[Halfmanhalfamazing]

———————He’s not used the term “universal service” yet, but he’s hitting all around it.——————

You must mean these two:

http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=152457

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/469751-The_Cable_Show_2011_Genachowski_Broadband_Adoption_Just_Not_Good_Enough_.php

There is a reason why JG is the FCC chairman and not Clyburn or Copps. He is slicker than they are. They are too honest about the true intent of net neutrality.

The powers that be within Obama/admin and company don’t want people seeing the truth about internet regulatory schemes until it’s too late.

[abb]

Now think back in early American history, before the Revolutionary war. Even though there was a postal system, the Founding Fathers could not trust it to convey their correspondence. They used their own trusted couriers to stay connected.

THAT’S WHY universal service is so dangerous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_of_correspondence
The Committees of Correspondence were shadow governments organized by the Patriot leaders of the Thirteen Colonies on the eve of American Revolution. They coordinated responses to Britain and shared their plans; by 1773 they had emerged as shadow governments, superseding the colonial legislature and royal officials.

[antiRepublicrat]

He didn’t hit around it, he used it. Universal service has been an issue since long before net neutrality. This is simply the old idea of telephone universal service translated to the Internet, as he talks about using the already-existing Universal Service Fund for broadband (which the telcos don’t mind, since it’s even more government money in their pockets). Unless you can find a time machine, it has absolutely no relation to net neutrality enforcement.

Feel free to discuss it, but quit mixing up the issues.