Posted on 04/04/2011 5:07:24 PM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
Tim Berners-Lee, creator of the World Wide Web, has declared that content should be free and open to all Internet users and that any variation is a violation of the principle of network neutrality. The sentiment is quite different than his explanation of net neutrality some years back.
In my paper Last-Mile Dilemma, I noted that,
"Neutrality of the Internet is rather the idea that individuals on differing systems of connectivity and differing speeds of delivery should still have the ability to communicate with each other without applications or locations on the Internet being blocked or the traffic purposefully slowed. This is what Tim Berners-Lee was describing when he said, “If I pay to connect to the Net with a certain quality of service, and you pay to connect with that or greater quality of service, then we can communicate at that level."
That seems to be a different sentiment than his new stance that the Internet should be "free" and that users should have open access to all types of content that exists on the net. The idea that the principle of net neutrality is free and open access to anything on the Internet is one more notch in the belt of an ever changing definition of what net neutrality is.
Tim Wu, the man who coined the term “Network Neutrality,” was previously the chair at Freepress, and whose favorite book is Atlas Shrugged The Master Switch, and is now a senior policy advisor at the Federal Trade Commission for consumer protection in mobile and Internet markets has recently added an addendum to his ever growing list of Internet rules as well. He recently was noted stating that the government should create “term limits” for successful technology and Internet companies. And in his comments he makes no bones about his ideology of state socialism commenting that if a “company has clearly shown that it’s corrupt” then the federal government should “just nationalize their source code.” Wu fails to explain who would be making these decisions or advocate the federal governments authority to carry out these decisions. Being a legal scholar it would seem that this would be an appropriate and rational step.
http://www.h-net.org/~business/bhcweb/publications/BEHprint/v021/p0171-p0181.pdf
First, the reformers argued that the airwaves should be regarded as a public resource and broadcasting a public utility. By this reasoning, reformers argued that turning broadcasting over to a relative handful of private broadcaster so that they could satisfy selfish goals was a scandalous misuse of a public resource.
http://www.scripps.ohiou.edu/mediahistory/mhmjour2-2.htm
THE RADIO ACT OF 1927 AS A PRODUCT OF PROGRESSIVISM
I have a different idea than they do, so by definition, I'm right.
They didn’t embrace totalitarianism.
Marxism is only one of many flavors of totalitarianism. This guy thought corporations were dangerous.
I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.The government, the people, must be supreme over the corporations. Such is the radical "Marxist" thought of Thomas Jefferson.
They’re doing it again, right now.
Is anything I’m saying not making sense to you?
To all these people who want net neutrality,(berners-lee included) the only question I have is this:
Do they know it’s marxism?
It fits right in with progressive history.
The old mode of socialism is outdated(as stuart chase wrote)
All they need is to regulate it, and they still own it.
You and I appear to be on the same page on this issue. When viewed through a historical lens, one sees this as but one more attempt by “The Man” (however you define that term) to control the flow of information.
-—————I have a different idea than they do, so by definition, I’m right.-—————
Your idea isn’t in motivation anywhere except on here or a handful of other forums.
Everywhere you look at all levels of government,(and the media, and academia too, it seems) the marxist version of net neutrality is what’s in motion. That’s what makes you wrong. They never intended on ever doing the net neutrality that they sold you on.
-————Such is the radical “Marxist” thought of Thomas Jefferson.-——————
This is idiocy. Thomas Jefferson didn’t run around with the totalitarians. He opposed them.
Tim Wu runs around with the totalitarians. He is a totalitarian.
http://www.freepress.net/node/39317
That’s him. That’s the marxist group free press.
You won’t look at Tim Wu because you don’t want to see the obvious. That’s why you keep using vapid unspecific talking points about corporations to support your groundless position.
Marxists produce marxism. Have fun arguing otherwise.
Have you been Reading up on Wu’s history?
Do you agree he’s a marxist? Or, less direct, how likely is it that the marxist group free press would bring in a free market guy?
I doubt Robert McChesney would make a home over at the heritage foundation. Just a gut check. :-)
You still seem to think Marxism is the only kind of totalitarianism. Marxism didn't even exist at the time of Jefferson, but powerful corporations certainly did, and Jefferson clearly opposed them abusing their power.
In addition, while a corporation that has gotten its power through the market can be bad, it isn't by definition bad. IMHO, one that has gotten its power through government favor is definitely very bad. This was the corporate tea monopoly opposed by our Founders, this is the cable monopolies opposed by the liks of me.
-————You still seem to think Marxism is the only kind of totalitarianism.—————
Marxism is the form of totalitarianism that came up with net neutrality, which is why you are fighting tooth and nail to not talk about Tim Wu.
Marxism is the form of totalitarianism that came up with net neutrality, so it is the primary form of totalitarianism that gets discussed in this context.
Marxists produce marxism.
You haven’t tried to argue otherwise.
This is the first honest thing you’ve done on the topic of net neutrality in a while.
It deserves to be noted.
Marxism wasn’t the type of totalitarianism that Jefferson spoke against. He did specifically write against the danger of powerful corporations though.
Marxism is the type of totalitarianism we currently face in the context of net neutrality; that’s who created net neutrality.
You can’t address it because it forces you to re-evaluate everything you’ve come to believe on the topic.
You have nothing left if you can’t be honest about the marxism.
Corporate totalitarianism is the type we currently face in the corporations wanting to eliminate the Internet's neutrality.
The Marxists in government have been talking about doing certain things relating to controlling content on the Interent too, but that is not an issue of net neutrality (since net neutrality is diametrically opposed to content controls). It's another of your strawmen.
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.