The concept of Net Neutrality goes back to the 1800's

[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.

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

-—————You are stretching the definition of “nationalized” beyond recognition, to a state where effectively every industry in the US is “effectively nationalized.”-—————

“There’s not much taking over of property or industries in the old socialistic sense.” Listen to this — “The formula appears to be control without ownership.”

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,601882,00.html

I’m not stretching anything. This is progressivism. They don’t need to nationalize in the old socialistic sense. They’ll just regulate it. Welcome to the new nationalisation of property.

-————The FCC will have to the power only to prevent the telcos from leveraging THEIR power.—————

The FCC clearly rejects that view. There’s no way this many marxists will be satisfied with limited powers.

-————The rules are already there, in plain text.—————

No, only the first round rules are there. There’s more to come, which they are hiding. I’ve pinged you to those threads as well.

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

I wanted to separate this.

————I have never in my time here asked an admin mod to delete anything.—————

Well you shouldn’t act as if you’re clueless when you were involved in said discussions.

But in any case, that’s no excuse for what I said. I’m aggravated about other things; personal. I shouldn’t have brought that with me to the forum.

I’m sorry.

————Why, are some of your posts so bad that the admin mods are deleting them out of their own volition?-———

No, I hang out in several forums and I’ve seen people do that in order to make others look foolish.

My posts don’t get deleted by mods because I back up what I’m saying.

[antiRepublicrat]

They don’t need to nationalize in the old socialistic sense. They’ll just regulate it.

Then we've been a socialist country practically since our founding. You are redefining nationalization to fit your theory.

The FCC clearly rejects that view.

That is exactly the view of net neutrality proposed by the FCC. Rejection of that view by the FCC only exists in other policies such as fairness doctrine, and your in conspiracy theory.

There’s more to come, which they are hiding.

If all this is done in secret, then how was there a notice of PROPOSED rulemaking released last year before the final rules? How did they solicit and receive tens of thousands of pages of public comments in the years prior to the proposed rule? If they're trying to keep it secret, they're doing a very poor job of it.

The reason is that this is how the process works in reality. If another rule is to be made, there will be public hearings, a comment period, a proposed rulemaking, another comment period, possibly one or more further notices of proposed rulemaking each with a comment period, and finally a rule.

Whatever conspiracy there may be, it has to go public long before it can become a rule. Wake me up if the FCC tries to revise its rulemaking process to allow hidden rules. Until then you can quit it about the stuff they're supposedly hiding, because it means nothing legally until it goes through this very public process.

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

——————Then we’ve been a socialist country practically since our founding. You are redefining nationalization to fit your theory.———————

No, to both.

One, Stuart chase died in 1985. I didn’t redefine nationalization, he did.(though, I’m sure other progressives wrote basically the same thing)

Two, (to keep this in line with the internet) current internet regulations are very, very basic. They don’t amount to nationalization. It’s the difference between having a referee, and the referees being the players on the field - You can’t beat the rule makers.

————That is exactly the view of net neutrality proposed by the FCC.————

You can’t say that until they are done.

-—————If all this is done in secret, then how was there a notice of PROPOSED rulemaking released last year before the final rules?-—————

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2725573/posts

-————it has to go public long before it can become a rule.-——————

I see no evidence of that. They have to pass the bill before we can find out what’s in it.

Or, perhaps I could word this better if we took the time to define “public”. On one hand, all these people put a nice good smiley face on internet regulations, while on the other hand they are scheming with shady characters like Free Press at their “public” NCMR meetings and their “public” emails.

This is why I come off as sounding foolish sometimes. They are speaking out of both sides of their mouths. What they say for public consumption should be disregarded. What they say when they think nobody’s looking, that’s when they’re being more sincere.

[antiRepublicrat]

They don’t amount to nationalization.

I see, it becomes nationalization when it's something you don't like, but other regulation is okay. This is as opposed to the normal way, where you don't like something because it is nationalization.

It’s the difference between having a referee, and the referees being the players on the field

Read the published order, clearly referee. If they are to be a player, show me in the order where it says that. Put up or shut up.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2725573/posts

That's the actual regs that have to follow the order, long after the order has been made public. Do you not know anything about rulemaking procedures?

They have to pass the bill before we can find out what’s in it.

That's Congress, and making fun of Pelosi. This is the FCC, and there are rules governing how the FCC operates. One of the rules is a completely public process for rulemaking. And as far as Congress is concerned, they have published bills for net neutrality, nothing in secret.

on the other hand they are scheming with shady characters like Free Press at their “public” NCMR meetings and their “public” emails.

Exactly, public. This is how the FCC deals with all sides of the issue. With your logic, they have been "scheming" with shady characters in the telco industry in public meetings and emails, and indeed with everyone, since the whole process is PUBLIC.

What they say for public consumption should be disregarded.

Yet not long ago you used what they said in public as evidence to prove a point. You can't have it both ways. And as I've been showing you, what they say in private doesn't matter. What gets published in this very long and open process, is what becomes FCC regulations, and finally matters.