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.
———————No, because I care about the issue.—————
Who’s driving the show is just as important, even moreso. That indicates where things are going. If it wasn’t important, there wouldn’t have been any need to know about Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers....... you get the idea.
—————The same groups are “running the show” on DMCA opposition. As I asked before, should I now embrace the DMCA?————
No. The important thing is to understand why they oppose it. Sure, progressives cite “freedom” and “democracy”, but it’s not a “freedom” you recognize. It’s the very “freedom” that Friedrich Hayek wrote about in The Road to Serfdom. On page 174. Paragraph 3. Do you even have a copy of TRS to read page 174?
—————How does that retain net neutrality?—————
Net Neutrality doesn’t mean what you think it means. You have been lied to, we all have been lied to. But I stopped accepting the lie quite some time ago. It’s time for you to stop accepting the lie.
The truth is that marxists are in the driver seat. That’s how “keeping the marxists hands off” pertains to Net Neutrality. Net neutrality *IS* marxism. Marxists produce marxism. Even you won’t claim otherwise. Instead, you’d rather say “conspiracy theory” as if that gains you some sort of moral high ground.
-—————Please describe the mechanism.———————
Lawsuits would be the primary mechanism. I’m under no illusion that we consumers have an advantage. But here is what I do recognize. Once the FCC and all these goons control the entrance/exit ramps, how do you fight that? There won’t even be lawsuits. You can’t sue government.
Let me put it to you this way:
I recognize a greater chance for survival vs the telcos than I do vs the marxists. If there’s anything you should engage with me on, it’s this. I recognize a greater chance for survival vs the telcos than I do vs the marxists.
-—————How do you propose the consumers prevail when most of them don’t even know what’s being done to them?——————
That’s a good question. I can’t answer it. All I know is that history shows, and proves, that marxism is never the answer. Can you argue otherwise?
-———But as the FCC/government have proven, they aren’t through yet.
Back to conspiracy theory.-————
I can prove. The last century of american history, as well as the FCC’s own words prove it. What are you going to do, request the admin moderators delete that discussion just so you can continue this charade of yours?
-—————So if a conservative group had introduced the exact same rules, you’d have no problem?—————
I wouldn’t. They’re not leading to tyranny.
What Obama thinks was an unknown. Wright and Ayers gave insight as to what he thinks. Any net neutrality policy will be published for all to see. Not equal.
No. The important thing is to understand why they oppose it.
If I'm not supposed to love the DMCA, why am I supposed to oppose net neutrality? Hidden reasons don't matter. The actual law matters. Reasons only matter at the appellate level, and then it's only the openly published debate and discussion of the law or policy.
Net Neutrality doesn’t mean what you think it means.
Net neutrality is exactly as I have described it and as I have quoted from the FCC rules. Anything else is your conspiracy theory. I refuse to discuss the merits of a vague conspiracy-tinged imaginary policy in place of actual text.
Lawsuits would be the primary mechanism. I’m under no illusion that we consumers have an advantage.
And that's why it's not a viable mechanism. Lawsuits take a long time and likely result in little but the lawyers getting rich. Comcast recently settled a two-year case for millions, but that was only because they interfered with traffic before amending the TOS to allow it (the TOS now allows it). That's one small step towards the consumer protection part of the FCC rules, but not net neutrality itself. I'd prefer simple regulation, no tens of millions out of the pockets of the corporations for the leftist trial lawyers.
I wouldn’t. They’re not leading to tyranny.
So the exact same regulations, having the exact same results, are suddenly bad because of who drafted them? Sorry, we're never going to agree here. I prefer to deal with actual things that I can read rather than grand conspiracy theories and imputed motivations.
I don't care WHY Kucinich drafted a stronger resolution against Obama's illegal actions in Libya than the Republicans. It doesn't matter that it is such a strong resolution because Kucinich is a far leftie who would vote against any military action no matter how legal. It only matters that the resolution serves my interests. The text isn't going to magically change to ban all firearms after the vote just because Kucinich was behind it.
About the only thing you’re good at doing is disconnecting.
————What Obama thinks was an unknown.-————
The truth about net neutrality was unknown.
——————Wright and Ayers gave insight as to what he thinks. Any net neutrality policy will be published for all to see. Not equal.-—————
Free Press and Tim Wu give insight as to what the FCC is thinking. The collusion is confirmed. It’s equal.
-—————If I’m not supposed to love the DMCA, why am I supposed to oppose net neutrality? ——————
Tyranny.
————Net neutrality is exactly as I have described it and as I have quoted from the FCC rules.-—————
That’s a dangerous thing to say. Obamacare is a great example. What’s dangerous about Obamacare isn’t what it is now. What it will be is what’s dangerous. Net neutrality is the same way.
-———— I refuse to discuss the merits of a vague conspiracy-tinged imaginary policy in place of actual text.-————
Then you will always be behind the curve on both Obamcare and net neutrality, because these marxists are not done yet. This is what I mean when I say you deserve the chains they’re making for you. You really are putting them on yourself.
—————I’d prefer simple regulation, no tens of millions out of the pockets of the corporations for the leftist trial lawyers.—————
I’d rather give leftist lawyers my money than leftists at the FCC my freedom. Easy choice, no brainer.
————So the exact same regulations, having the exact same results, are suddenly bad because of who drafted them-————
Yep. It’s called flux. The current law is in flux. It doesn’t matter because it’s not the final resting place.
If conservatives had put the exact same regulations in place, they wouldn’t be a temporary short term resting place heading in toward tyranny.
I noticed you didn’t respond to my query regarding The Road to Serfdom. Expect a comparative discussion about it soon.
—————It only matters that the resolution serves my interests.——————
Ahhhh, there it is. What this is all about; is nothing more than selfish for you. You’ll gladly sell us all into tyranny as long as you still feel that your selfish little interest is being served, regardless the reality of what’s going on over at the FCC.
When they make a net neutrality proposal, bill or rule it goes into writing, then you can talk about the actual text of it. There's no need to guess, no need for conspiracy theory.
Free Press and Tim Wu give insight as to what the FCC is thinking.
And the text gives full insight into the actual proposal. Feel free to oppose text you disagree with. It doesn't help to disagree with imaginary text. Boehner was harping on about the FCC's action constituting fairness doctrine. He obviously was reading a fantasy version, maybe one his telco lobbyist slipped him along with the fat checks.
Tyranny.
I thought the DMCA was tyranny, but since these people are against the DMCA, I'm supposed to love tyranny. But I'm supposed to be against net neutrality because I'm against tyranny? Your position cannot be made logically consistent.
Then you will always be behind the curve on both Obamcare and net neutrality, because these marxists are not done yet.
I've studied the main provisions of Obamacare. It already far crosses any line. A conspiracy theory is not required to know that the existing text of the law is unacceptable. A step in the wrong direction is wrong, regardless of who makes it.
Yep. It’s called flux. The current law is in flux. It doesn’t matter because it’s not the final resting place.
Either way it's the same law, same consequences. If we'd supported Kucinich's resolution, Obama would have gotten a much harsher rebuke than Boehner's watered-down wimp version. Kucinich's resolution wasn't going to be "in flux" and suddenly start supporting Obama. But, according to you, I should have opposed it because it was Kucinich who wrote it, and supported the wimped-out Boehner version.
Ahhhh, there it is. What this is all about; is nothing more than selfish for you.
Don't twist it. My interest is also self defense, so does that make all of my support for the 2nd Amendment selfish? My interest is also an open Internet. You have agreed that's a good thing, so it's in your interest too. Does that make you selfish? I guess we're all selfish, in that we're going to have to bear the results of what we successfully support and oppose.
—————When they make a net neutrality proposal, bill or rule it goes into writing, then you can talk about the actual text of it.—————
I will not wait for the glorious revolution to be over.
—————There’s no need to guess, no need for conspiracy theory.—————
I’m not guessing. Marxists are clear about marxism. They’re clearly talking about blocking all the exits. No guesses necessary.
-————And the text gives full insight into the actual proposal.-————
Yet keeps you blind as to what’s coming next.
-————It doesn’t help to disagree with imaginary text.———————
What helps is disagreeing with leadership’s direction.
-————I thought the DMCA was tyranny-——————
It is. So is net neutrality.
————but since these people are against the DMCA, I’m supposed to love tyranny.—————
There goes your logical disconnect again.
-————I’ve studied the main provisions of Obamacare. It already far crosses any line—————
What’s coming on Obamacare is worlds worse than what currently exists.
-————A conspiracy theory is not required to know that the existing text of the law is unacceptable.-—————
A conspiracy theory is not required to know their own words. To know their own history.
There is no conspiracy “theory”. They conspired. Judicial watch gave us the documents regarding FCC/Free Press. No theory, just documents. They conspired.
—————A step in the wrong direction is wrong, regardless of who makes it.—————
Leaving you as blind as a bat.
-————Either way it’s the same law, same consequences.-————
No it’s not, not even close. One law that is at a final resting place, where as one which is not at it’s final resting place, has far far different consequences.
-————Kucinich’s resolution wasn’t going to be “in flux”—————
The FCC’s proposals are in flux. Now they’re talking about blocking the exits.
—————My interest is also self defense-————
It can’t be. If you won’t guard yourself against marxists, it can’t be.
————My interest is also an open Internet.——————
It can’t be. If you turn to marxists to achieve an open internet, you’ll never get it. So it can’t be.
-————You have agreed that’s a good thing, so it’s in your interest too. Does that make you selfish?-————
There goes your disconnect again. I never agreed that marxism was a good thing.
We can read the text of whatever bill or regulation is coming next when it gets here. Then we can make a rational decision about it, oppose it or support it based on its merits or lack thereof.
What helps is disagreeing with leadership’s direction.
When they DO something that is in the wrong direction, then oppose it. Until then, you're opposing a concept.
It is. So is net neutrality.
But they oppose the DMCA, which would mean they oppose tyranny. But according to you they only support tyranny, which is why I must assume net neutrality is tyranny. Personally, I'd rather support or oppose each issue on its merits. It keeps it from becoming illogical as your approach is.
What’s coming on Obamacare is worlds worse than what currently exists.
And we'll deal with that when the time comes. For now we already have a law that we know is bad and that we can oppose.
No it’s not, not even close. One law that is at a final resting place, where as one which is not at it’s final resting place, has far far different consequences.
You still haven't told me why I should oppose Kucinich's resolution. Your logic says I should. He's the most far-left Marxist in Congress, you can't trust him. Anything he does would certainly be subject to your strange "in flux" theory more than anyone else. But if he came out tomorrow with a bill that stopped the fondling in our airport screenings, I could support it based on the text of THAT bill. I know Kucinich doesn't care about our security, I know he would like to prevent rational statistical selection of potentially high-risk passengers ("profiling"), but if that's not in THAT bill, then it's not in THAT bill. No amount conspiracy theory will put it in THAT bill, only actually changing the bill in the public record to an objectionable form before passing will do that. If that happens, then it becomes a poison pill, and I would not support the bill anymore.
So, why should I oppose a narrowly-tailored anti-groping Kucinich bill? It would be far more effective than that Texas bill we all supported. Why should I oppose his Libya resolution? Why should I oppose net neutrality?
The plain fact is that sometimes interests align between parties that are normally opposed. The Pink Pistols are a gay group, yet support the core conservative value of the 2nd Amendment. Our interests align on this subject, while we are free to oppose them on the gay agenda. If not for the paranoid among us, we could actually work together to improve gun rights.
Now you've succeeded in dragging me back into the issue of proponents again, the conspiracy theory. I said I don't care. I care about the actual issue of net neutrality.
"The successful use of competition as the principle of social organization precludes certain types of coercive interference with economic life, but it admits of others which sometimes may very considerably assist its work and even requires certain kinds of government action."Page 86 in this edition. Yes, even Hayek realized that regulation is sometimes necessary. This applies to net neutrality in that neutrality is the basis for free competition in the market for the services that are offered on the Internet. Infringement on neutrality allows one industry to leverage its place in the market to stifle competition. Hayek further says that the costs incurred in regulation can be worthwhile. However, there must be a balance between social costs and the advantages.
Hayek also says:
"And it is essential that entry into different trades should be open to all on equal terms and that the law should not tolerate any attempts by individuals or groups to restrict this entry by open or concealed force."That pretty much defines the ISPs interfering with independent VOIP and video providers, giving their own services priority, and their proposal to charge them more to make their own high-priced services more competitive.
-———We can read the text of whatever bill or regulation is coming next when it gets here.—————
-————When they DO something that is in the wrong direction, then oppose it.-————
No you can’t. They have to pass the bills before you can find out what’s in them.
Direct quote. Want the video?
—————But they oppose the DMCA, which would mean they oppose tyranny.-—————
They define corporatism as tyranny. Which is actually true, but it’s only 50% of the picture. Marxism is also equally as tyrannical.
————(obamacare)And we’ll deal with that when the time comes.-————
Not good enough. Successful prevention of tyranny requires actual prevention, not just knee jerk half measure responses after you’ve already lost your freedom.
—————You still haven’t told me why I should oppose Kucinich’s resolution.———
I don’t care about Kucinich’s resolution; in this context. There’s enough people watching all of that, I don’t worry about a lack of critical analysis.
-————Your logic says I should—————
You can’t grasp my logic if you can’t grasp prevention of tyranny; pre-tyranny.
—————The plain fact is that sometimes interests align between parties that are normally opposed.-—————
Your view of all this through the lens of left/right prevents you from seeing all of this as right/wrong. Up/down. Reagan was right. There is no left and right, only the light of freedom or the ant heap of totalitarianism.
—————Now you’ve succeeded in dragging me back into the issue of proponents again, the conspiracy theory.-—————
It’s conspiracy fact. We have the documents. They conspired.
-—————Get back to me when Hayek writes about net neutrality.—————
He did. Pages 76/77, and 174/175.
-————Yes, even Hayek realized that regulation is sometimes necessary.—————
I realize the same. What Hayek points out brilliantly is the difference between regulation for the sake of right/wrong, and new freedoms sold to the people which amount to nothing but setting the central planners free.
The big problem is that what net neutrality claims to have as a goal, already exists. Without net neutrality, we have net neutrality.
This is by far the biggest and most obvious clue as to the difference. That, and what the central planners are saying.
—————That pretty much defines the ISPs interfering with—————
It does.
However, at no time does Hayek propose totalitarian “new freedoms” as a solution to a market based problem.
And yes, Net Neutrality is being sold as a “new freedom”. The “freedom from ISPs”.
This is what he says:
“His use of the word “freedom” is as misleading as it is in the mouth of totalitarian politicians. Like their freedom, the “collective freedom” he offers us is not the freedom of the members of society but the unlimited freedom of the planner to do with society what he pleases”.
Net neutrality promises a collective freedom from ISPs. If only the FCC masters can accumulate enough power to make it so. And their own words back me up.
In the words of our potential FCC masters, they want to control the on/off ramps. THEIR WORDS. Argue otherwise, I dare you.
Just because one acceptable thing passes now has no relation to the possibility of an unacceptable thing passing in secret later. They do not need a public precedent to do something in secret. They only need a precedent to do something public, in which case it can be opposed.
They define corporatism as tyranny. Which is actually true, but it’s only 50% of the picture. Marxism is also equally as tyrannical.
Let me see the logic here:
Successful prevention of tyranny requires actual prevention
To me, prevention means dealing with anti-freedom bills and regulations when they are proposed, based on the actual content of those bills and regulations. Wailing and gnashing of teeth over possible things they may do in the future is a counter-productive waste of energy.
I don’t care about Kucinich’s resolution; in this context.
The concept directly applies here. Your logic says Kucinich is poison; therefore, I should never back anything he promotes. However, his resolution serves conservative principles, freedom and what's right, far more than the wimped-out resolution put forth by the so-called conservatives. Your logic, by refusing to look at what's actually on the table, damages our country.
Exactly, but with some well-known infringements. To keep net neutrality isn't a "new freedom" since we already have it (mostly). Any regulation is stopping and preventing future occurrences of a wrong, the interference in the larger Internet market by one industry leveraging its place as gatekeeper. It's not "freedom from" anything, it's preventing market distortions.
Of course don't think regulation must necessarily be some overly-burdensome bureaucracy. We know there is a huge imbalance of power between the ISPs and customers preventing the free marking from working correctly. Simply having essentially a net neutrality "complaints department" at the FTC (more appropriate), with the FTC having the authority to correct and punish violations, should suffice. From the companies I'd expect at most a yearly compliance statement -- here our our policies, here's how they comply with net neutrality, and if we are using any traffic shaping, here's why it's reasonable (e.g., to provide the best experience for our customers, we give the lowest latency to gaming at the expense of email traffic latency, which nobody would notice).
They can't have it both ways. Either they're introducing something new, or they're keeping what already exists.
--------To keep net neutrality isn't a "new freedom" since we already have it-----------
It is a new freedom. The FCC doesn't have power currently to regulate the internet. Acceptance of net neutrality would set the FCC free.
I prefer keeping the tyrants in a box.
---------Of course don't think regulation must necessarily be some overly-burdensome bureaucracy.--------
The FCC rejects that. They want big bureaucracy. Their words. Clyburn let the cat out of the bag, what they want is control of all the entrances and exits.
Wheras the internet right now is akin to a freeway, the FCC wants a tollroad.
What will be the price to get free republic onto the FCC's information toll road? Be more neutral?
You can't have it both ways. You can't say net neutrality regulations are a solution in search of a problem, which requires that there is no infringement, and that we can't do anything because it's a "new freedom," which requires that there is infringement.
It is a new freedom. The FCC doesn't have power currently to regulate the internet. Acceptance of net neutrality would set the FCC free.
The FCC's powers have no relation to whether or not it is a new freedom. "Set the FCC free"? I see you're going for that camel's nose thing again. Sorry, the FCC was free long ago. As I've said before, it's about a free market, more along the lines of the FTC. However, it is communications, so the FCC has been involved.
Wheras the internet right now is akin to a freeway, the FCC wants a tollroad.
You have it backwards. One of the main purposes of net neutrality regulation is to PREVENT telcos from putting up tollbooths, which constitute interference in the Internet-based economy. No conspiracy theory please, I prefer to deal with the reality of the situation, what people actually say, do and write about a specific subject, not predictions and imputed motivations inspired by cranial tin poisoning.
What will be the price to get free republic onto the FCC's information toll road? Be more neutral?
Fairness doctrine, unrelated issue. Fairness doctrine and universal access invariably are injected into any net neutrality discussion by its opponents. A big sign of an unsupportable argument is the inability to argue the subject itself, but the necessity of bringing in unrelated strawmen that you can then use to cloud the issue.
-—————You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say net neutrality regulations are a solution in search of a problem-—————
I’m not trying to have it both ways. The phrase “net neutrality” and the word “marxism” are synonymous.
Net neutrality regulations do have a problem to solve. Our freedom.
————and that we can’t do anything because it’s a “new freedom,” which requires that there is infringement. ——————
There is plenty that we the people can do without setting dictators free.
—————The FCC’s powers have no relation to whether or not it is a new freedom.-————
The FCC has NO POWER until we set them free.(or they usurp it) The new freedom here is the FCC’s gaining of power where they don’t currently have it.
-————I see you’re going for that camel’s nose thing again.-————
Nope. I’ve always been on that “nail in the coffin” thing.
-————You have it backwards.-—————
No I don’t have it backwards. It’s Clyburn’s own words.
-—————One of the main purposes of net neutrality regulation is to PREVENT telcos from putting up tollbooths-——————
The FCC rejects this view.
The main purpose of net neutrality is for the FCC to set up FCC tollbooths. Their own words.
-————No conspiracy theory please—————
I can prove it. Their own words.
————and universal access invariably are injected into any net neutrality discussion by its opponents.-—————
Genachowski came one step away from using the phrase universal access just the other day.
-————A big sign of an unsupportable argument is the inability to argue the subject itself,——————
Only one person around here ignores everything that FCC spooks say, and tries to label provable facts as conspiratorial. You are in the wrong, at all levels.
OMG we've been living under "Marxism" all these years!
The new freedom here is the FCC’s gaining of power where they don’t currently have it.
You've gone way off script. New freedoms are supposedly for the people. You're talking about a power of government. Governments do not have freedoms or rights, only powers.
It’s Clyburn’s own words.
Copy and paste exact words in relation to net neutrality.
Genachowski came one step away from using the phrase universal access just the other day.
No, he actually said the words "universal access" in relation to -- wait for it -- the subject of universal access! Go figure, how strange that he would do that, actually speak of something in the context of a conversation about it. You could learn from that, argue universal access on the subject of universal access, and argue net neutrality on the subject of net neutrality.
Hey, did you know that the FTC regulates both false advertising and antitrust laws? Is it possible to debate false advertising without bringing antitrust enforcement into the picture? Why yes, yes it is.
-————You’ve gone way off script.—————
I haven’t gone off script at all. The courts told the FCC no, congress told the FCC no, they’ve done it anyways.
-————New freedoms are supposedly for the people. You’re talking about a power of government.-——————
Right. How do you convince people to accept totalitarianism? By convincing them that totalitarianism is a “new freedom”. The freedom from want, the freedom from ISPs, the freedom from rent payments. On and on and on.
————Governments do not have freedoms or rights, only powers.-—————
Governments do have freedoms, ask the 65 million that Mao killed.
—————Copy and paste exact words in relation to net neutrality.—————
This is foolish. You were in the discussion thread. It’s time you ate some carrots or something to stimulate your memory banks.
-————No, he actually said the words “universal access” in relation to — wait for it — the subject of universal access! Go figure, how strange that he would do that, actually speak of something in the context of a conversation about it.—————
Fine. All he’s doing is showing how big of a threat to our freedoms that he is.
—————You could learn from that, argue universal access on the subject of universal access, and argue net neutrality on the subject of net neutrality.—————
I’m not foolish enough to look at a totalitarian, and think he’s actually going to separate the two. That’s not how this works. If you’d learned from the road to serfdom, you’d know that.
-————Hey, did you know that the FTC regulates both false advertising and antitrust laws?-—————
Do they play the role of a referee? Or a toll booth?
Actually, the courts told the FCC they couldn't reverse a previous hands-off policy in that manner. First they had to reset policy to allow the regulation, then they could make the regulation. And Congress? You mean those people who didn't know the difference between fairness doctrine and net neutrality?
The freedom from want, the freedom from ISPs, the freedom from rent payments. On and on and on.
True, but net neutrality has nothing to do with "freedom from ISPs." Maybe protection from being screwed by ISPs, but then that describes all anti-fraud and consumer protection law too. For Internet companies, it's also freedom from having someone interfere with your business.
Hey, did you know laws against murder are actually about "freedom from murder" and thus should not be supported? Just because you restate something that way doesn't make it bad.
Governments do have freedoms, ask the 65 million that Mao killed.
That's power, the power to kill. No, no freedoms, no rights. That's why I don't even like the term "states' rights." State governments don't have rights. They have powers, they have sovereignty, but they don't have rights.
Fine. All he’s doing is showing how big of a threat to our freedoms that he is.
So does Kucinich with most of what he says, but here he is, absolutely correct on the Obama/Libya issue. The fact that he's an loony leftist who makes JG look like Ronald Reagan doesn't change the fact that he's right on this one.
I’m not foolish enough to look at a totalitarian, and think he’s actually going to separate the two.
Who cares? We can separate the two, we can reject a net neutrality proposal if fairness doctrine provisions are included. However, the only one who seems to be combining them is you.
Do they play the role of a referee? Or a toll booth?
Show me where in the FCC rules that toll booths are implemented. I'm talking about the actual rules, not stuff you made up as to what the rules could be, not what is imprinted in tin on your forehead. Speaking of that, I'm still waiting for Clyburn's words about the FCC implementing toll booths as part of net neutrality.
—————And Congress? You mean those people who didn’t know the difference between fairness doctrine and net neutrality?-————
The congress that told them no was the congress we defeated in 2010. I’m pretty sure those guys knew the difference.
-————True, but net neutrality has nothing to do with “freedom from ISPs.”-—————
It does to the FCC. If they take control of the on/off ramps, then the ISPs are effectively nationalized. That’s the price they pay to get onto the FCC’s toll road.
—————That’s power, the power to kill.-——————
The power to control the on/off ramps of the internet is the power to decide what does and doesn’t go on said internet.
————So does Kucinich with most of what he says, but here he is, absolutely correct on the Obama/Libya issue.———
*sigh* Everything that leftists are doing is in order to create chaos. Kucinich included. Seen gold prices lately?
————Who cares?——————
Julius Genachowski and our other potential rulers care.
————We can separate the two, we can reject a net neutrality proposal if fairness doctrine provisions are included.-—————
Theoretically, right now, yes. But we don’t have much time left. They’re passing the bills before we can find out what’s in them. I’ve posted two separate threads related to the FCC withholding information regarding net neutrality. One of which I’m certain you saw because I pinged you to it.
————However, the only one who seems to be combining them is you.—————
I’m not willingly blind to tyranny.
—————Show me where in the FCC rules that toll booths are implemented.——————
By the time the rules get codifed, it’s too late. When someone says “this is what we want to do” and it’s clearly a bad thing, I sit up and take notice.
You obviously don’t.
—————not stuff you made up—————
Quit lying or ask admin moderator to delete the discussion. Your name is still in it.
I’m not making up that she said it, and I’m not making it up that you participated in the thread. Hence, you are a liar.
You participated in that discussion. Go ahead and argue otherwise.
You are stretching the definition of "nationalized" beyond recognition, to a state where effectively every industry in the US is "effectively nationalized." The "price" they pay is to not screw their customers or interfere with Internet commerce. Most businesses operate under the "price" of not being able to commit fraud without fear of prosecution.
While the telcos clearly want to put up toll booths, you claim the FCC does, but without any evidence whatsoever. Sorry, but I do not accept the "I'm rubber, you're glue" method of debate.
The power to control the on/off ramps of the internet is the power to decide what does and doesn’t go on said internet.
The telcos currently have that power and have stated an intent to leverage it, and have in fact leveraged it. The FCC does not have that power, and will not under net neutrality enforcement. The FCC will have to the power only to prevent the telcos from leveraging THEIR power.
There's an old joke about a totally automated factory that will have only two employees, a man and a monkey. It's so automated that the man's job is to press the one button there, and the monkey's job is to keep the man from pressing the button so he doesn't screw anything up. Note, the monkey's job is not to press the button itself, but to prevent the pressing of the button. The power to prevent is not the power to do.
Everything that leftists are doing is in order to create chaos. Kucinich included.
How does Kucinich's resolution create chaos and why shouldn't I support it? I should instead support Boehner's inferior, wimped-out resolution because his motives are supposedly more pure? I know Kucinich's motives, and they are irrelevant. Only his actions are relevant, because his actions are the only things that affect others.
By the time the rules get codifed, it’s too late.
The rules are already there, in plain text. Show me the toll booths. I'm a big believer in law, so I tend to read the laws. It's like the "Internet kill switch" bill. I read it, can't find the kill switch, and nobody can point out that provision to me. People are so concentrating on the "kill switch" they're not bothering to read the rest of the bill to see if it's any good.
Don't give me some made-up conspiracy theory about what you think the law says, show me the actual text or drop the claim. The grand Democrat conspiracy is not law, only what they actually pass into law is law, and we can read that, quote from it, and use it to support our arguments.
Quit lying or ask admin moderator to delete the discussion. Your name is still in it.
I have never in my time here asked an admin mod to delete anything. Why, are some of your posts so bad that the admin mods are deleting them out of their own volition?
I’m not making up that she said it,
No, you are not making up the words. But you are saying she meant something 100% opposite of what she actually said. You tell me not to listen to their words because we know their agenda so the words can be only lies. Then you tell me to listen to their exact words as proof of their agenda, but their words dispel your conspiracy theory. She said nothing of FCC toll booths.
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.