—————I don’t understand why people think that net neutrality poses any threat to anyone’s freedom to speak online-——————
Cass told me, told you, told us all that he will silence us.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2516189/posts
I take him at his word. You should too. He is in a position to make it happen.
Furthermore, look at the hundreds of thousands/millions of dollars that Soros is putting in to take our freedoms away. The vast majority of soros funded groups support net neutrality.
This isn’t hard to put together. If we don’t stand up, we will silence us.
Put it this way, you and I as freepers - we say a lot of unneutral things.
I think Rush is pretty confused about what net neutrality actually means. Imposing some sort of “fairness doctrine” on the Internet is absolutely NOT what “net neutrality” means.
“Net neutrality” is the idea that Comcast, which provides VoIP telephone services as well as Internet connection services, should not be allowed to disrupt or block the VoIP telephone services of their competitors for the customers of their Internet connection service, for example.
Undoubtedly Comcast and other big media companies would love to use their Internet services as a tool to protect and enlarge their market share, but that’s what “net neutrality” stands opposed to.
The position is that network services should be “content neutral,” which is where “neutrality” in “net neutrality” comes from.