ping
The details are even worse than they seem:
The Marxist Roots of Net Neutrality
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2711488/posts
Here Comes The Internet Regulatory Creep
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2699677/posts
Net neutrality always was and is a fiat takeover of the internet. There’s no other reason soros would be involved.
Is it possible to have an anti-neutrality article without lying or confusing the issue?
“The supporters of “net neutrality,” including Free Press, argue that high-speed Internet access is a “civil right,””
That is a separate issue. It has its roots long before the modern net neutrality issue in the government programs to provide phone service to everyone in America, especially in rural areas. Sure, some organizations support both net neutrality and universal Internet service, but then Cato is pro 2nd Amendment, but against an amendment protecting traditional marriage. The 2nd Amendment issue must be bad, because Cato is against protecting traditional marriage? That’s the logic here. Quit mixing issues.