Skip to comments.The Marxist Roots of Net Neutrality
Posted on 04/27/2011 3:49:17 PM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
The net neutrality vision for government regulation of the Internet began with the work of Robert McChesney, a University of Illinois communications professor who founded the liberal lobby Free Press in 2002.
For a man with such radical views, Mr. McChesney and his Free Press group have had astonishing influence. Mr. Genachowskis press secretary at the FCC, Jen Howard, used to handle media relations at Free Press. The FCCs chief diversity officer, Mark Lloyd, co-authored a Free Press report calling for regulation of political talk radio.
Considering how openly activist the Berkman Center has been on these issues, it was an odd decision for the FCC to delegate its broadband research to this outfit. Unless, of course, the FCC already knew the answer it wanted to get.
These Marxists know what theyre doing obviously this plan has been in the works for years.
(Excerpt) Read more at lonelyconservative.com ...
The USA is so infested with Communists the roots are everywhere.
More Obama Flying Monkeys at work
Now this explains a lot! For those of you who I’m bumping, you may remember this thread:(that’s where I got many of your usernames)
No wonder the Electronic Frontier Foundation was willing to take Soros funds. Look at how cozy the activist Berkman Center is with the EFF!
One of the EFF’s advisory members even came from the open society institute.(soros’ outfit)
It all fits, it always comes back full circle. This net neutrality garbage gets dirtier and dirtier the more one digs.
It’s gonna require citizen journalists like us to fix it. See my above post regarding the electronic frontier foundation.
What's wrong with this picture?
They use dishonest terms like "diversity" and "Free Press" while doing everything they can to censor anyone whose opinions they don't like.
The kind of research that all of us can do, like I’m doing, is exactly why the progressives need net neutrality to shut us all down on the internet.
And just so it’s said, I know I’m not 100% right on all of this. Just earlier today I made a correction.
But I know I’m digging a hole in the right spot. And that’s a big problem for a power hungry government. They don’t want ANYBODY seeking the truth. They want us to be accepting of the neutrality that they want to impose.
It gets worse. Tim Wu, who is the acknowledged father of the term “net neutrality”, originally wanted it to be called “broadband discrimination”.
He states that in this loving interview with the ny slimes:
Progressivism is very regressive.
It should arouse suspicion each time the government tries to get involved with the internet. Leftists hate the fact that there’s something beyond their control. I hope the internet stays as unregulated as possible.
I will continue to oppose dishonest efforts to lump other issues with net neutrality. Either from the left so they can enact their statist policies, or from the corporate-bought so they can be free to control our freedom of speech and stifle innovation.
Now here is the book by this guy that I read a couple of years ago. I suggest it for anyone seriously studying the mindset of these people that are arrayed against freedom of human communications.
Telecommunications, mass media, and democracy: the battle for the control of US Broadcasting, 1928-1935
By Robert Waterman McChesney
Their goal was to curtail commercial broadcasting and the corresponding advertising that goes with it. Then broadcasting would be nationalized.
The nut is that with advertising the content nominally belongs to those who pay for it (private enterprise), rather than belonging to the government.
Their goal is just that simple.
It's not bad enough that Liberals are completely blind to what fools they make of themselves thinking they're so noble cutting off their own noses to spite their faces.
What's REALLY ANNOYING is their insistence on their "right" to cut everyone else's nose off as well!
For the benefit of those who wish to get a little info on that.
Pelosi: Anti-Net Neutrality Bill Isn’t Going Anywhere
Just so that you can see what I mean, when I talk about marxism in this context, it’s because the research has been done. We know they’re marxists, particularly because they’re openly saying it, in their own ways.
I’m no fan of any of these corporations, but marxist dominance is CLEARLY not the answer.
And that’s not a false choice. Read their own words.
Lawrence KS has had two providers (FreeNet has been competing with the local carrier for years now, and prices have come down, and if either blocked content, the other would likely take up those end-users who feel slighted by the change.
Capitalism and Freedom are usually the best answers... especially when government regulation and unresponsive monopolistic mega-companies are the source of the problems... but sadly, few people are talking about this third option.
In most cases, there is no ‘monopoly’. The term is used falsely anyways.
Just to be clear, there are places out there where there’s only one broadband provider, be it comcast, or verizon or whoever.
But in most of your major/semi major cities, you’ve got at least two choices. That is, the cable company competes with the telco to offer broadband. But realistically it’s more like four at a minimum. Again, major/semi major cities, most have at least two cellphone carriers for which you can get a wireless broadband connection. That makes two wireless carriers, a telco, and a cable company. Four.
But for progressives, they have bastardized the word ‘monopoly’ in this instance. You could take a city as large as........ New York, Chicago, or LA.(I dunno the exact numbers in those areas but that’s not pertinent) Let’s say there’s 3 or 5 separate broadband companies that you can get in a city that large.(Not including wireless options)
If the government isn’t involved, progressives will say that private industry has a monopoly. That’s what they did during the obamacare debate, and they’ve done it elsewhere as well. It really isn’t all that different from their bastardization of the phraze ‘civil right’.
Pretty bold comment, there.