But I agree with you, and your sources in your links, the the precedent is troubling: if the FCC, without any authority in the law, can impose regulation on the ISPs with respect to barring preferential treatment in transmission speed, then that precedent could be used in the future to impose a "Fairness Doctrine" on Internet content.
We need to be clear in our arguments, and not say things are in the regs that are not really there, because doing so makes us look stupid when the libs point out that we haven't read the actual regulations.
I too am curious about the issue and what may be perceived as alarmist hyperbole.
What most concerns me is that this is going to happen because of ONE SINGLE VOTE in the FCC commission.
Take a listen to what Rush had to say about Net Neutrality:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_ZVEAqheAc&feature=player_embedded
As far as what you typed, there really are only three words that stand out far, far above the rest.
----------the Net Neutrality regulations, , have nothing to do with any "Fairness Doctrine"-like suppression of politically-incorrect...........---------------
Thinking about Net Neutrality in terms of the fairness doctrine, IMHO based on all that I've seen regarding the marxists behind all of this, you are really doing yourself a disservice in thinking about it that way. To me, it's about modeling after China. Joe Lieberman has talked about a kill switch for the internet. FCC chairman Clyburn stated "openly" that she wants them to be able to control all the internet's on/off switches. To me, Net Neutrality would be more accurately described as Net Chinality. From their point of view, from the marxists' point of view, that's what they want.
To directly answer your question, no, the current proposed regulations don't really do much of anything. But anybody who says that the current regulations as they're currently written is how they'll be until the end of time is fooling themselves. I've made this comment in the past, that what I'm more worried about is the second generation neutrality, or fifth generation neutrality, or whenevethat this is as far as they're trying to go, that this is itr they get to it rules.
These people call themselves "progressives" because of how they do things is by "making progress". James Madison said:
I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations
And I would very much argue that this is Net Neutrality, circa 1788. Congress told the FCC no. The judges told the FCC no. Yet they usurped it anyways. It wasn't a violent usurpation, but it was indeed sudden. Why? So they could simply give us a bland set of regulations? There are very few people foolish enough to believe they'd go through with a usurpation like this if they didn't have a devious agenda ahead of them. There are more regulations, worse regulations, yet to come.
----------We need to be clear in our arguments, and not say things are in the regs that are not really there, because doing so makes us look stupid when the libs point out that we haven't read the actual regulations--------------
To hell with the libs! The libs lie. See post 1, Obama-Reuters couldn't even be honest with people about the fact that Free Press is loaded with marxists, and that these groups are Soros funded. They cloaked them in the neutering garb of "consumer activists" and whatnot. The libs will say McChesney's not involved, he's over at Free Press, even though he's been fighting for net neutrality since before it even had a name!
You really think they're gonna be honest about their true intentions for the internet? For the most part, they never will. But behind closed doors, they'll give you enough information to where you cannot have any doubts.
FCC Colluded with Soros Leftist Organization to Regulate Internet(Free Press)
FCC Chairwoman Clyburn attended a Free Press event
Elmo, Internet Czar & FCC Work to Redistribute Wealth With Free Broadband
FCC wants to regulate internet on/off ramps
The Marxist Roots of Net Neutrality
Tim Wu: The Man Who is Destroying the Tech Industry(Tim Wu is the father of Net Neutrality, it was he who named the baby He says this:)
"Well, this company has clearly shown it's corrupt. ... So let's just nationalize their source code."
Does that sound like a marxist to you?
Media Capitalism, the State and 21st Century Media Democracy Struggles(An interview with McChesney in a socialist rag He says this:)
"But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control"
With this big of a mountain of evidence, as well as their own words, this isn't a conspiracy theory. It's an agenda, that they are very much moving forward with.