wanted to regulated content. I’ve been posting about it for months.
But here we have a clash of reality. It’s only taken two days, and they’ve already proven that the sales pitch was a lie. Two days.
We need to help each other to get rid of this thing before they can fully implement it.
Here on the Free Republic and elsewhere online, we say a lot of unneutral things and the regime can’t handle that.
Wait — I just read the Cnet article, and it says the FCC says mobile phone companies CAN’T censor apps. That sounds good, no?
The FCC acknowledged there's no evidence that "U.S. broadband providers currently engage in such arrangements." But because any pay-for-priority deals would "represent a significant departure from historical" practice and potentially raise barriers to entry on the Internet, they should be outlawed.
This means that those overseeing the FCC realize exactly how such a pay-for-priority arrangement can be turned into a "prosecute-for-priority" scheme and intend to make sure that the next time an election rolls around they'll be dictating what and who gets priority.
from the article:
All broadband providers, including mobile wireless providers, must disclose their network practices. That includes "descriptions of congestion management practices; types of traffic subject to practices; purposes served by practices; practices' effects on end users' experience; criteria used in practices, such as indicators of congestion that trigger a practice, and the typical frequency of congestion; usage limits and the consequences of exceeding them; and references to engineering standards, where appropriate."
Disclosure of their practices is the first thing that was required of mortgage lenders which led to an outcry from the democrat fascists about "redlining". What was really happening was that mortgage lenders were avoiding properties already losing value in the marketplace no matter who wanted to borrow money to purchase such properties. That, of course, was portrayed as being a form of discrimination against low income and minority folks which justified the initial Jimmy Carter created rules forcing banks to make risky loans. Clinton expanded those rules, and Congress expanded their threats about investigating anyone they thought wasn't taking enough risk as well as auditing them.
Of course, no one would ever even consider demanding that some areas or groups be immune from network problems that occur and require that some users suffer disruption or interruption. Right?
from the article:
In April, a federal appeals court unceremoniously slapped down the agency's earlier attempt to impose Net neutrality penalties on Comcast after the company temporarily throttled some BitTorrent transfers.
This means that in May the FCC czar and cronies decided that the power of screaming "discrimination" and "racism" would have to be leveraged into making "common sense rules" to ensure that they're on the glide path that worked so well when applied to mortgage lending. They're no doubt already neck deep in selecting which examples of discriminatory and racist network management equates to the "redlining" of groups of users or "Com mum ities". Naturally, those responsible for such a horrendous breech of neutrality will have to be taken to court and held accountable. Since fines are out, there will probably need to be boards that oversee such things like there were and are boards that ensure fair elections in com mum ities where there has been racism.
None of this is actually regulating anything, mind you, it's just ensuring neutrality and fairness for everyone, even those who might be under represented in the boardrooms and offices where management decisions are made.
I, for one, am overjoyed that we're finally going to have some Federal oversight to tell us when the Internet is no longer neutral and how to adjust things in order to make the injustices of network management right in the future. I know you are, too. (if you don't see any sarcasim in that a little tag won't help you a bit)
The big question is how do we get rid of it? Starve it? Nope, would take too long. Remember these guys are the most perverted crimminal legal minds in the country and they will figure out a way.
Legislatively? Don’t think so, Obammy will veto anything we put on his desk.
I wish my outlook was not so grim but I don’t see any correction for at least a couple of years and even then I don’t trust the Republicans even if we get the senate and the WH.
That sounds good. Sure.
But at some point all of us have to realize that those in the government don’t care.
What those in the government mean by net neutrality is that texnewmex, halfmanhalfamazing, rushlimbaugh......... I don’t care who and what names you pick. We all say way to many unneutral things and they will neutralize it.
Right now they’re the ones with all the power. So if *******to them********** net neutrality is about silencing speech, then it doesn’t matter what we think.
Net Neutrality is about silencing speech.
Why else would they target content so quickly after passage after months of telling us all that it would never ever be about content? To set a precedent. Look for more precedents until Net Neutrality is the undeniable without a doubt unmistakeable fairness doctrine for the internet.
Good thing most freepers knew from the start that it was a sham.
That sounds good. Sure.
But at some point all of us have to realize that those in the government don’t care.
What those in the government mean by net neutrality is that texnewmex, halfmanhalfamazing, rushlimbaugh......... I don’t care who and what names you pick. We all say way to many unneutral things and they will neutralize it.
Right now they’re the ones with all the power. So if *******to them********** net neutrality is about silencing speech, then it doesn’t matter what we think.
Net Neutrality is about silencing speech.
Why else would they target content so quickly after passage after months of telling us all that it would never ever be about content? To set a precedent. Look for more precedents until Net Neutrality is the undeniable without a doubt unmistakeable fairness doctrine for the internet.
Good thing most freepers knew from the start that it was a sham.
What you just said was unneutral and must be neutralized. :-)
They co-opted the term to make it sound like they weren’t going to do what they’re going to be doing. The original term meant equal access for all packets. Period.
As an aside note, who here knows what the most unneutral iphone app is? I put my money on Rush's new app.
But even with this, there is still no hint of regulation of actual content.
———————The original term meant equal access for all packets.——————
Yep.
But it was nothing but a sales pitch.
Now all we can do is fight to get our first amendment rights online back before it’s too late.
And yes, I realize they haven’t shut down any bloggers yet, or un-neutral/unapproved news websites yet. They’ve already tipped their hands that they had their sights set on content all along. I want to end this before the content they start regulating is yours/mine posts.
-—————But even with this, there is still no hint of regulation of actual content.—————
Yes, there is. Will you really argue that apps aren’t content?
Will you really argue that saying apps can't be censored is in itself censoring apps? But, no, this was not part of the net neutrality legislation. Your side just had to block it, didn't they?
-—————Will you really argue that saying apps can’t be censored is in itself censoring apps? -——————
*sigh*
We’ve already reached the point to where what’s written doesn’t matter. Long passed it, actually.
I’ll just wait for them to do it. I’ll ask for your help a second time, then see what the retort is then.
One thing they didn’t hide was their goal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2pIU5H0PaU
Just like Obamacare, the initial effort isn’t the final.
————Your side just had to block it, didn’t they?-—————
Define “my side”.
Thanks. Now I understand that you were making a larger point. Merry Christmas!
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.