Posted on 06/03/2011 1:32:22 PM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
Some have argued that the concept of net neutrality goes back to the 1800's. In one way, they're correct, but it's not the way they think they mean. The father of Net Neutrality, Tim Wu has this to say:
In the class at MIT, Wu floats some hypothetical ways you could fight abuse. One would be creating mechanisms that are "something like term limits for monopolists. In theory, the government could say, 'Well, this company has clearly shown it's corrupt. ... So let's just nationalize their source code.'"
That's straight forward enough. That does not sound like freedom to me. That sounds like marxist domination. Step out of line, we will bury you.
The scholar who coined 'net neutrality' fears a corporate takeover of the Web, but who is protecting us from his marxist takeover of the internet?
If you don't believe that nationalizing and taking over is marxist, fine. Believe what you want. But with this kind of comment from the father of net neutrality, it can indeed be confirmed that the concept of net neutrality goes back to the 1800's. To be exact, it goes back to 1848.
That's when the communist manifesto was written.
-—————And he said that in the context of how to punish illegal monopolies.——————
Two wrongs don’t make a right in a constitutional republic.
-—————but this basic point is correct.——————
No it’s not. You’re acting as if his use of the word ‘nationalization’ is totally coincidental and doesn’t carry the implications that it does.
The man didn’t even want to call ‘net neutrality’ as ‘net neutrality’. He wanted to call it ‘broadband discrimination’. That’s classic orwellian big government double speak. Couch totalitarianism under the guise of civil rights. That’s what they’ve done for the past century.
-————IIRC, the last time the government nationalized an industry was the telephones in 1918.-——————
Wu didn’t talk about nationalizing an industry.
——————Wu is my enemy on many fronts-—————
He’s not your enemy where it matters most.
It is related because the government does not do one thing. Or anything well for that matter. Not that they don't try and in the process stretch their mandate far beyond what was originally specified: "These interests are wide-ranging, including consumer protection in commercial contexts; the development of technological tools to empower users; and speech and democratic participation". So please tell me why you need a government "net neutrality" commission to ensure your "democratic participation" unless somehow you can't post here anymore because your ISP only allows their own brand of forum and not FreeRepublic.
Yep. It's kind of amazing how people suspend their judgement on their pet issue. We used to have a few freepers who maintained that "global warming" was going to kill billions of people or something like that. Irregardless of the merits of the scientific argument for global warming, they should have at least recognized the evil of putting a world government in charge of all energy use. But nope.
Yes, if the government engages in constitutional regulation of interstate commerce (net neutrality), it perfectly follows that the government will use that in order to quell free speech. You have presented the worst slippery slopes I have ever seen to try to connect net neutrality with other issues.
I've heard this before from leftists in the context of capital punishment.
The man didn’t even want to call ‘net neutrality’ as ‘net neutrality’. He wanted to call it ‘broadband discrimination’.
Basic concept: Net neutrality forbids broadband discrimination. Simple enough?
Wu didn’t talk about nationalizing an industry.
You were the one talking about nationalization. All he's talking about is legal punishments for illegal activities. Heaven forbid the government punish wrongdoers.
He’s not your enemy where it matters most.
Fairness doctrine. That's where it matters most, that's where he's my enemy. That's what actually affects freedom of speech rather than just regulating interstate commerce. He has also campaigned against China's censorship of the Internet. Should I automatically think opposing such censorship is a bad thing because Wu does?
We have documents to prove that it wasn’t a camel that took a dump on the plate. And I’m not eating it.
You concentrate on the POSSIBILITY of what net neutrality COULD do in the future IF your paranoia turns out correct. Meanwhile, you ignore the large number of other attempts to stifle our freedom on the Internet, many of which have already succeeded. That is the malicious camel already in your tent.
Second, you falsely assume that ANY regulation will lead to bad things, ignoring the fact that we already have a large number of laws and regulations governing the Internet that you likely wouldn't oppose. This includes the safe harbor provision of the DMCA (unless you're in the copyright cartel, then you oppose it, but you seem to be a telco backer, so you'd like it), digital signature laws, laws against unauthorized computer intrusion, and the various laws and regulations that created the governing structure of the Internet.
One camel is taking a dump on your plate, while the others are helping clean up, yet you still search for that ONE camel that might peek its nose under.
And worst, you damage the fight against real dangerous issues such as fairness doctrine by mixing them with and attacking an unrelated issue simply because some groups support both. Confusing the issue helps no one. The person you really need to be watching out for is Cass Sunstein. He's your fairness doctrine guy who wants to force opposing views on any site he doesn't like. He also wants to ban hunting and give animals the right to sue. Yet if he said torching a bin of live puppies with a flamethrower was a bad thing, I'd have to agree. I wouldn't automatically assume what he said must be wrong because of his other opinions.
——————Yep. It’s kind of amazing how people suspend their judgement on their pet issue.-——————
I don’t claim to know people’s intentions all the time. I sometimes ask, but you can’t be sure.
Between the marxist that invented net neutrality, the marxist roots of net neutrality, the marxists guiding the debate, and the marxists who are colluding with the FCC to get it all done, the debate on the Net Neutrality is over. We can track it. From birth until now.
The baby was born red, and has remained red as it has grown.
—————We used to have a few freepers who maintained that “global warming” was going to kill billions of people or something like that. Irregardless of the merits of the scientific argument for global warming, they should have at least recognized the evil of putting a world government in charge of all energy use. But nope.——————
Maybe it’s just as simple as emotion. But you’re right, it’s incredible.
—————You have presented the worst slippery slopes I have ever seen to try to connect net neutrality with other issues.-————
Nobody “presented” a slippery slope.
You are standing on a slippery slope. As has been proven, the FCC is listening to marxists in order to make these rules.
That means both the FCC and ‘free press’ marxists are icing the ground. Look at their ice machine. Look at it.
——————Basic concept: Net neutrality forbids broadband discrimination. Simple enough?——————
It is when you understand marxism and their need to cloak tyranny in the garb of freedom.
Outside of that, nope. It’s convoluted.
-————Wu didn’t talk about nationalizing an industry.
You were the one talking about nationalization.—————
No, I commented on how Wu was talking about nationalizing source code. But nobody talked about nationalizing industry. Words matter.
-————Heaven forbid the government punish wrongdoers.-—————
Heaven forbid the government become an even bigger thief.
—————He has also campaigned against China’s censorship of the Internet. Should I automatically think opposing such censorship is a bad thing because Wu does?-————
The question is: “Why is he opposing China’s censorship”.
I don’t know of Wu is rich or not, but if he’s not rich then you can’t follow them money with Wu.
Your only choice is to follow the ideology. Where does it lead you? We know he’s not a constitutionalist.
-—————The documents show nothing new.——————
Technically, that’s correct. I didn’t need to see the proof to know where the power was going. But for most others, no. They establish proof. The proof is new.
—————The FCC always seeks input from all sides of an issue.-—————
Hah! Great wording. How about “The FCC always listens to input from all sides”.
Based on the FCC’s own actions, they aren’t listening to groups that understand freedom. They’re listening solely to the marxists.
—————You concentrate on the POSSIBILITY of what net neutrality COULD do in the future——————
Hah! Net neutrality is a solution in search of a problem, and I’m the one stuck on possibilities? I’ve proven everything I’m saying:
1: Net neutrality was born by a marxist.
2: Net neutrality is primarily driven by marxist ideologues
3: The FCC is listening to these marxist ideologues.
Particularly #2: How many people besides me have posted about McChesney, Lloyd, Genachowski, Copps, here on FR?(There’s several other names too)
-—————Meanwhile, you ignore the large number of other attempts to stifle our freedom on the Internet, many of which have already succeeded. That is the malicious camel already in your tent.-—————
The sad thing is, you’ve misidentified this camel. I keep trying to tell you that the camel is red, but you just can’t see it. It has a huge hammer and sickle on the side of it, and everybody can see it.
But you.
Increasingly with most Federal regulatory and legislative endeavors, the titled “objective” has to be twisted 180 degrees to arrive at a proximation of the truth of the deal they're trying o cram down our throats. “Net Neutrality” being a primo example.
——————Its all nonsense of course...the Feds have all the regulatory legislation they need to assert any anti-trust actions anywhere anytime against monopoly or pending monopoly in any industry that refuses to cut them in on it.——————
I agree. However, the FCC chief thinks differently:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2716212/posts
Which is stupid. They could easily work to have laws updated to apply to new content medium.
But they don’t want that. If laws reflected new ideas, then lawsuits *WOULD* work and then you and I would have no need for the precious bureaucrats.
And that’s really what it’s all about. They want the power. And by default, they have to take the power away from us.
I suspect most of it all reflects the fact that most legislation , contrary to Federal Law, is originating and being written in the agencies..and Congress has merely become its rubber stamp as the agencies are clever enough to write the rules to incorporate sufficient funds in their project that will eventually flow back into campaign coffers.
Its gonna be a real project to bloodlessly drain the DC swamp -but that really is the challenge of this generations dedication to freedom.
You can't say they're against the freedom of corporations. They just approved the Comcast buyout of NBC. Or maybe that was just because Comcast had an insider on the FCC.
I’ve proven everything I’m saying: 1: Net neutrality was born by a marxist. 2: Net neutrality is primarily driven by marxist ideologues 3: The FCC is listening to these marxist ideologues.
Here are the facts, without your guilt by association, paranoia, and politicking:
1: Net neutrality is the state of the larger Internet, what allowed it to become as big and important as it is.
2: Most people want to keep net neutrality to maintain the Internet as the great equalizer for free speech and commerce, you don't need to be a big guy to reach everybody.
3: Other people want to eliminate that freedom for their own profit.
I keep trying to tell you that the camel is red, but you just can’t see it. It has a huge hammer and sickle on the side of it
The camel that's crapping on your plate already has a hammer and sickle on its side, and it has a bunch of corporate logos on it too, and it's wearing four jackboots. Yet you still fail to notice it while searching for that nose.
Fairness doctrine existed before the Internet. The liberal call to bring back fairness doctrine existed before the recent call to retain neutrality in the Internet. Fairness doctrine bills were introduced and promoted before the net neutrality issue. Many laws and regulations already govern the Internet and conduct on it. Many laws and regulations already govern the conduct of the telcos.
Somehow, enforcement of the neutral state of the Internet is supposed to be a slope towards all of that government action that has already been taken? I didn't know you could slide up an icy slope. Which way does gravity work in your universe?
Backwards. Net neutrality came because the internet became big and important. In the old days there were millions of people on crappy proprietary providers who demanded to be on the open internet developed vy newer providers. Many voted with their feet. Providers who try to do the same today will find people abandoning their services for new open ones. Govt regulation will protect the current monopolies and prevent new open competitors. It always has and always will.
2: Most people want to keep net neutrality to maintain the Internet as the great equalizer for free speech and commerce, you don't need to be a big guy to reach everybody.
Non sequitur. Most people just want free stuff and could care less about that other crap. The government is going to give them free stuff. It has nothing to do with free speech, open commerce, or being a little guy (although the government will use that as their excuse to regulate).
3: Other people want to eliminate that freedom for their own profit.
Well there you are. Profit is evil. Any other lessons for us?
-—————You can’t say they’re against the freedom of corporations.-——————
I can. This government is only friendly with progressive corporations, such as Comcast, Google, or GE/NBC. Err, Comcast/NBC. Same difference.
-————Here are the facts, without your guilt by association—————
I don’t do guilt by association. They are in bed with each other.
————Most people want to keep net neutrality to maintain the Internet as the great equalizer————
Only a fool thinks a marxist has that same goal.
You won’t look at their ice machine.
All their own history, their documents, Obama’s czars. Their words. All of it.
They are icing the ground. It’s time you looked.
—————Somehow, enforcement of the neutral state of the Internet is supposed to be a slope towards all of that government action that has already been taken?-—————
Yep, because up until now they haven’t taken direct action initiatives; driven largely by marxists. That’s the difference.
——————I didn’t know you could slide up an icy slope.-—————
Nobody’s talking about sliding up. We’re talking about ice being formed where there wasn’t ice before.
Look at their ice machine. It’s sitting right there.
Huh? In the old days, you just got onto the Internet by whatever means. The ISPs didn't have DPI to see what you were doing and slowing it down if it competed with their services.
Most people just want free stuff and could care less about that other crap. The government is going to give them free stuff.
This is free as in speech, not as in beer. You should pay for your Internet connection, but the ISP should not be able to restrict your legal activities while using that connection. I might actually make an exception for an ISP that never any type of subsidy, monopoly, privilege, easement or eminent domain consideration. Then you would be talking interference in the free market. I don't think that exists, so it's probably a moot point.
Well there you are. Profit is evil. Any other lessons for us?
Profit is good. Anti-competitive activities that prevent the competition from making a profit by leveraging your position in the market is not good.
Your view that every decision runs on liberal/conservative ideological lines continually brings up contradictions. The FCC is AGAINST Comcast on the net neutrality issue. The FCC was FOR Comcast on the merger issue. If the FCC thought Comcast was a liberal bastion, and made decisions only on ideological lines, they would logically not want net neutrality since they could then count on Comcast censoring conservative views -- Free Republic and Breitbart suddenly become hard to access while Kos would have blazing speed to all customers.
Only a fool thinks a marxist has that same goal.
Here's our basic difference. If they support something that retains freedom, like net neutrality, then we finally get to use them as the useful idiots. I see no need to fight them when they play a broken clock, are actually on the right side of an issue for once. It doesn't matter what their end goal is. It save us energy to fight them on issues that actually help them reach their goal.
Think of it this way. When the ACLU was defending the rights of that Christian street preacher, would you have found it necessary to go to court in opposition of the ACLU's position? Or would you have supported the ACLU's position? Why would you have supported the ACLU when you know their end goal?
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.