Posted on 05/02/2011 11:12:53 AM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
The direct link to the FCC's website is above.
A searchable version can be found at scribd:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/45847960/FCC-10-201A1
Now, December 21 is the day that the FCC assaulted the internet by imposing net neutrality - after congress rejected it - after the courts rejected it.
And they did it anyways. Now, people think I'm making it up, or exaggerating, or any number of other things when I talk about marxism in context of net neutrality. Ok.
Here it is, the day net neutrality became "law"(regulation) - and the "free press" marxists were referenced over and over and over again.
Dunno what that's about.
I’d appreciate some additional eyes on this. Is there something I’m missing here?
Big picture, looking at the forest. Never, ever in recorded history since the dawn of man has any government or “ruling authority” - be it King, Prime Minister or Potentate - tried to PROMOTE unfettered human communications.
Instead they have always, ALWAYS tried to control and monitor speech. From Pope Leo X’s excommunication of Martin Luther in 1520, to the English Licensing of the Press act of 1662, to the Stamp Act of 1765 (only “official” paper could be used to write upon), CONTROL is what they always want.
And, now, after thousands of years of the human race, we are told to believe that Barak Obama’s FCC is different and they intend to PROMOTE uncontrolled speech via “net neutrality.”
I don’t think so.
bttt
The government has already worked to control and monitor communications on the Internet by various other well-known and publicized means, such as the DMCA and CALEA. It doesn't need net neutrality to do it. It's absurd to warn me of a camel's nose under the tent when we're sitting on the camels that are already in the tent.
But if you want to be really cynical, you can say the government doesn't like competition. The telcos restricting communications is competition.
The FCC under Bush did promote some common-sense rules about net neutrality. Basically, consumers are entitled to:
The telcos don't want that, they want profit at the expense of the Internet economy by throwing up needless toll booths. And they're willing to get in bed with politicians to ensure their profit. Sounds like the bad guys in Atlas Shrugged, doesn't it?
"net neutrality" = Orwellian doublespeak
Thanks Halfmanhalfamazing.
The nail in the coffin. Not ‘the camel’s nose’.
Marxism is almost always the nail in the coffin. Look it up. I’d provide you with some names of some nations, but I’m sure you’re well versed there.
Let me put it to you this way. Perhaps this will help bridge a gap that we’ve had since day one on net neutrality.
There are already regulations in place that have a handful of basic functions; informational regulations and what not. To put it simply, “net neutrality”(the one we’ve been sold on) already exists, has for a long time.
What these marxists are proposing is social regulations. Controls. Read free press, they don’t hide it behind a thin veneer.
They want to leave their current standing as referee of the game and take over every position on the field, so they can pick winners and losers.
No, I keep hearing the camel's nose metaphor. IIRC, even you have mentioned it.
There are already regulations in place that have a handful of basic functions; informational regulations and what not. To put it simply, “net neutrality”(the one we’ve been sold on) already exists, has for a long time.
I'm with you there, but I want to keep it existing.
What these marxists are proposing is social regulations.
Correct there too. Thus, what they are proposing is not net neutrality.
Remember, early on the likes of Wu weren't even on the radar for the telcos, they were pushing against the likes of Microsoft and Google who rely on net neutrality for their profits. There were literally statements to the effect of "Why should they make so much money over our lines?" It was business vs. business, and the Microsoft camp's interest happened to align with the interest of freedom for the users. Then the telcos through astroturfing and lobbying made it a left/right issue, and the socialists jumped in on the other side, adding their wish lists. Most of what they talk about has zero logical relation to net neutrality.
“net neutrality” = the historical state of the Internet
-—————No, I keep hearing the camel’s nose metaphor. IIRC, even you have mentioned it.——————
I probably have. But at this point, alice isn’t falling anymore.
She’s at the bottom of the hole looking up. Look at how much I’ve dug up about this, and I really didn’t even have to go very far.
You could’ve done this too, had you had any interest in protecting yourself.
I’ll put it to you this way, (if) when I used the camel metaphor, I was wrong. It’s way worse than I thought.
————I’m with you there, but I want to keep it existing.-—————
Trusting marxists and thinking you’ll get to keep it isn’t wise.
-———Remember, early on the likes of Wu weren’t even on the radar for the telcos—————
Doesn’t matter. He isn’t on their radar now either, that I’ve seen. And even if he is, they aren’t pointing out his marxism. That doesn’t fit into telco jargon.
-————There were literally statements to the effect of “Why should they make so much money over our lines?”——————
That’s my big problem with the telcos. You own the lines, but you don’t own the information in it.
-————Correct there too. Thus, what they are proposing is not net neutrality.-—————
Which is what I’ve been trying to explain to you all along.
They never had any intention on giving you that version of net neutrality, the one they tried selling us all on. In the background, they even preferred to call it “broadband discrimination” - that should tell you something.
Look at the FCC’s own documentation. They cited Free Press 53 times. Did you even look at the document?
-————“net neutrality” = the historical state of the Internet-——————
“marxism” is the future state of the internet, sold under the banner of “neutrality” - proven with the FCC’s own documents.
Orwell was an optimist.
The point here is that they want to, and their attempts to do so must be stopped.
I still think that if those on the right had embraced the net neutrality issue uncorrupted in the beginning instead of following the telco-paid politicians and think tanks, we could have prevented the takeover of the issue by the leftists. Now look what we have, leftists pushing their whole agenda from one side, the telcos pushing theirs from the other, and few people actually looking out for net neutrality anymore.
-————The point here is that they want to, and their attempts to do so must be stopped.——————
And you see marxism as the solution?
-——————I still think that if those on the right had embraced the net neutrality issue uncorrupted in the beginning-—————
You can’t point to such a beginning.
Do you really thing that Wu wasn’t always a marxist? That he came to be a big government ‘let’s nationalize their code’ guy later on?
And there really is an argument to make that net neutrality went just before Wu, that it came from free press themselves.
FP created the idea, Wu created the catch phraze. The media did it’s diffusion tactics, to make it seem as if there really was a golden encrusted net neutrality that could be trusted. But there never was.
-————and few people actually looking out for net neutrality anymore.——————
All evidence points to this never being the case. It was always a farce. The media made it look good for a time, which is the only “era of purity” that could at best/realistically be pointed to.
And you see marxism as the solution?
No, I see market pressure as the best solution. Absent that succeeding, the least possible regulation is the solution.
And there really is an argument to make that net neutrality went just before Wu, that it came from free press themselves.
The concept began in the 1800s with telegraphs, they were required to not discriminate in sending traffic. Later the concept was in the phone system, which was required to not discriminate between lawful traffic. Then the Internet was invented (remember, by government contract), and it operated and flourished by the same concept.
You want to make this us vs. the Marxists. In reality the primary competition is everyone vs. the telcos. These Marxists are a separate issue, feel free to pursue them. When they try to silence our voices on the Internet, actually doing it with no tin foil required, then I'll be there with you. The telcos are probably loving that the Marxists took up this banner. Now with everybody screaming against the Marxists they can do whatever they want. They automatically have the support of the "corporations good, government bad" idiots on the right.
And now back to reality, let's check out the actual rules made by the FCC:
Transparency. A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service shall publicly disclose accurate information regarding the network management practices, performance, and commercial terms of its broadband Internet access services sufficient for consumers to make informed choices regarding use of such services and for content, application, service, and device providers to develop, market, and maintain Internet offerings.This isn't actually net neutrality, however it is a basic consumer protection rule that promotes net neutrality. It promotes competition by making ISPs actually tell customers what they're paying for (what a concept).
No blocking. A person engaged in the provision of fixed broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management. A person engaged in the provision of mobile broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block consumers from accessing lawful websites, subject to reasonable network management; nor shall such person block applications that compete with the provider’s voice or video telephony services, subject to reasonable network management.They don't get to block what I do on the network access I paid for. Is that Marxist?
No unreasonable discrimination. A person engaged in the provision of fixed broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic over a consumer’s broadband Internet access service. Reasonable network management shall not constitute unreasonable discrimination.Same as above, but more about interfering with what I do with my paid Internet access.
This is what you're against, protecting consumers from the telcos abusing their position as the gatekeepers to the Internet.
-——————As a major player in the issue, at least according to you, they got less than 7% of the references. I noticed Google was in about 70 footnotes.——————
Google doesn’t show up in the document. But even if they did, it’s not a secret how progressives and marxists collude. Google is a progressive company, and is well known for it’s censorship.(particularly of conservatives)
How do you really think this helps your argument?
-————You want to make this us vs. the Marxists.—————
Not really.
The marxists are making it about them vs us.
They’ve been at this since 2002. So you tell me who started this?
I’m playing catch up. This was started nearly a decade ago.
So it doesn’t matter if I think it’s us vs them, they’re clearly making it about them vs us.
Are you going to finally start defending yourself?
————The concept began in the 1800s-————
The communist manifesto was written in 1848.
-————They don’t get to block what I do on the network access I paid for. Is that Marxist?———————
The question is irrelevant and misleading. It assumes the marxists are done.
They aren’t. That’s not how this works. In their own words they aren’t done. Anybody who is willing to pick up a history book would know this. Or, just listen to them. They’ll tell you. All you have to do is take them at their word, which you clearly think they’re playing games.
-————They don’t get to block what I do on the network access I paid for. Is that Marxist?——————
Yes. I can answer that with a 100% because of this:
http://www.freepress.net/policy/internet/net_neutrality
==========What’s Network Neutrality?
Network Neutrality, or Net Neutrality for short, is the fundamental principle that preserves the free and open Internet.
Net Neutrality means that Internet service providers may not discriminate between different kinds of content and applications online. It guarantees a level playing field for all Web sites and Internet technologies.
Net Neutrality has always been part of the Internet. In fact, it’s because of Net Neutrality that the Internet has driven economic innovation, democratic participation and free speech online. Net Neutrality protects the consumer’s right to use any equipment, content, application or service without interference from the network provider.=============
Wow! Look at that! Sounds so nice. Who could be against that?
See, here’s the thing. For public consumption, and as groundwork, they aren’t going to tell the truth.
It’s fluff. It’s nonsense. Look at the people. Look at them. Look at their end goal - the end goal is what’s important to them, and that’s what’s important to me to defend myself against.
They’re marxists, we know they’ll silence us. There isn’t very many people who will argue with that.
Except you.
-————This is what you’re against, protecting consumers from the telcos abusing their position as the gatekeepers to the Internet.-—————
I’m against the fluff, that’s all this is. And that’s easily provable. Watch:
===========Yet Free Press was apoplectic with the FCC’s aforementioned Internet power grab – which they decried as lacking enough government lording over the wireless Web.
So they relentlessly, ceaselessly, constantly, abhorrently, insufferably, unbearably, intolerably (you get the idea) banged the drum.
And on April 7 the FCC again did their bidding – illegally voting themselves into the wireless data (read: Internet) over-lording business.=============
You are losing your freedom, antirepublicrat. I am losing my freedom.
Marxists are driving this debate.
It’s time to wake up. All you have to do is look at them. It’s not hard.
No you can't, because you are no longer talking about the actual rules. You are talking tin-foil hat, you are talking about other future possibilities, not these rules.
It’s time to wake up. All you have to do is look at them. It’s not hard.
I've woken up, I know the Marxists are dangerous. You need to stop defending the other people who want to take our freedom -- the telco corporations.
Google shows up much more than 70 times, but I only listed the fact that Google is in about 70 of the footnotes. Google is in this not because of any progressive ideals. The telcos want to leach off of Google's profit stream. As a business, Google wants to protect those profits. As a publicly traded company, Google's officers have a duty to protect those profits. It's not just Google, pretty much all of the content producing companies are in this against the telcos.
THAT is the source of the current problem. The telcos saw all this profit being made over their lines, and they wanted a piece of it. The Marxists stepping in later is what they always do, latch onto an issue for their own gain. In this case they were able to more easily frame it they way they wanted because corporate whores on the right opposed any effort to stop the telcos. The conservatives are against it, so it must be the right thing to do.
The communist manifesto was written in 1848.
And the price of tea in China is currently ... who gives a damn?
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.