'Net neutrality' nets out to government control

American Thinker ^ | November 03, 2009 | Lee Cary

[opentalk]

There's nothing neutral about the Obama administration's push for net neutrality.

Do you suppose that, periodically, an ad appears in the Washington Post that reads this way?

Wanted. Congressional Legislation Naming Consultant (GS-9). Must be able to craft titles for legislation coming before the House and Senate. Must have a thorough understanding of the English language, and the ability to design titles counter-reflective of their intent. All applicants will be screened to assure no more than moderate recreational use of creative enhancement drugs. Preferential treatment will be given to those between 28-35 years of age who like comfort food.

Comfort food? Those include chocolate cake, macaroni and cheese, mashed potatoes, chicken noodle soup, fried chicken, ice cream...all the foods that make us feel comfortable.

Consider the titles of recent legislation.

First, there was the Troubled Assets Relief Program. Relief is a comfort word. Who doesn't want relief when their assets are troubled? And it's trouble assets, not toxic assets. Toxic sounds dreadful.

Then came the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Recovery and Reinvestment are like ham-and-eggs. Comfort words, both.

Now we face America's Affordable Health Choices. It's the full combination plate of comfort words. All it needs is "and Effective" after "Affordable" to reach Nirvana. It would roll off the tongue nicely, too. America's Affordable and Effective Health Choices.

There's another one on the near horizon. It's H.R.3458, the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009 proposed (yet again) by Reps. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.). It's title says it's about "Freedom" and "Preservation" of the internet. Mashed potatoes-and-gravy stuff. What could possibly be awry with this bill's intent?

The organization Free Press supports it. Its motto is "reform media. transform democracy." (Oh, oh. There's that "transform" word again.) Ben Scott, policy director of Free Press, states:

[opentalk]

“Masked beneath the comfort language of the net neutrality bill are provisions that will effectively turn over management of the internet within the United States to the federal government via the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). It’s a power for which the FCC hungers. Perhaps it envies China.

So there’s nothing neutral about the Obama administration’s push for net neutrality. “Neutrality” is a D.C. comfort word for control.”

[steve-b]

Net Neutrality = Ted Turner can't block your access to FR.

Bottom line.

[HiTech RedNeck]

In a net utopia, that’s what it would mean.

The worries here are about: How do we get the wine from the cup to the lip without a slip? When the server is an alcoholic?

[Mr. K]

Liberals hate it when an act truly does what it’s name implies- like “No Child Left Behind”

[pyx]

So there’s nothing neutral about the Obama administration’s push for net neutrality.

Correct, just as the term "revenue neutral costs" for health care from the ZERO whitehouse means bend over and grab you ankles, for everyday Americans.

[LearsFool]

Net Neutrality = Ted Turner can't block your access to FR.

But Obama's internet czar can.

I'll take my chances with Ted Turner. He has to compete for my business. The feds don't.

[ShadowAce]

[antiRepublicrat]

The current net neutrality debate existed before Obama came to national power. The concept itself has existed for about 150 years.

[Robbin]

But you trust an Obama Czar to keep access open for conservatives and Christians?

[Robbin]

But you trust an Obama Czar to keep access open for conservatives and Christians?

[Major Matt Mason]

Is anyone really surprised by this? This is no different than the communists taking over the conservation movement to push their controlling tendencies. They have now co-opted the "Net Neutrality" push so they can take control of the Internet. They are control freaks.

[Uri’el-2012]

The current net neutrality debate existed before Obama came to national power. The concept itself has existed for about 150 years.

Starting with Karl Marx ?

[VRWCmember]

Net Neutrality = Ted Turner can't block your access to FR.

WRONG.

[mysterio]

Yep. It's a losing battle trying to convince anyone of that, though. The "their side, our side" knee-jerk response is just too strong.

But you're correct.

[VRWCmember]

From the article:

Here's what one of the bill's co-sponsors identifies as its basic intent:

"The Internet has thrived and revolutionized business and the economy precisely because it started as an open technology," said co-sponsor Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA) in a statement. "This bill will ensure that the non-discriminatory framework that allows the Internet to thrive and competition on the Web to flourish is preserved at a time when our economy needs it the most." (Source)

So, to follow Ms. Eshoo's argument, the Internet has "thrived and revolutionized business and the economy." Now she, Mr. Markey, and the Obama administration want to regulate it so it will thrive and flourish. (So I take my truck into the dealership and say, "Fix my truck, Doug." Doug says, "What's wrong with it?" I say, "Nothing, it runs great. It just needs fixing.")

Masked beneath the comfort language of the net neutrality bill are provisions that will effectively turn over management of the internet within the United States to the federal government via the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). It's a power for which the FCC hungers. Perhaps it envies China.

The internet has thrived because of minimal regulation from the government, but now we need the government to step in and codify some "net neutrality" rules which actually just transfer control over internet service operations from the ISP's to the FCC? What kind of IDIOT would think that is a good idea? Oh, that's right - a liberal leftist statist congressman like Markey from Taxachussetts. (Kennedy was a co-sponsor of this legislation in the Senate before he took his long overdue dirtnap.)

I trust the competitive market among internet service providers to continue to create incentives for innovation and improved service, competitive rates, and a free marketplace of ideas to flourish over then internet much more than I trust the government to "ensure that the non-discriminatory framework that allows the Internet to thrive and competition on the Web to flourish". You may be afraid of Ted Turner, but I can buy my internet access from somebody else - at least as long as we keep the government from "watching out for us".

[antiRepublicrat]

Starting with Karl Marx ?

Starting with the telegraph.

[antiRepublicrat]

I trust the competitive market among internet service providers

That's where a little problem comes in. There's no real competition in many places. In order to entice broadband providers to areas, providers are often given effective monopolies.

[VRWCmember]

That's where a little problem comes in. There's no real competition in many places. In order to entice broadband providers to areas, providers are often given effective monopolies.

There is STILL a more competitive market even in those areas because of the availability of cable internet, phone company broadband internet, and wireless broadband internet. And as such, competitive forces provide consumers with more choice and more freedom than your federal government regulations will. But maybe you're right and federal restrictions to discourage investment by ISP's will help ensure that innovation continues to flourish. It has NEVER worked before, but maybe the internet is the exception that will finally prove that a federal government solution to a non-existent problem is what we really need.

[VRWCmember]

Starting with Karl Marx?

Starting with the telegraph.

Try streaming a two-hour high definition video over the telegraph. Doesn't work? That doesn't matter. Your little ISP is required by the federal government to provide that service to whoever wants it, and you have to charge the same price that you would for a two-line telegraph message.