If you like your dissent, you will be able to keep your dissent. Period.
No one will take them away. No matter what.
Posted on 02/26/2015 4:48:47 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
"....Supporters of the legislative effort say only an act of Congress can provide the certainty needed to make the rules stick.
“I’m concerned that, if Congress does not act, all protection for network neutrality is at risk of being lost,” said former Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), who unsuccessfully worked on a net neutrality bill during his time in office.
“Without statutory protection, the net neutrality guarantees can be swept away in the next presidential election,” he added, assuming a Republican wins the White House in 2016 and nominates FCC commissioners opposed to the new rules....."
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
I know a lot of liberals (I don’t associate with them) whose “beliefs” have been stomped on by Obama. From the SC appointment of Sotomayor to amnesty to screwing with the internet. Yet they still support him. I believe if he ran today he’d still get enough votes that he’d only need about 5% fraud in a few states to win a third time.
“If the FCC tries to move forward with this net nonsense, it isn’t going to stand,” pledged Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas). “The courts won’t allow it; Congress won’t allow it.””
Go Joe!
You are 100% misguided.
Anti-free-speech legislation will quickly be introduced... oh, I’m sorry, we don’t do that any more. Obama will quickly sign an Executive Order that will ban Hate Speech and Terrorism Speech.
The definition of those will be: Any criticism of Muslims. Any criticism of gays. Any criticism of the Orwellian Police State. Distribution of any news not coming from the Communist Propaganda Organs of CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, the NYT, the WP, or the LAT. Blockages of the often-insightful news coming from England.
The FCC will be granted SWAT teams, and they will be used to kill and arrest anyone who dissents from the official propaganda line. And you know what? You will never hear about those raids. That will be forbidden news, too.
We are now to be 100% just like the Soviet Union, in absolutely every way.
If you like your dissent, you will be able to keep your dissent. Period.
No one will take them away. No matter what.
Actually, no.
Let’s say you have Verizon Internet. Without Net Neutrality, Verizon could slow your baud rate access to Free Republic only to allow faster access for those visiting CNN.
The government here, in ‘clock is right twice a day’ thinking, is saying that there should be complete equality in access. Sort of like a first come, first serve.
It really is that simple.
What? That’s absolutely wrong.
Without Net Neutrality, under your example, any criticism of Muslims could allow for a convenient “slowing” of the baud rate to the sites that allow criticisms of Muslims.
And similarly, a Verizon Internet (or any ISP who doesn’t share similar values to yours)- if they don’t like your site content- could force the slowdown of your site while extorting you to spend more to be on their server.
It’s the other way around.
There’s only 194 pages, and that’s mostly because of the large amount of footnottes: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1_Rcd.pdf
I believe if he ran today he’d still get enough votes that he’d only need about 5% fraud in a few states to win a third time.
So true. That’s how stupid so many Americans are.
And, for some, as long as the welfare check arrives on time, they’re just fine. Sooner or later, the system is going to collapse.
The solution is preemptive self-defense. Locate the FCC bigwigs who will GIVE THE ORDERS to the SWAT teams and cause them to have "accidents" or simply disappear them. Repeat as needed with the next level of command.
Find them NOW, though; when they've seized full control of information it will become much more difficult.
Anti-free-speech legislation will quickly be introduced... oh, I’m sorry, we don’t do that any more. Obama will quickly sign an Executive Order that will ban Hate Speech and Terrorism Speech.
The definition of those will be: Any criticism of Muslims. Any criticism of gays. Any criticism of the Orwellian Police State. Distribution of any news not coming from the Communist Propaganda Organs of CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, the NYT, the WP, or the LAT. Blockages of the often-insightful news coming from England.
The FCC will be granted SWAT teams, and they will be used to kill and arrest anyone who dissents from the official propaganda line. And you know what? You will never hear about those raids. That will be forbidden news, too.
This set of observations are much more important than your 'throttling' discussion. This is criminal legislation, and probably will involve killing dissenters. It is also very relevant because this FCC power grab reportedly has regulations on 'internet conduct'.
But they won't tell us until they pass it.
Which seems to bring you joy. You must be a RINO plant or some sort of stooge from the government.
You are even lying about the bill. What you cited is from 2010. This is 2015, and they won’t even SHOW us what’s in the bill, THIS go around.
Your example was flawed and you result to ad hominem attacks on my character? Classy.
First off, ISPs are regulated by the FTC. Should they be regulated by the FCC as a utility is the question here. I haven’t even said whether or not I think the should be regulated as a utility. You’re just assuming that since I’m in favor of Net Neutrality, that I agree with the FCC.
Under the Telecommunications Act of 1934, they have jurisdiction to regulate “communication by wire and radio.” According to the law as written, they have that power. If you don’t like it, that’s a different matter. And one that I haven’t even commented on before you accused me of being a liberal.
As far as being “for” the government “solving the non-existant (i.e.: nonexistent) problem in a central-planning manner,” I would argue that the only reason why it hasn’t become a problem is that it’s been tied up in court proceedings for a few years now.
“The FCC will be granted SWAT teams”
Funny. I’ve never heard that before and I did an internet search of it.
Alex Jones is the first thing that pops up.
Well, I don’t believe in what Alex Jones has to say about it.
I guarantee the Governments' definition of "Net Neutrality" won't be your definition of it. The camel's nose is in the tent.
Talk about an oxymoron.
Without Net Neutrality, Comcast can continue to shakedown companies like Netflix for being TOO successful: http://qz.com/256586/the-inside-story-of-how-netflix-came-to-pay-comcast-for-internet-traffic/
Fear-Mongering, the market would take care of the problem without the need for government intervention.
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.