Posted on 01/15/2011 7:04:56 PM PST by Halfmanhalfamazing
But Fund had a point: The noisy campaign pushing net neutrality was a manufactured constituency -- a few leading groups orchestrating many followers into concerted action to give the illusion of a mass movement.
Funding a few zealots is easy. Getting followers is hard -- even big for-profit companies like Expedia and Hotels.com spend millions getting followers.
So, who manufactured the constituency for net neutrality? And who mobilized it?
Turn the calendar back to Feb. 10, 2007. Then-Sen. Barack Obama's presidential announcement speech said of the digital age: "Let's lay down broadband lines through the heart of inner cities and rural towns all across America."
He was making the Internet a vital part of his campaign, and his equal-access mantra recruited an early net neutrality constituency.
On June 21, 2007: John Podesta, head of the Center for American Progress, released a report co-written by Free Press that complained about conservative radio talk shows outnumbering progressive radio talk shows.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
was t, could it be.... Soros?
A group of Devil Worshipin’, Satanic Inspired, Communists..
You all might be interested in this. Before they tighten the screws on this thing, we should at least know who’s doing this to us and how far back it goes.
For those who might want to know, the term ‘net neutrality’ was originally coined by some marxist over at columbia university - Tim Wu.
Now, here’s a guy who has authored a book which goes by the title of “master switch”.
Yeah Tim. We know what kind of “neutrality” you have in mind for the rest of us irrelevant little people with you and your master switch.
Lieberman pointed out not too long ago how china has a master switch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttvuSqaxF-c
http://lonelyconservative.com/2010/06/lieberman-internet-kill-switch-a-good-idea-chinas-doing-it/
Time isn’t on our side folks. Of course, it’s all being done in the light of protecting us. But what we need right now more than anything is protection from government.
Its been floating around for a few year but I suspect Cass Sunstein is the current driver.
Edward Bernays is the man who came up with the concept of engineered consent.
Every new concept from the Marxist is ALWAYS cloaked in
some touchy-feely term like Fairness Doctrine, Equal Rights,
Dream Act, or Net Nutrality, when in fact they are always the opposite, and just more ways to gain totalitarian control, or push some agenda.
You can always count on ANY Marxist idea of something good to be just the opposite.
Yeah, being the regulatory czar you’ll never see him coming. I don’t know if you’ve heard this or not, but I try to give this to as many people as I can........
Sorry, the link is long. Anyways, this is the endgame of net neutrality regardless of any sales pitch.
And bernays......... I’ve been reading about him. What a piece of work.
I wish people would just admit there own self interest in seeing the end of net neutrality or just admit what a bunch of tools they really are.
“Turn the calendar back to Feb. 10, 2007. Then-Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential announcement speech said of the digital age: “Let’s lay down broadband lines through the heart of inner cities and rural towns all across America.”
He was making the Internet a vital part of his campaign, and his equal-access mantra recruited an early net neutrality constituency.
On June 21, 2007: John Podesta, head of the Center for American Progress, released a report co-written by Free Press that complained about conservative radio talk shows outnumbering progressive radio talk shows.
Free Press got all the attention for demanding the FCC make them equal, but the report helped one of CAP’s co-authors, senior fellow Mark Lloyd, into a job as Obama’s FCC Diversity Czar.
In November, 2007: Genachowski released the report of Obama’s Technology, Media and Telecommunications Policy Working Group, which he had been leading for months. It showed him using the Internet as an Obama constituency manufacturer and mobilizer.
His report bragged: “More than 280,000 people have created accounts on barackobama.com. These users have organically created over 6,500 grassroots volunteer groups and have organized more than 13,000 off-line events using the site.”
When Obama won on Election Day 2008, the constituency list had grown enormously, and they didn’t throw it away.
Podesta, co-leader of the Obama transition team, might want it to help fill positions in the new administration. Same with Genachowski, enlisting brain power for the transition’s Technology, Innovation, and Government Reform Group.
After Inauguration Day, both men knew what was in the constituency list and both had the expertise to mobilize it. Podesta went back to running CAP, and Genachowski became chairman of the FCC — where he created a new position for Podesta’s colleague.
It’s only a guess, but when they were ready to mobilize the foundations and activists into a phony net neutrality mass movement, it probably didn’t take more than a few phone calls.
By the way, Genachowski isn’t just Obama’s old law school buddy. He’s a digital multimillionaire who once served on the Boards of Directors of Expedia, Hotels.com and Ticketmaster.”
Uh....could be the folks losing the argument?
Cass Sunstein is our regulatory czar, the man who can implement his dream...........
Listen to his dream.
This is net neutrality. In his own words.
My interest is the same as it was with the fairness doctrine.
I don’t want people in government silencing people they disagree with. As they are saying they will do.
I listen to these revolutionaries. I take them seriously.
Do you think they are bluffing or kidding? Or have changed their minds?
Bernays was twisted to the point of quiet insanity. He and Soros are two people cut from the same inhuman cloth.
I thought net neutrality was a pretty good thing. Could someone explain why I’m wrong about this? I might be, I’m fuzzy on the specifics. I’m leaving aside the argument that more government is bad. That is true.
I’m assuming that there is regulation in this area. The FCC shouldn’t be involved, Government is bad. And I do believe that anything that Obama came up with is bad, this particular bill is likely messed up.
But from a policy perspective, net neutrality vs no net neutrality, I’d like to hear what people think is so wrong with it.
“Fairness” in concept is a wonderful thing and is universally celebrated. The problem lies in who or what decides what is and isn’t “fair.”
The same with “net neutrality.” It sounds so good in concept. But look who will be the enforcer - and we ALL know how that will turn out.
Net Neutrality is the fairness doctrine for the internet.
His words. Not mine.
The noisy campaign pushing net neutrality was a manufactured constituencyThe same is true of McCain-Feingold. The only people who really wanted it were journalists. The public didn't care.Why would journalists favor it? Why wouldn't they - it gives them rights which it denies to "common" people.
Essentially, leftists treat journalism as a religion, and journalists as priests.
I’m looking mostly for a discussion of the specifics of net neutrality. Yes, I know that most people who work for Obama are crazy / left / communist, etc.
But as I understood it, net neutrality mostly effected time warner, comcast and verizon. It basically put limits on the type of things they could do with their bandwidth. These companies are monopolies, and it’s not a new idea that monopolies should be regulated, because consumers can’t choose an alternative.
Much of what I’m reading about net neutrality here does not bear any relationship to what I’ve heard about net neutrality in the past.
And what I heard in the past about net neutrality has nothing to do, at all, with the fairness doctrine.
It seems like the cable cos, the telcos, and whoever else sells bandwidth to the consumer really wants to get conservatives on their side, and are doing so without actually discussing the particular merits of net neutrality.
If the FCC is the wrong agency to be implementing, or overseeing, net neutrality, which agency would be better suited to do net neutrality?
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.