FCC Net neutrality rules reach mobile apps
Apps are content. So who has the most unneutral content?
Posted on 12/23/2010 5:38:18 PM PST by Halfmanhalfamazing
RUSH: I want to talk about this net neutrality business. We have dealt with this on this program before. The FCC has just asserted its authority to regulate the Internet, this "net neutrality" is a bogus name just like most legislative titles. Well, most titles of legislation are bogus. "Net neutrality" does no such thing. It does not promote neutrality and lack of bias or any such thing. We noted on this program back in September of 2009: Net neutrality is a solution in search of a problem. It's just a bunch of liberals wanting to get their hands on something that is massive, that can harm them. They have to control, as much as they can, the free flow of information. They have to be in charge of it, they have to be able to censor it, and that's what this is all about.
There is no problem on the Internet. None. In fact, in most of life, there wasn't a problem until the liberals went in search of one so that they could control people's behavior and try to legislate the outcomes of individuals in life. The only problem here appears to be too much freedom, at least in the minds of the government. There's too much freedom on the Internet in the minds of Obama and his FCC people. All you really have to know about net neutrality is that its biggest promoters are George Soros and Google and MoveOn.org, which is heavily funded by Mr. Soros and Google. It is also promoted by a number of other radical left Soros fronts, such as the Free Press, the Center for American Progress, and a couple of additional groups improperly named.
The Center for American Progress is about the opposite. They're not about American progress. And Free Press is not about a free press. So what we're doing here is neutering the Internet. It's another private industry. It's another gleaming aspect of free speech, free market, private industry, that Obama has decided to take over as a Christmas present to himself and the Democrat National Committee and to Mr. Soros. He's even beaten Hugo Chavez to the punch. Chavez is just talking about taking over the Internet in Venezuela. Obama has got it done. They want you to believe it's about search engines, making sure that every possible result gets exposure. They want to try to tell you it's about money, and it's not. Well, it is about money but not in the way that you would think when that is offered as a reason. It's about control.
Here is a gleaming artifact of unabridged free market everything -- speech, commerce, you name it -- and they want to control it. They want to control who gets to say what on it, they want to control who gets found on it, they want to control pretty much everything about it. Monday afternoon, two Democrat commissioners on the FCC, Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn (the daughter of James Clyburn), "signaled that the order was not as strong as they would have liked but they wouldn't oppose it. Their votes along with Mr. Julius Genachowski's would be enough to approve the order or the takeover. Now, Copps," one of the Democrat commissioners, "said that he wanted to ensure that the Internet doesn't travel down the same road of special interest consolidation and gatekeeper control that other media and communications industries like radio, TV, film, and cable have traveled."
They are worried to death that the Internet is gonna become the next conservative talk radio and Fox News, and that's what they're not gonna permit. That's what so-called net neutrality is all about: To make sure that the voices of minorities and the displaced and the dis-financed and the disabused and the whoevers are equally heard. "What a historic tragedy it would be," Copps said, "to let the fate," that fate, meaning what's happened to talk radio and Fox News, "befall the dynamism of the Internet." That's from an earlier app story. Yeah, so we would really hate to see that -- and by the way, they don't have any regulatory authority over cable TV and they haven't asserted it, and that's what galls 'em about Fox. They are trying to control Fox on the basis that Fox does news.
They've started regulating content.
FCC Net neutrality rules reach mobile apps
Apps are content. So who has the most unneutral content?
Apps DIGEST content.
First order of business come January is for each and every one of us to e mail, call, twitter and text our newly elected house of representatives and demand they reduce the funding of the FCC and the EPA to prehistoric levels where they can barely function. We need to put these people in line! These are unelected agency personel dictating policies that are anti American
You are so right. The Congress will have to jerk the FCC up short and they can do if they want to. No money equals no power.
Funny how the net was the great tool by which the average Joe was able to get the CLean, Articulate Black Man into office, but once he was exposed as the Naked (Kenyan) Emperor by it then it needed to be controlled.
This has been in the works at least since Dan Rather lost his job due to the Internet...
He who controls the Apps, controls the content.
You are correct sir.
It’s only a matter of time before a “free” internet will be cast down the memory hole.
"Neutrality." That seems to be what comes after "objectivity" crashes and burns. And "objectivity" was what came after "wisdom" crashed and burned.If you claim wisdom, and base your argument on your superior wisdom, you are a sophist. If you claim objectivity, and base your argument on your superior objectivity, you are still a sophist. And if you claim "neutrality," and base your argument on your superior neutrality, you are still a sophist. Claiming superiority is nothing but an indirect ad hominem attack.
Facts and logic, man! Facts and logic!
I agree.
The sad thing is that Cass Sunstein told us what Net Neutrality was nearly a decade ago. Here, listen to him in his own words:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2pIU5H0PaU
And of all people, Sunstein is the man. That is, he can actually make this so. He’s the regulatory czar. This isn’t Sharpton blowing smoke to get Limbaugh’s FCC licence revoked. Sunstein is in the inside right now. And he is at the top.
CiC, what do you think about the phraze “voluntary is a little bit complicated”? That’s what Sunstein says.
Would you call that sophistry? Maybe. I definitely call that dangerous.
I agree with you, but if some liberal progressive Neo-Stalinist jackboot says an application is content, then who are we to disagree? We're only people. We don't have "credentials" or a "mandate". </cant>
<ralph>
I agree. It's all Buckhead's fault. </s>
>> Apps ARE NOT content.
>> Apps DIGEST content.
You’re splitting hairs that mean nothing to thoughtless autocrats.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2pIU5H0PaU
What is expressed in that video, by Obama as well as by Sunstein, is contempt for the public. The same contempt that is embedded in the concept of PR, the contempt that says that the public will buy anything if you know how to manipulate the way it is presented. The same contempt which is embedded in claiming superior wisdom, objectivity, neutrality - you name it, it's the same thing really - and then arguing from that assumption.what do you think about the phrase “voluntary is a little bit complicated”? That’s what Sunstein says.Sunstein proposes in that video to insert pop-up ads, even, in my commentary, getting in your face and "rebutting" my logic with his sophistry. But his minimum objective - putting random links to other opinions into my commentary - is calculated to throw the reading and contemplation of my expressed thoughts - of anyone's expressed thoughts - into confusion. The idea is to prevent the public from thinking clearly. When you are blowing smoke, obviously the last thing you would want to face is a public which insists on facts and logic!
Voluntary isn't complicated, but since he's talking about congressional hearings and action, he is actually talking about mandates. You know, "mandatory volunteering." Of course that kind of "voluntary" "is far too complicated" for simpletons like you and me.Would you call that sophistry? Maybe. I definitely call that dangerous.
When Obama's lips move, he is engaging in sophistry. It's what leftists do.
An interesting historical precedent to this attempt by the Statists to regain control of the internet is the period of the early 30’s in radio.
The Statists were in full flood to control radio by nationalizing the industry and rooting out commercial interests who had begun to use the medium as an advertising vehicle. Radio should be for the “greater good” and not as a megaphone for hucksters trying to peddle wares.
They got FDR elected and had big plans.
But then politicians discovered the effectiveness of radio broadcasting and took full advantage of the medium. That helped thwart the Statist’s plans.
The best example is of course FDR, but here in Louisiana we had Huey Long. He very effectively used the medium to combat his political enemies who controlled the newspapers.
http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-0711102-133745/unrestricted/Collins_thesis.pdf
THE NEW ORLEANS PRESS-RADIO WAR AND HUEY P. LONG, 1922-1936.
Abstract
The introduction of radio in America in the 1920s was greeted with much fanfare by the general public and by newspapers and politicians as well. Its popularity soared as radio sets became cheaper and more accessible. Newspapers were eager to boost their circulations by featuring the latest craze; many newspapers even started their own stations as a means of publicity. As the country sank deeper into the Great Depression in the 1930s, the relationship between the country’s press and radio worsened. The newspapers felt threatened that radio would take away their advertising revenue in addition to stealing their news dissemination function. The struggle for power and primacy that resulted is called the Press-Radio War. This thesis addresses the issues of the Press-Radio War in the 1920s and 1930s in New Orleans, Louisiana. The relationship between the press and radio in New Orleans around this time is intriguing because of the city’s size and status in the South. Another intriguing element of New Orleans during the press-radio war is the presence of Huey P. Long, who dominated the politics of Louisiana at the exact same time the relationship between radio and the press was most volatile. This thesis describes the introduction of radio into New Orleans and addresses the increasing animosity between newspapers and radio, which culminated in the Press-Radio War, and how Huey Long, using his political skill, manipulated both mediums and affected the course of the press-radio relationship in New Orleans.
This here is related. It shows the ultimate goal of the Statists is to make the internet into a public utility and thereby insuring government control.
Comcast to Offer $9.95 Broadband to Low-Income Households
Also pledges as part of NBCU deal to carry noncom TV stations without spectrum until 2017
By John Eggerton — Broadcasting & Cable, December 24, 2010
Comcast has “amplified” its public interest commitments to the Comcast/NBCU deal, according to an ex parte filing at the FCC, including providing low-cost broadband, agreeing to carry must-carry noncom stations who give up spectrum and pledging that NBC stations will team up with non-profit news organizations.
That pledge came Dec. 22, the day before the FCC announced it was approving the deal subject to a number of public interest conditions and a vote by the full commission, which is expected to OK the deal in January.
Comcast’s “amplifications” include providing high-speed Internet service to low-income households for $9.95 per month, with no intall or modem fees.
In addition, it will agree until 2017 to continue carrying public broadcasting stations who agree to give up their broadcast spectrum as part of the FCC’s efforts to reclaim spectrum for wireless broadband.
In San Diego, NBC’s KNSD has set up a cooporative news arrangement with local online news nonprofit voiceofsandiego.org, and Comcast has pledged that within a year of the deal’s close, half of the 10 owned stations will have similar cooperative arrangements in place.
Comcast made clear that no NBC station would be obligated to run any of the content from the nonprofit partner, and that the decision would be at the discretion of NBCU and its stations.
The partnerships will be maintained for at least the first three years after the deal.
Comcast made other broadband deployments in addition to the spectrum-less must carry proposal.
It will: 1) “expand its existing network by at least 1,500 miles per year for the next three years (2011, 2012, and 2013), making broadband Internet available to an estimated 400,000 additional homes” 2) “upgrade for Internet service at least six additional rural communities in 2011” and 3) “provide an additional 600 courtesy video and high-speed Internet account locations (for schools, libraries, and other community institutions, targeted to underserved areas in which broadband penetration is low and there is a high concentration of low-income residents) over the next three years, at a rate of 200 additional locations per year.”
Comcast will assume all of the construction costs to deliver broadband to those locations, it said.
The idea is to prevent the public from thinking clearly. When you are blowing smoke, obviously the last thing you would want to face is a public which insists on facts and logic!. . . which puts me in mind of a Wall Street Journal article of some dozen years ago, give or take - which discussed a business which specialized in analyzing fraudulent schemes/organizations and reducing the results to flow charts to be shown to juries.
Article said that in one trial the prosecution displayed one of the company's charts in the courtroom, and the defense attorney leaped up to object. The judge asked of the grounds of his objection, and the attorney blurted out, "Because it's too clear."And that's what we hope to make "wrong" about the internet.
I remember it well; the “Old Media” was already upset that they were being replaced by the internet, but once they were held to account by it all bets were off...
Thanks for the ping/posts; posts. Great thread! Thanks to all posters.
BUMP-TO-THE-TRUTH!
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.