"Net Neutrality" has been pitched by the government as an idea that is largely about assuring unfettered access to broadband Internet services. Which, um, we already have.
Unfortunately, the government didn't control that unfettered access (which is what "unfettered" means)...and so the FCC has just voted to put itself in charge and help do for the Internet what the government has previously done for jobs, healthcare, and world peace.
Of course, the government argues that they don't want to interfere with actual content on the web, or exert political influence. But that gets a bit harder to believe when you find out that the people who have been bankrolling the "net neutrality" push include such liberal whackjobs as George Soros.
And add to that the pronouncement of FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, who says "universal access to broadband needs to be seen as a civil right." Because the Founding Fathers sure as heck didn't fight and die to create a country in which people would be stuck paying for dial-up service and 56k modems with which to access their online porn.
As is the case with everything else the Obama administration has touched, "Net Neutrality" is both deceptively named, and exclusively about taking away freedom and replacing it with big government control.
Which far too many Americans seem to be neutral about.
(PS: A special Hope n' Change "thank you" to Obama's Aunt Zeituni for portraying the role of "underprivileged, taxpayer-supported, martyr who wasn't invited to go to Hawaii with the family for Christmas" in today's cartoon.)
-
-
16 comments:
OUR GOVERNMENT SEEMS TO BE SPENDING MORE AND MORE MONEY.THEY KEEP BORROWING FROM CHINA.WE ALREADY OWE THEM TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS YET OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CONTINUES TO PRINT MONE THAT WE DON'T HAVE.OUR POLITICIANS ARE ABANDONING THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.CONGRESS DOSE NOT EVEN TRY TO READ A BILL THAT THEY ARE PUSHING TO PASS.THEY DON'T THINK AMERICANS ARE SMART ENOUGH TO LISTEN TO THE CITIZENS,SO THEY WANT TO TAKE AWAY OUR RIGHT AND FREEDOM TO CHOOSE.THEY WANT TO EUTHANIZE THE ELDERLY AND SICK. THEY WANT GOVERNMENT TO CONTROL ALL.CAN ANYBODY SAY MARXISM, COMMUNISM SOCIALISM?IT HAS NEVER WORKED IN THE PAST AND IT WILL NEVER WORK IN THE FUTURE.COME ON AMERICA WAKE UP AND GET THESE LIBERAL PROGRESSIVES OUT OF OUR GOVERNMENT BEFORE IT IS TO LATE FOR US TO HAVE THAT CHOICE.WE NEED TO RETURN TO THE GODLY PRINCIPLES THAT OUR COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED ON.
Let me repeat: What government gives, government can take away. That is the underlying philosophy behind their ability to control the masses. The more they control the availability of their "gifts", the more they control the public response and clamor for those "gifts" and subsequently the public's support for the gift-givers. It's simple, effective and evil at it's core.
Pssst, Anon - don't look now, but your caps lock seems to be stuck on. Might want to fix that if you expect people to read your whole post...
Thanx, Stilt, for the P.S. at the end - I knew Aunt Z (no offense to Woody Allen)look familiar, and was pretty sure it wasn't Cynthia McKinney...
As to the concept of "universal access to Broadband" the ONLY people who do NOT have access to it, that I'm aware of, are those who live in low density environments - i.e. very rural - and it is not reasonable to string repeater switches close enough to get everyone on. You see, the signal, either over DSL or cable, will only go so far before needing to be re-amplified. In urban environments, you have thousands of people "sharing" each switch, so the cost, per month, is reasonable. In the country, where you might need three or more switches per person the cost is prohibitive. Simple, no?
Oh, wait he wasn't talking about 'access' as 'the ability to contract with the company of your choice, and purchase services'? He meant the ability to USE it free?
Go to a figg'n library - they've had 'free' internet for years. For which we ALL pay a surcharge on our phone service.
Those of us who pay for our phones, that is..
Hoosier - yes, government is inherently evil, and as needful as it is at some level, the less there is, the better we all are. Someone(s) needs to get IN there and start disassembly, in a huge way. Problem is, the bureaucrats who recognize the 'what have you done for me lately' syndrome. Maintaining the Status Quo is not enough, you need new programs, new spending, etc to justify your ongoing existence. Couple this w/ the folks who are out to grab power and control, and the misguided fools who truly believe that more gov't / services is actually a good thing, and you can see how we get to the predicament we're in. When it becomes 'fashionable' to cut spending, and the phrase becomes 'what have you CUT for me lately' then it might turn around.
Not holding my breath
I was so mad when I read about that in the news the other day...since when is having a computer and internet access an inherent human RIGHT?! That's what libraries are for!!!!!! And public transportation!!!!!! Come on....
"The FCC also can hand out favors that hurt competition. And as Lawrence Lessig, a professor at Harvard Law School, wrote in 2008, "economic growth requires innovation. Trouble is, Washington is practically designed to resist it. Built into the DNA of the most important agencies created to protect innovation, is an almost irresistible urge to protect the most powerful instead."
Even as Chairman Julius Genachowski claims that he will employ a "light touch," the FCC leaves open the possibility that it will use the Title II docket to classify broadband as a public utility -- and, as you know, nothing says progress and modernization like "utility."
The same organization that forced all consumers to buy Ma Bell-made telephones for decades, the same FCC that enforced speech codes via radio "fairness doctrines," the same FCC that took two decades after its invention to OK cellular technology for the marketplace and acted similarly sluggishly with cable and satellite innovation has no business online. It has a history of hurting consumers, not protecting them."
from RCP
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/12/22/save_the_net_abolish_the_fcc_108325.html
I live in a rural mountain area but am fortunate to be only 13000' from the CO so I can get 3mb DSL from VZ. But I have to pay a whopping $30/mth for it! Oh the horror, the horror. Does this new "right" mean that VZ will lay FIOS to my house?
TheOldMan- Absolutely! DSL is "back of the bus" service, and like Rosa Parks you shouldn't accept it.
Can anyone say "GOVERNMENT CENSORSHIP" of free speech once the FCC gets their sticky fingers on the internet? Make it free and then you control the use and content.
Would everyone raise holy hell if Joseph Stalin suddenly rose from his grave to take the helm of this country? Or would there be some that would docily fall in line? Folks, I believe that is where we are at this point in history.
This guy in the White House will do WHATEVER he is allowed to get away with! He is already patting himself on the back for all the accomplishments of his administration! Does not this move concerning the internet go right along with his agenda? There have always been those who want to ruin this country (why, I dont know!), and Obama is their man for the time being!
The glow from the recent election is beginning to fade for real Americans I fear.
TheOldMan - $30.00 for internet? Do you know how many lottery tickets, boxes of wine, 40 oz's or bottles of Cold Duck that could buy for? No wonder the poor don't have internet, One shouldn't have to choose between drugs, gambling and internet porn! I think that is written on the back of the Constitution.
I'm "stuck" with dialup because I live out in the sticks. THAT's my civil right. Internet? Pshh!
I was a teacher in South Dallas. As school started one year -- the first day had gradually crept further and further back into August -- I pointed out that at least SCHOOL was air conditioned. Well the room exploded . The kids realized that I did not have air conditioning. ONLY I. THEY, of course, all WERE air conditioned either because they lived in the projects or under one or another special program to help the poor (read : "black") pay their electric bills. They all told me I had to move into the projects, or -- when I explained I wasn't eligible -- get divorced and have my wife move in. "You can move right back with her Mr. B. Just say you her boy friend. They can't ask you to prove y who you are." They knew all my "rights". It's been 13 years since I taught that class so those kids are now driving THEIR children to the various stadiums and other sports temples to hear a quick sermonette about Rosa Parks, President Obama and then pick up the latest x-boxers, I-pads, cell phones and official sneakers jerseys and starter jackets that my my children and grandchildren will only see on Television unless they are lucky enough to pick some one of the coats out of the trash next spring. When the weather warms up, of course, the kids threw them away. The black teachers laughed at us when we asked if we could take them. No, they were gathered up for the South Dallas Churches to "resell and raise money for the poor n other words, buy another Lincoln for Paster Bigbottom. Then they put on their "cheese clothes" and went off to pick up their monthly food assistance in their Vipers and Jaguars. Lest you think I'm making this up, check with Ron Price, . He couldn't "teach" because that would make him ineliible to be a school board member so he worked at some other position and was paid, I believe, as a subsititute. The Lady who taught "talented and gifted" at that school I saw (or I saw her exact twin I swear) on an FBI poster as a terrorist, but when I called them their lack of interest was stunning even over the phone. And she was WHITE ! Go Figger.
Anonymous- Two comments: "wow" and "thank you for sharing." Everything you're saying here is consistent with what I've heard from multiple sources about the Dallas school system.
My wife made a good point to me yesterday while we were discussing the day's Hope n' Change topic. If having intenet and broadband is a civil right, then why didn't we all get free tv's when we were growing up in the 50's and 60's? Shouldn't having a tv been just as much a civil right as having a computer and internet access?
Net neutrality is supposed to be about message priority. In other words, if Bob and Ned both send a message at the same time, Ned can pay more money to have his message sent before Bob's (as long as Bob doesn't do the same). It's like priority mail shipping to get your package to it's location faster. The implications of charging people for priority instead of making all messages equal can be fairly drastic. The same kind of law was passed for telephone lines. The bill might have had some kind of internet access for the poor built into it (I am unaware if it has been), but that is not what net neutrality is about. Instead of paying for total bandwidth in the current system, you would have to pay for priority as well. Lower priority means much higher latency even if you have a high bandwidth. However, those who want or need a very low latency, will be able to pay for it. The problem that net neutrality is supposed to fix is more so net traffic between companies than for the general consumers. However, the consumers could be affected by how easily they can access company websites hosted by different ISPs.
Post a Comment