At this level it is a battle between content providers and consumer ISPs. It appears they've come to an agreement, where basically the content providers win by keeping the status quo. On the other hand, the leftist dreamers who wanted to forbid even necessary traffic management, which would have been a huge burden for the telcos, have lost.
You should try it some time. Then perhaps you’d know how targeted your free speech is online.
I read all bills I post about, with the obvious exception of the huge ones that are pretty much impossible to find the time to read unless that's your job. This one isn't even a bill yet, and I found it despite Heritage's link being broken.
The net neutrality you seek hasn’t existed for a very long time.
With a few notable exceptions, net neutrality still exists.
The current net neutrality under proposal *IS* the fairness doctrine for the internet.
These are the guts. It says ISPs:
“(1) shall not block lawful content, applications, or services, or prohibit the use of non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management;Do you honestly see anything about fairness doctrine in there? I see: don't block, don't discriminate, inform customers. Do you see a "give equal bandwidth to differing opinions?" Do you see anything at all regarding content producers, the ones who would be the target of a fairness doctrine?“(2) shall not unjustly or unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful traffic over a consumer’s wireline broadband Internet access service. For purposes of this subparagraph, reasonable network management practices shall not be construed to be unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory.
“(3) shall disclose accurate and relevant information in plain language regarding the price, performance, and network management practices of its wireline broadband Internet access services sufficient for consumers to make informed choices regarding use of such services and for content, application, service, and device providers to develop and market new Internet offerings. The Commission shall not require public disclosure of competitively sensitive information or information that could compromise network security or undermine the efficacy of reasonable network management practices]. In promulgating rules implementing this subparagraph, the Commission shall at minimum require providers to display or provide links to the required information on an Internet website and to update such information in a timely fashion to reflect material changes in the information subject to this paragraph
——————On the other hand, the leftist dreamers who wanted to forbid even necessary traffic management, which would have been a huge burden for the telcos, have lost.——————
Based on some of the things that Sunstein has said, I don’t see the merit here.
And with Kagan on the bench, she’ll rule in favor no matter how many people get silenced.
-—————With a few notable exceptions, net neutrality still exists.————
With all the marxists out there clamouring for this both in and outside of the administration, that’s unlikely.
Their total focus is on the word “neutrality”.
-————These are the guts.——————
Then there’s something missing, perhaps left out on purpose.
Marxists simply do not support true efforts to enshrine free speech. There is simply too much history to say otherwise.
-————Do you honestly see anything about fairness doctrine in there?—————
Based on what you quoted, no. But there’s a reason why the author of the report on “the structural imbalance of talk radio” was A) installed at the FCC and B) supports net neutrality. It wasn’t to protect any free speech.
—————Do you see anything at all regarding content producers, the ones who would be the target of a fairness doctrine?-—————
The way it’s structured, no. But we aren’t dealing with standard democrats and republicans here. These are hardcore revolutionaries. Take note of the last part of the third section:
===========In promulgating rules implementing this subparagraph, the Commission shall at minimum require providers to display or provide links to the required information on an Internet website and to update such information in a timely fashion to reflect material changes in the information subject to this paragraph============
That is *EXACTLY* what Cass talked about, was requiring websites to post information. Now the bill itself states that it’s only for usage of the bill, but as I just said, these are revolutionaries. Ignore the whole of the bill and just focus in on this requirement.
That’s exactly what progressives have done with most other laws, and even the constitution itself. They have been doing it for nearly a century. To think that “well, ok, this time they’ll not omit things because of x y or z reason” is both ludicrous and outlandish.
History did not start today.
It’s all in the precedent. First, they force xyz group to display information strict to data usage. Then they can move the ball down the field a few more lines. Even the fairness doctrine had negative effects on both TV as well as FM and it was only targetted toward AM.
There’s too much progressive and marxist history on all of this; it’s all well established.
And this isn’t a finalized bill. They have been passing incomplete bills and then adding to them after the fact. Have you missed just the last two years of progressive history? That in/of itself should be enough to be convincing.
I take these revolutionaries seriously. I know they want to silence us, they openly state they want to silence us, and my posting reflects that.
That's why.