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.
So fairness doctrine was never enforced? None of the laws concerning the regulation of the Internet and those on it have ever been enforced? Do you really want to continue with that claim?
—————Your view that every decision runs on liberal/conservative ideological lines continually brings up contradictions.-———————
I don’t look at it that way. Progressivism is a cancer, and it’s in both parties.
—————The FCC is AGAINST Comcast on the net neutrality issue.—————
Only on the surface. Comcast seems to be positioning to be the preferred candidate if/when the time comes for an internet-as-a-utility.
Have you seen any changes to MSNBC since comcast took over? I haven’t. And I don’t doubt the reasons why that is.
——————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——————
Why only control comcast when you can control the whole thing?
As I mentioned above; MSNBC. And NBC. Comcast isn’t trying to change them. NBC/Comcast like any other progressive media company, is more than willing to go down with the ship.
If Comcast were really just simply the corporation you paint them to be, we’d already have a second fox news. The simple fact is that MSNBC doesn’t attract viewers. Fox does.
—————If they support something that retains freedom, like net neutrality——————
There’s no evidence of that. The facts point in the other direction.
———————It save us energy to fight them on issues that actually help them reach their goal.——————
With everything they’re saying, and with as hard as they’re fighting for this, it’s clear that net neutrality does help them reach their end 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?——————
I would have given a serious consideration to it, yes. If anything, I would put out any information that I could find as to the ACLU’s real goal.
I don’t believe any preacher should go to jail for simply preaching.
But I have huge doubts as to if this was any preacher. I can’t find what church he comes from, but my gut instinct tells me that this guy comes from a social justice church.
That’s the problem. None of these things are ever as they seem, primarily because of the huge uphill battle to reach the truth that the media represents.
Searching using different terms, I can’t dig beyond the surface of the Shawn Miller case. So the only thing that’s left standing is the left wing media’s/ACLU’s reality.
——————So fairness doctrine was never enforced?-——————
It might be a good idea if you read/reviewed discussions ahead of time. I made specific comments regarding the difference in regulations:
==============(antirepublicrat said)—————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?-—————
(My reply)Yep, because up until now they haven’t taken direct action initiatives; driven largely by marxists. That’s the difference.===============
And I stand by the observation of those differences. Any regulation of the internet has been minimal and hands off. Net neutrality represents something larger and harsher than the fairness doctrine ever could’ve been for talk radio.
The fairness doctrine only wanted “fairness”, similar to the equal time rule.
Look at all the players involved. Net neutrality might as well include the name “china” in it, because that’s where they’re going.
Net Chinality. That’s what this is. That’s what they want to do. They’re all marxists or progressive ideologues.
You watch media just like I do..... (?)
Have you seen any changes at NBC/MSNBC since comcast took over? Or is it still full steam ahead progressivism?
Don’t watch MSNBC that much. Governsleastgovernsbest is the expert on them. I do watch CNBC a goodly amount. The only change I notice is they seem to acknowledge their new masters/owners from time to time.
Seriously, you're going all conspiracy theory on me now. No facts can get through, all must be bent to support the conspiracy. If net neutrality is liberal, and if liberal companies do everything based on liberal ideology above profit, and a liberal company opposes it, well, you have to start making stuff to reconcile the logical conflict.
But I have huge doubts as to if this was any preacher. I can’t find what church he comes from, but my gut instinct tells me that this guy comes from a social justice church. That’s the problem. None of these things are ever as they seem
That's the problem for you, they're usually exactly what they seem. Let's pick an extremely non-progressive case. How about Edwin Crayton in Louisiana, a Christian protesting about Wal-Mart's support of homosexuals? How about St. Petersberg, Florida in 2007, when Christians wanted to protest a gay pride parade and the city tried to stop them? What about the Christian Missouri library employee who was disciplined after refusing to be involved in Harry Potter promotions? The ACLU defended all. Were those "social justice"? I have many more, all quite clear.
I can’t dig beyond the surface of the Shawn Miller case. So the only thing that’s left standing is the left wing media’s/ACLU’s reality.
If the facts don't match the theory, then keep digging and go on the assumption that you just haven't found all the facts yet. You are a conspiracy theorist.
———————Seriously, you’re going all conspiracy theory on me now.-—————
I am? You yourself have pointed out “The real poison, as even Ayn Rand mentioned, is in the incestuous relationship between corporations and government.”(source: EFF/Soros funding thread)
The question isn’t if. It’s when. And Comcast most certainly is positioning itself the way I stated.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2646969/posts?page=17#17
Public utility is often times how it begins. So what conspiracy? It’s all out in the open.
-—————and if liberal companies do everything based on liberal ideology above profit——————
You’re the one who can’t admit that NBC and MSNBC are just as liberal as they were before, with no end in sight to the liberalism, since the comcast merger.
And I’m the one who can’t let facts get through.
—————That’s the problem for you, they’re usually exactly what they seem. Let’s pick an extremely non-progressive case.—————
Sure. Keep citing exceptions to the rule, then try to paint me as a kook while ignoring the whole history of the ACLU.
With the ACLU, progressivism is the rule. Anything you can cite is the exception. Go ahead and ask the wider freeper audience.
-————If the facts don’t match the theory, then keep digging and go on the assumption that you just haven’t found all the facts yet.-—————
If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, I’m going to assume it’s a duck.
Even if I haven’t seen the duck yet. There’s feathers here. I hear quacking.
And all of this to defend marxist net neutrality. You’ve even go so far as to defend the idea of code nationalization!
I’m not the one with a problem with reality here. All the evidence shows that groups like free press are getting what they want. You want to discuss halfmanhalfamazing. All the evidence shows that the FCC is as compromised by insiders as FDR’s administration. You want to discuss halfmanhalfamazing. All the evidence shows that the FCC only listens to groups with a similar agenda. But all you want to discuss is halfmanhalfamazing.
Don’t worry. I know what I’m doing around here is working. You are being surrounded. The facts speak for themselves. There are far less people who are willing to ignore the soros money than you are, and they’ve turned on the concept of net neutrality based on the merits, and the merits alone.
It’s the merits.
Very true. Yet, somehow, there's no way net neutrality can be the exception. Did I miss your response to my question of whether I should now love the DMCA and embrace unconstitutional copyright abuse because a couple of these organizations fight against them too?
I want to know what my position needs to be here. You have basically told me that these issues are now poison because of who promotes them, yet I'd like to be a conservative and fight against such things like unconstitutional copyright abuse and remove unconstitutional restrictions and chilling effects on freedom of speech.
All the evidence shows that the FCC only listens to groups with a similar agenda.
And when the agenda isn't similar, invent one in your conspiracy world where they are. Net neutrality is liberal, proponents are liberal and opponents are conservative! The FCC is full of liberal insiders! Wait, Comcast has an insider in the FCC and they're against net neutrality? Wait, that means they must be conservative, but I've already called them liberal. Oh, it must be a long-term conspiracy to gain the upper hand in the future when Internet access becomes a monopoly utility!
The facts clearly didn't agree with you. The Comcast involvement blew away your one-dimensional liberal/conservative view of the issue because Comcast was on two opposing sides, so you had to invent a grand conspiracy to make it align again.
I'm done with conspiracy theories. I stopped talking to Truthers long ago, and I'm stopping it on this issue too. Feel free to discuss net neutrality itself, but I'm not going to try to make sense of conspiracy theories anymore.
. I know what I’m doing around here is working. You are being surrounded. The facts speak for themselves.
Facts? Is that why I constantly find myself having to re-educate people about the fact that net neutrality is not fairness doctrine, or whatever else you've falsely equated it with this week? Feeding people a bunch of lies and corporate talking points, and having them believe you, is not something to be proud of.
It’s the merits.
The merits? Strange then that you spend almost all of your time talking conspiracy theory, who has what money and which organization is aligned what way, and what other issues they support. If you want to talk the merits, fine, but as I said above, I'm done with guilt by association and wacky conspiracy theory.
——————Very true. Yet, somehow, there’s no way net neutrality can be the exception.——————
As I’ve mentioned, I myself used to support net neutrality.
That was before I started asking the question “who are these people” and even “who is funding them”.
Just because you can’t ask those questions, I can’t help that. But no, net neutrality can’t be an exception. Not with this many marxists at the FCC. Not with this large of a marxist influence. Not with this much soros money.
It can’t be the exception. There’s just too much.
That was when you stopped examining the issue on its merits. They are the main people fighting against DMCA abuses. Does that make the DMCA automatically good? Of course not, we don't take such a view. We judge the DMCA based on its merits.
-—————That was when you stopped examining the issue on its merits.—————
Pointing out that the FCC is a puppet for free press marxists has plenty of merit.
We have the documents. We have their words. We know what they believe.
At all levels, net neutrality passes the marxist test and fails the freedom test.
Except one. The sales pitch. That’s the only place where net neutrality still exists as something that’s good for the people. That’s it.
Again, not the merits of net neutrality itself, you go back to talking about proponents in the first sentence. You have been so adverse to discussing the actual issue that I'm not even sure if you think net neutrality, even without any regulation whatsoever, is a good idea.
-—————Again, not the merits of net neutrality itself——————
Yes, the very merits of net neutrality itself.
You have been so bought hook line and sinker by the sales pitch of net neutrality, that you can’t see past it. A metaphor used in a prior discussion was that of an ice machine.
The ice machine is sitting right there, and they’re icing the ground with it.
-————you go back to talking about proponents in the first sentence.——————
Not just proponents. Drivers. I am talking about the drivers.
The definition of the word proponent is this:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proponent
“One who argues in favor of something : advocate”
As if the FCC is outside of the car. Your use of the word “proponent” is very indicitive. As if free press is outside of the car. They aren’t. They are in the car.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/driver
“b : the operator of a motor vehicle”
This is what I mean when I say you can’t recognize the ice machine sitting right there. You can’t even admit that free press and the FCC are in the car driving.
—————You have been so adverse to discussing the actual issue-————
It doesn’t get any more issue oriented than discussing the people in the driver seat.
-—————that I’m not even sure if you think net neutrality, even without any regulation whatsoever, is a good idea.-————————
That sentence doesn’t compute in reality. You use net neutrality in the definition of it’s sales pitch. Even though that definition; that net neutrality never existed.
If I take that sentence and listen to it as if the sales pitch really had any chance of becoming the real net neutrality, yes, I think net neutrality is a good idea if only........ IF ONLY, we keep the government’s hands off of the internet.(and yes, current government involvement with the internet is purely hands off. Don’t mix this up.)
The government is making it as clear as they can that they want to regulate content winners and content losers.
==========that I'm not even sure if you think net neutrality, even without any regulation whatsoever, is a good idea.==========
Here is how I see that statement:
"that I'm not even sure if you think marxism, even without any regulation whatsoever, is a good idea."
That's why I say the statement doesn't make sense in reality.
You look at the FCC as proponents. And you look at Free Press as proponents. It's time you recognized that they aren't innocent bystanders. They're in the drivers seat.
Yet you don't answer that statement. Do you think net neutrality is a good idea? If not, why not?
BTTT!
—————Yet you don’t answer that statement.—————
I did answer the statement. Post 53.
—————Do you think net neutrality is a good idea?-—————
No. Look at who is in the driver seat. They are not proponents. They are not innocent bystanders. They have their hands on the steering wheel, their feet on the pedal.
-—————Do you think net neutrality is a good idea?-—————
Yes, if the sales pitch were actually to become reality. But the drivers do not want that version of net neutrality.
The drivers of net neutrality ignore that version of net neutrality, so I also ignore that version of net neutrality.
What the drivers want is marxist net neutrality. And marxism of all forms is universally wrong.
I didn't ask about who's in the driver's seat, I didn't ask about the conspiracy theory.
Yes
Trimmed of the conspiracy theory, there we go. Now, the question becomes what the best way is to retain it, and stop instances where net neutrality is violated. There two mechanisms: industry self-policing and consumer pressure (free market) and government enforcement.
So far for the industry, big players have flat-out stated their intent to abolish net neutrality, and they have paid millions in lobbying, astroturf and traditional PR to make sure they can do it. They have tested the waters in the past, limiting various protocols and silently screwing with peoples' connections (such as by sending faked reset packets), violating the basic premises of the Internet. No, they can't be trusted alone.
Then you have the consumers, mostly powerless. In far too many places, there is only one monopoly option for good broadband. I wouldn't count on us to maintain net neutrality.
And then you have the government. So far when the telcos have backed off their attempts to infringe on net neutrality, it was because of government threats. That seems to be the only effective thing. Given that, the meat of the FCC order is as follows:
Transparency: Fixed and mobile broadband providers must disclose the network management practices, performance characteristics, and terms and conditions of their broadband servicesThis would be necessary even for a free-market solution to work. Right now, the ISPs don't tell you how they limit you. They certainly didn't tell their customers when they were sending fake reset packets to kill connections. Where there is choice, the customer knowing the limitations of the competition is necessary.
No blocking: Fixed broadband providers may not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices; mobile broadband providers may not block lawful websites, or block applications that compete with their voice or video telephony services.This one basically allows communications, business and innovation to continue unimpeded on the Internet. It does not allow ISPs to use their position in the market to eliminate viable competition in a non free-market manner (IOW, their VOIP has to compete on price, performance and features, not because they choked the competitors' VOIP).No unreasonable discrimination: Fixed broadband providers may not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic.
Now, do you have any specific problems with any of those? If you do, what would you propose to change?
-—————I didn’t ask about who’s in the driver’s seat—————
You never do. By avoiding who’s running the show, that allows you to claim ‘conspiracy theorist’.
There’s no conspiracy theory when all is out in the open. The hard part is getting people to see the obvious.
-————Now, the question becomes what the best way is to retain it-————
To keep the marxists’ hands off. Which is why I oppose the mis-named “net neutrality” push.
—————Then you have the consumers, mostly powerless.-—————
This is one of the main areas where “conspiracy theory” has a lot of traction.
The FCC refuses to get behind even the notion of updating “outdated laws” in their view. Their only answer is power consolidation. Big government.
—————I wouldn’t count on us to maintain net neutrality.-—————
I count on us to maintain internet freedom far more than any marxists. When in history have marxists ever stood for freedom?
With us, there’s a chance. With the marxists, there’s no chance. I refuse to start at zero.
—————Now, do you have any specific problems with any of those?——————
Of course not. But as the FCC/government have proven, they aren’t through yet. They’re out there talking about controlling all the entrances/exits.
Any fool can figure out what that means. Unless of course that discussion really didn’t happen, I just dreamed it up. It’s a freeper conspiracy. *rolls eyes*
No, because I care about the issue. The same groups are "running the show" on DMCA opposition. As I asked before, should I now embrace the DMCA?
To keep the marxists’ hands off.
How does that retain net neutrality? You propose no action to stop the very real threats to net neutrality.
I count on us to maintain internet freedom far more than any marxists.
Please describe the mechanism. I'm not looking for generalities, but actual solutions. Please remember the first rule I showed you, the one that requires consumers be informed of the terms of their service. How do you propose the consumers prevail when most of them don't even know what's being done to them?
Of course not. But as the FCC/government have proven, they aren’t through yet.
Back to conspiracy theory. So if a conservative group had introduced the exact same rules, you'd have no problem?
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.