Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The FCC cited 'Free Press' marxists 53 times when it usurped the internet (net neutrality)
FCC.gov ^ | December 21st, 2010 | FCC document

Posted on 05/02/2011 11:12:53 AM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing

The direct link to the FCC's website is above.

A searchable version can be found at scribd:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/45847960/FCC-10-201A1

Now, December 21 is the day that the FCC assaulted the internet by imposing net neutrality - after congress rejected it - after the courts rejected it.

And they did it anyways. Now, people think I'm making it up, or exaggerating, or any number of other things when I talk about marxism in context of net neutrality. Ok.

Here it is, the day net neutrality became "law"(regulation) - and the "free press" marxists were referenced over and over and over again.


TOPICS: Computers/Internet; Reference
KEYWORDS: fcc; internet; netneutrality; powergrab
As I searched the document with scribd, it actually listed 54 results, but it appears as though only 53 are highlighted.

Dunno what that's about.

1 posted on 05/02/2011 11:13:00 AM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SengirV; Teacher317; BobL; SunkenCiv; ShadowAce; abb; antiRepublicrat

I’d appreciate some additional eyes on this. Is there something I’m missing here?


2 posted on 05/02/2011 11:14:14 AM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing ( Net Neutrality - I say a lot of unneutral things.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing

Big picture, looking at the forest. Never, ever in recorded history since the dawn of man has any government or “ruling authority” - be it King, Prime Minister or Potentate - tried to PROMOTE unfettered human communications.

Instead they have always, ALWAYS tried to control and monitor speech. From Pope Leo X’s excommunication of Martin Luther in 1520, to the English Licensing of the Press act of 1662, to the Stamp Act of 1765 (only “official” paper could be used to write upon), CONTROL is what they always want.

And, now, after thousands of years of the human race, we are told to believe that Barak Obama’s FCC is different and they intend to PROMOTE uncontrolled speech via “net neutrality.”

I don’t think so.


3 posted on 05/02/2011 11:38:34 AM PDT by abb ("What ISN'T in the news is often more important than what IS." Ed Biersmith, 1942 -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rdb3; Calvinist_Dark_Lord; GodGunsandGuts; CyberCowboy777; Salo; Bobsat; JosephW; ...

4 posted on 05/02/2011 11:45:47 AM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing

bttt


5 posted on 05/02/2011 12:02:50 PM PDT by BenLurkin (This post is not a statement of fact. It is merely a personal opinion -- or humor -- or both)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: abb
And, now, after thousands of years of the human race, we are told to believe that Barak Obama’s FCC is different and they intend to PROMOTE uncontrolled speech via “net neutrality.”

The government has already worked to control and monitor communications on the Internet by various other well-known and publicized means, such as the DMCA and CALEA. It doesn't need net neutrality to do it. It's absurd to warn me of a camel's nose under the tent when we're sitting on the camels that are already in the tent.

But if you want to be really cynical, you can say the government doesn't like competition. The telcos restricting communications is competition.

The FCC under Bush did promote some common-sense rules about net neutrality. Basically, consumers are entitled to:

Nothing Marxist in that, yet the very idea was strongly opposed by the telcos, their astroturfers and their paid politicians and think tanks. All of that ensures the continuation of the healthy Internet economy we've enjoyed over the last decade+.

The telcos don't want that, they want profit at the expense of the Internet economy by throwing up needless toll booths. And they're willing to get in bed with politicians to ensure their profit. Sounds like the bad guys in Atlas Shrugged, doesn't it?

6 posted on 05/02/2011 12:52:56 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: abb
"net neutrality" free speech

"net neutrality" = Orwellian doublespeak

7 posted on 05/02/2011 1:10:06 PM PDT by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing; AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; ColdOne; ...

Thanks Halfmanhalfamazing.


8 posted on 05/02/2011 5:46:59 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Thanks Cincinna for this link -- http://www.friendsofitamar.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

The nail in the coffin. Not ‘the camel’s nose’.

Marxism is almost always the nail in the coffin. Look it up. I’d provide you with some names of some nations, but I’m sure you’re well versed there.

Let me put it to you this way. Perhaps this will help bridge a gap that we’ve had since day one on net neutrality.

There are already regulations in place that have a handful of basic functions; informational regulations and what not. To put it simply, “net neutrality”(the one we’ve been sold on) already exists, has for a long time.

What these marxists are proposing is social regulations. Controls. Read free press, they don’t hide it behind a thin veneer.

They want to leave their current standing as referee of the game and take over every position on the field, so they can pick winners and losers.


9 posted on 05/03/2011 4:23:24 AM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing ( Net Neutrality - I say a lot of unneutral things.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing
The nail in the coffin. Not ‘the camel’s nose’.

No, I keep hearing the camel's nose metaphor. IIRC, even you have mentioned it.

There are already regulations in place that have a handful of basic functions; informational regulations and what not. To put it simply, “net neutrality”(the one we’ve been sold on) already exists, has for a long time.

I'm with you there, but I want to keep it existing.

What these marxists are proposing is social regulations.

Correct there too. Thus, what they are proposing is not net neutrality.

Remember, early on the likes of Wu weren't even on the radar for the telcos, they were pushing against the likes of Microsoft and Google who rely on net neutrality for their profits. There were literally statements to the effect of "Why should they make so much money over our lines?" It was business vs. business, and the Microsoft camp's interest happened to align with the interest of freedom for the users. Then the telcos through astroturfing and lobbying made it a left/right issue, and the socialists jumped in on the other side, adding their wish lists. Most of what they talk about has zero logical relation to net neutrality.

10 posted on 05/03/2011 6:05:22 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil

“net neutrality” = the historical state of the Internet


11 posted on 05/03/2011 6:07:30 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

-—————No, I keep hearing the camel’s nose metaphor. IIRC, even you have mentioned it.——————

I probably have. But at this point, alice isn’t falling anymore.

She’s at the bottom of the hole looking up. Look at how much I’ve dug up about this, and I really didn’t even have to go very far.

You could’ve done this too, had you had any interest in protecting yourself.

I’ll put it to you this way, (if) when I used the camel metaphor, I was wrong. It’s way worse than I thought.

————I’m with you there, but I want to keep it existing.-—————

Trusting marxists and thinking you’ll get to keep it isn’t wise.

-———Remember, early on the likes of Wu weren’t even on the radar for the telcos—————

Doesn’t matter. He isn’t on their radar now either, that I’ve seen. And even if he is, they aren’t pointing out his marxism. That doesn’t fit into telco jargon.

-————There were literally statements to the effect of “Why should they make so much money over our lines?”——————

That’s my big problem with the telcos. You own the lines, but you don’t own the information in it.


12 posted on 05/03/2011 8:23:58 AM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing ( Net Neutrality - I say a lot of unneutral things.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat; Texas Fossil

-————Correct there too. Thus, what they are proposing is not net neutrality.-—————

Which is what I’ve been trying to explain to you all along.

They never had any intention on giving you that version of net neutrality, the one they tried selling us all on. In the background, they even preferred to call it “broadband discrimination” - that should tell you something.

Look at the FCC’s own documentation. They cited Free Press 53 times. Did you even look at the document?

-————“net neutrality” = the historical state of the Internet-——————

“marxism” is the future state of the internet, sold under the banner of “neutrality” - proven with the FCC’s own documents.

Orwell was an optimist.


13 posted on 05/03/2011 8:30:48 AM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing ( Net Neutrality - I say a lot of unneutral things.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing
That’s my big problem with the telcos. You own the lines, but you don’t own the information in it.

The point here is that they want to, and their attempts to do so must be stopped.

I still think that if those on the right had embraced the net neutrality issue uncorrupted in the beginning instead of following the telco-paid politicians and think tanks, we could have prevented the takeover of the issue by the leftists. Now look what we have, leftists pushing their whole agenda from one side, the telcos pushing theirs from the other, and few people actually looking out for net neutrality anymore.

14 posted on 05/03/2011 8:50:46 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

-————The point here is that they want to, and their attempts to do so must be stopped.——————

And you see marxism as the solution?

-——————I still think that if those on the right had embraced the net neutrality issue uncorrupted in the beginning-—————

You can’t point to such a beginning.

Do you really thing that Wu wasn’t always a marxist? That he came to be a big government ‘let’s nationalize their code’ guy later on?

And there really is an argument to make that net neutrality went just before Wu, that it came from free press themselves.

FP created the idea, Wu created the catch phraze. The media did it’s diffusion tactics, to make it seem as if there really was a golden encrusted net neutrality that could be trusted. But there never was.

-————and few people actually looking out for net neutrality anymore.——————

All evidence points to this never being the case. It was always a farce. The media made it look good for a time, which is the only “era of purity” that could at best/realistically be pointed to.


15 posted on 05/03/2011 9:00:23 AM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing ( Net Neutrality - I say a lot of unneutral things.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing
BTW, about your title, 53 sounds bad. How about some context? There are at least 800 footnotes in that document. As a major player in the issue, at least according to you, they got less than 7% of the references. I noticed Google was in about 70 footnotes.

And you see marxism as the solution?

No, I see market pressure as the best solution. Absent that succeeding, the least possible regulation is the solution.

And there really is an argument to make that net neutrality went just before Wu, that it came from free press themselves.

The concept began in the 1800s with telegraphs, they were required to not discriminate in sending traffic. Later the concept was in the phone system, which was required to not discriminate between lawful traffic. Then the Internet was invented (remember, by government contract), and it operated and flourished by the same concept.

You want to make this us vs. the Marxists. In reality the primary competition is everyone vs. the telcos. These Marxists are a separate issue, feel free to pursue them. When they try to silence our voices on the Internet, actually doing it with no tin foil required, then I'll be there with you. The telcos are probably loving that the Marxists took up this banner. Now with everybody screaming against the Marxists they can do whatever they want. They automatically have the support of the "corporations good, government bad" idiots on the right.

And now back to reality, let's check out the actual rules made by the FCC:

Transparency. A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service shall publicly disclose accurate information regarding the network management practices, performance, and commercial terms of its broadband Internet access services sufficient for consumers to make informed choices regarding use of such services and for content, application, service, and device providers to develop, market, and maintain Internet offerings.
This isn't actually net neutrality, however it is a basic consumer protection rule that promotes net neutrality. It promotes competition by making ISPs actually tell customers what they're paying for (what a concept).
No blocking. A person engaged in the provision of fixed broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management. A person engaged in the provision of mobile broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block consumers from accessing lawful websites, subject to reasonable network management; nor shall such person block applications that compete with the provider’s voice or video telephony services, subject to reasonable network management.
They don't get to block what I do on the network access I paid for. Is that Marxist?
No unreasonable discrimination. A person engaged in the provision of fixed broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic over a consumer’s broadband Internet access service. Reasonable network management shall not constitute unreasonable discrimination.
Same as above, but more about interfering with what I do with my paid Internet access.

This is what you're against, protecting consumers from the telcos abusing their position as the gatekeepers to the Internet.

16 posted on 05/03/2011 10:39:39 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

-——————As a major player in the issue, at least according to you, they got less than 7% of the references. I noticed Google was in about 70 footnotes.——————

Google doesn’t show up in the document. But even if they did, it’s not a secret how progressives and marxists collude. Google is a progressive company, and is well known for it’s censorship.(particularly of conservatives)

How do you really think this helps your argument?

-————You want to make this us vs. the Marxists.—————

Not really.

The marxists are making it about them vs us.

They’ve been at this since 2002. So you tell me who started this?

I’m playing catch up. This was started nearly a decade ago.

So it doesn’t matter if I think it’s us vs them, they’re clearly making it about them vs us.

Are you going to finally start defending yourself?

————The concept began in the 1800s-————

The communist manifesto was written in 1848.

-————They don’t get to block what I do on the network access I paid for. Is that Marxist?———————

The question is irrelevant and misleading. It assumes the marxists are done.

They aren’t. That’s not how this works. In their own words they aren’t done. Anybody who is willing to pick up a history book would know this. Or, just listen to them. They’ll tell you. All you have to do is take them at their word, which you clearly think they’re playing games.


17 posted on 05/04/2011 7:27:59 AM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing ( Net Neutrality - I say a lot of unneutral things.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

-————They don’t get to block what I do on the network access I paid for. Is that Marxist?——————

Yes. I can answer that with a 100% because of this:

http://www.freepress.net/policy/internet/net_neutrality

==========What’s Network Neutrality?

Network Neutrality, or Net Neutrality for short, is the fundamental principle that preserves the free and open Internet.

Net Neutrality means that Internet service providers may not discriminate between different kinds of content and applications online. It guarantees a level playing field for all Web sites and Internet technologies.

Net Neutrality has always been part of the Internet. In fact, it’s because of Net Neutrality that the Internet has driven economic innovation, democratic participation and free speech online. Net Neutrality protects the consumer’s right to use any equipment, content, application or service without interference from the network provider.=============

Wow! Look at that! Sounds so nice. Who could be against that?

See, here’s the thing. For public consumption, and as groundwork, they aren’t going to tell the truth.

It’s fluff. It’s nonsense. Look at the people. Look at them. Look at their end goal - the end goal is what’s important to them, and that’s what’s important to me to defend myself against.

They’re marxists, we know they’ll silence us. There isn’t very many people who will argue with that.

Except you.

-————This is what you’re against, protecting consumers from the telcos abusing their position as the gatekeepers to the Internet.-—————

I’m against the fluff, that’s all this is. And that’s easily provable. Watch:

http://biggovernment.com/smotley/2011/04/27/leftists-dont-form-public-interest-groupsthey-form-government-interest-groups/

===========Yet Free Press was apoplectic with the FCC’s aforementioned Internet power grab – which they decried as lacking enough government lording over the wireless Web.

So they relentlessly, ceaselessly, constantly, abhorrently, insufferably, unbearably, intolerably (you get the idea) banged the drum.

And on April 7 the FCC again did their bidding – illegally voting themselves into the wireless data (read: Internet) over-lording business.=============

You are losing your freedom, antirepublicrat. I am losing my freedom.

Marxists are driving this debate.

It’s time to wake up. All you have to do is look at them. It’s not hard.


18 posted on 05/04/2011 7:43:42 AM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing ( Net Neutrality - I say a lot of unneutral things.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing
Yes. I can answer that with a 100% because of this:

No you can't, because you are no longer talking about the actual rules. You are talking tin-foil hat, you are talking about other future possibilities, not these rules.

It’s time to wake up. All you have to do is look at them. It’s not hard.

I've woken up, I know the Marxists are dangerous. You need to stop defending the other people who want to take our freedom -- the telco corporations.

19 posted on 05/04/2011 7:54:48 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing
Google doesn’t show up in the document. But even if they did, it’s not a secret how progressives and marxists collude. Google is a progressive company, and is well known for it’s censorship.(particularly of conservatives)

Google shows up much more than 70 times, but I only listed the fact that Google is in about 70 of the footnotes. Google is in this not because of any progressive ideals. The telcos want to leach off of Google's profit stream. As a business, Google wants to protect those profits. As a publicly traded company, Google's officers have a duty to protect those profits. It's not just Google, pretty much all of the content producing companies are in this against the telcos.

THAT is the source of the current problem. The telcos saw all this profit being made over their lines, and they wanted a piece of it. The Marxists stepping in later is what they always do, latch onto an issue for their own gain. In this case they were able to more easily frame it they way they wanted because corporate whores on the right opposed any effort to stop the telcos. The conservatives are against it, so it must be the right thing to do.

The communist manifesto was written in 1848.

And the price of tea in China is currently ... who gives a damn?

20 posted on 05/04/2011 7:59:59 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

————No you can’t, because you are no longer talking about the actual rules. You are talking tin-foil hat—————

The actual rules aren’t even finalized yet. Besides, the marxists don’t care about the rules.

Why should I?

They’re pressing forward, they’re not done yet. That’s not tin foil. That’s common sense.

————You need to stop defending the other people who want to take our freedom — the telco corporations.—————

Not once have I defended any telco. Pointing out marxist dominance isn’t a defence of any telco.


21 posted on 05/04/2011 9:04:32 AM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing ( Net Neutrality - I say a lot of unneutral things.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

——————Google is in this not because of any progressive ideals-——————

Then you’re clueless about google. Progressives are progressive first. Tell me about newspapers. Tell me about the networks.

-————The telcos want to leach off of Google’s profit stream. As a business, Google wants to protect those profits.——————

Describe Google’s profits in the context of the egypt protests.

Describe Google’s profits in the context of it’s censorship.

-—————As a publicly traded company, Google’s officers have a duty to protect those profits.-————

Too much doesn’t fit.

-————The Marxists stepping in later—————

You can’t prove this. All the evidence points to the entire net neutrality debate being started by marxists, since day one.

You have everything backward. The marxists stepped in first, telcos and conservatives are both on defense. Particularly with the conservatives, because in some ways the telcos are falling in line with the marxist goals. So as conservatives, we have to watch both groups.

————The communist manifesto was written in 1848.

And the price of tea in China is currently ... who gives a damn?——————

Between Free Press and Tim Wu, and a host of other astroturf groups, I was confirming what you stated. It does indeed go back to the 1800’s. 1848 to be exact.


22 posted on 05/04/2011 9:11:55 AM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing ( Net Neutrality - I say a lot of unneutral things.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]



Hey, look at that!
A whole bunch of people coming
To support Free Republic
Cool!


Sponsoring FReepers leapfrog0202 and another person will contribute $10
Each time a new monthly donor signs up!
Get more bang for your buck
Sign up today

Save Lazamataz

23 posted on 05/04/2011 9:31:59 AM PDT by TheOldLady (Almost as evil as the Freeper Criminal Mastermind)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing
Then you’re clueless about google. Progressives are progressive first. Tell me about newspapers. Tell me about the networks.

Google is a business first. It has a product that is being threatened by other companies, it will fight. Newspapers and networks make their money off of being liberal. Google also takes very good advantage of various overseas tax shelters. If they were liberal first, they'd pay the money to the IRS.

Describe Google’s profits in the context of it’s censorship.

I don't know about the protests, but that's an easy one. Google saw the potential of massive profit in China, and was willing to censor in order to have access to that market.

You can’t prove this. All the evidence points to the entire net neutrality debate being started by marxists, since day one.

You said this started in 2002 with the Free Press, which isn't right since they jumped on the net neutrality bandwagon later. So we'll go with the Wu paper in 2003. Interference in lawful traffic began before that. In a 2002 letter to the FCC, Comcast said it had stopped blocking VPN traffic (meaning obviously the practice existed before that). As of 2001, AT&T Broadband defined home networking as "theft of services," and disallowed the use of WiFi. These and many more generated a flood of consumer complaints, creating the very beginning of the debate over net neutrality.

You making your decisions on ad hominem is getting old. To be consistent, if Wu came out against abortion you'd need to turn pro-choice. He's liberal, so any argument he has must be wrong. OTOH, the Christian Coalition and the Gun Owners of America (both vocal fairness doctrine opponents) are on the side of net neutrality, so that sort of puts you in a philosophical bind.

24 posted on 05/04/2011 10:21:28 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

—————Google is a business first.——————

Like any other progressive/organization, they are progressive first.

—————Newspapers and networks make their money off of being liberal.—————

Yet they’re losing money hand over fist in refusal to respond to their customers. It’s only one of a handful of businesses where the customer is wrong. So wrong in fact, that they’ll impugn you for questioning them.

——————Google also takes very good advantage of various overseas tax shelters. If they were liberal first, they’d pay the money to the IRS.-——————

This is something common amongst leftists. Kerry parks his boat in Rhode Island. The Kennedys and Clintons are famous for their shelters. And then there’s Charlie Rangel. They talk a good game about compassion, but the real reason for foundations is for sheltering. Just because we’re talking about a company, the motivation isn’t any different - though, it’s easy to misread corporate actions and simply brush them aside as coincedences.

————I don’t know about the protests, but that’s an easy one. Google saw the potential of massive profit in China, and was willing to censor in order to have access to that market.-——————

The protests are obvious. It helped the obama/soros agenda to foment in egypt/broader middle east. It’s not a coincedence that Soros ends up in all of this. Not because I put him there. Because he put himself there. His influence has been tracked.

And with regard to censorship, it was largely, if not only conservatives who were being censored. Browse FR’s own archives.

We’ve reached a time in world history that “follow the money” has taken a back seat to a new paradigm: “Follow the ideology”. Following the money will only leave you scratching your head. If you follow the ideology, every puzzle piece fits.

—————You said this started in 2002 with the Free Press, which isn’t right since they jumped on the net neutrality bandwagon later.——————

I must say you are correct about that. I went back and re-read some of what’s been posted. Net Neutrality started with Wu, not Free Press. I should’ve typed 2003. In 2002/03/04, Free Press along with other astroturf groups were fomenting some of the very things that caused many of the problems you now find objectionable.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703886904576031512110086694.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop=#articleTabs%3Darticle

You should take the time to read this more carefully. It’s quite remarkable how they crusade to be the solution to the very problem they’ve helped to create. Err, excuse me. They crusade to make government the solution to the problem.

-————So we’ll go with the Wu paper in 2003. Interference in lawful traffic began before that. In a 2002 letter to the FCC, Comcast said it had stopped blocking VPN traffic (meaning obviously the practice existed before that).-——————

Yeah. No defense of the telcos here. But note their over reaches. I list four of them below.

-——————You making your decisions on ad hominem is getting old. To be consistent, if Wu came out against abortion you’d need to turn pro-choice.-—————

Not really. I’m not basing my objection upon the man(or one group) solely, per se. I’m basing it upon their stated goals going forward.

These people didn’t stop with “stop the telcos”. They’ve continued on with “force popups for news websites” and “let’s nationalize source code” and “separation principle” and “let’s increase governmental interference into news media”. I’ll explain:

1: Forced popups is easy. Net Neutrality Doctrine.
2: Let’s nationalize source code. that’s one proposed way to give net neutrality teeth; for corporations who step out of line.(Wu said this)
3: Separation principle. Wu’s book master switch. Government has no right to tell companies when and where and what products they can or cannot sell. It’s all unconstitutional
4: Increasing governmental(they say public) media. Can you say NPR? I don’t think I need to explain this further.

The thing is this, these astroturf groups don’t always act as sole net neutrality groups. They’re “media reform” groups, selling “media reform” as a whole package. The politicians would say “comprehensive”. See:

http://biggovernment.com/smotley/2011/04/27/leftists-dont-form-public-interest-groupsthey-form-government-interest-groups/

—————OTOH, the Christian Coalition and the Gun Owners of America (both vocal fairness doctrine opponents) are on the side of net neutrality, so that sort of puts you in a philosophical bind.—————

Not at all. They are wrong.

But I’d bet if they did more research, many of them(or the people in their groups) would not be willing to be blind to the obvious. Watch:

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/99114-Gun_Owners_Make_Neutrality_Case_To_Conservatives.php
http://techrepublican.com/blog/the-conservative-argument-for-net-neutrality
http://www.freepress.net/policy/internet/net_neutrality

They are using the same platitudes. The Christian Coalition hasn’t done it’s homework. Neither has the gun owners association. Though granted, those are old articles. But it’s from their own websites.


25 posted on 05/04/2011 3:10:43 PM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing ( Net Neutrality - I say a lot of unneutral things.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing
They’re “media reform” groups, selling “media reform” as a whole package.

You wrote it, now read it. These are "media reform" groups. These are not net neutrality groups, although net neutrality is one small part of their platform.

Not at all. They are wrong.

No, they are right. They don't want their costs going up, their ability to reach the public hindered, due to the greed of the telcos. It's that simple.

26 posted on 05/04/2011 7:10:54 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

-————You wrote it, now read it. These are “media reform” groups.——————

You seem to think that you’ve stumbled into some sort of silver bullet. All you’re doing is putting a flashing red light on how unwilling you are to critically look at all this.

Marxists clearly don’t threaten you. I threaten you.

I’ll put it like this. The critical analysis you’ve just done, should’ve been aimed at the FCC, or Tim Wu, or Google, or any of these other progressive/marxist groups who are targetting all of us; both of us. You. Me.

————These are not net neutrality groups—————

Yes, they are. Net neutrality is one of many major points of attack for them. Major. Not minor. Free Press is just as much a net neutrality astroturf group as NPR is.(in their own ways)

What matters is that THEY consider it to be that way. They make it clear with their own words.

-————No, they are right. They don’t want their costs going up, their ability to reach the public hindered, due to the greed of the telcos. It’s that simple.-—————

They are incorrect. Nobody who knows history would ever assume that marxists will keep their costs from going up or keep their ability to reach the public unhindered.

Even you won’t make that assertion.


27 posted on 05/06/2011 7:13:56 AM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing ( Net Neutrality - I say a lot of unneutral things.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

-—————As a major player in the issue, at least according to you, they got less than 7% of the references. I noticed Google was in about 70 footnotes.-—————

Your last post got me thinking about something. Three questions, the first two of which are wholly irrelevant.

1: What does antirepublicrat think about net neutrality?
2: What does halfa think about net neutrality?
3: What does the FCC think about net neutrality?

They make it clear what they think about it by who they listen to. And this is the key:

Who *doesn’t* the FCC listen to?

I don’t know of any freeper who will assert that google stands for liberty. Same with Free Press, Soros, and all these other groups claiming to be net neutrality whatever groups.

I searched the document. I didn’t see the heritage foundation. I searched for a few others, but their names are irrelevant. The point isn’t to name specific names per say.

Go ahead, think of some groups you think to be trust worthy, are they there? Is the FCC listening to them with any gravity?

Is the FCC relying on people and groups who stand for freedom?
Or is the FCC predominantly relying on telco influence? If so, is said telco interested in becoming a law supported monopoly?(comcast seems to want this)
Is the FCC relying on marxist/progressive influence?

You said that Google appeared 70 times. 70 + 53 is 123. Isn’t that over 10% of the time that the FCC is working with organizations who don’t stand for freedom?

When you look at who they don’t listen to, what they put the most weight into, What does all this tell you?

You’ll understand my position on net neutrality once you shift your starting point from your own position, and move it to their starting point; their position. The FCC is starting from a very dangerous position.


28 posted on 05/06/2011 7:33:43 AM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing ( Net Neutrality - I say a lot of unneutral things.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing
You said that Google appeared 70 times. 70 + 53 is 123. Isn’t that over 10% of the time that the FCC is working with organizations who don’t stand for freedom?

You have a faulty basis from the beginning. Google stands on the side of freedom. It's not because Google necessarily wants freedom, but freedom aligns with Google's own needs for an open internet.

29 posted on 05/10/2011 4:51:40 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
-----------You have a faulty basis from the beginning----------

No, I don't. I'm willing to look at Google for what they really are.

Google‘s ’Totalitarian’ Methods Should Worry You

I can accept Google for what they are. A bunch of progressives. It's you who can't let that invade your thoughts, otherwise you'd have to re evaluate your insane support for net neutrality.

------------Google stands on the side of freedom.----------

There's no proof of that. Google sided with the marxists who helped organize in Egypt, and when Google only censored anti marxist websites IIRC.

30 posted on 05/11/2011 7:37:44 AM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing ( Net Neutrality - What's the biggest threat to the leftist media's old order?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing
No, I don't. I'm willing to look at Google for what they really are.

And they did it all for -- profit. Scanning user emails? To better sell ads. Profit, pure and simple. That is the same motive for them supporting net neutrality. They're still a company, they're going to keep their profit streams open. That requires net neutrality.

31 posted on 05/11/2011 5:41:36 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

————And they did it all for — profit.-————

Not even close. You picked one out of quite a few examples.

There was no profit in it for Google to censor conservative websites.(an example I didn’t see in the article, but is well chronicled here on FR - and you’ve repeatedly ignored me bringing that up multiple times)

There was no profit in it for Google to help with the egypt uprisings.

They did both of those for their ideologies.

In all instances, they did it for ideology. That they profited is icing on the ideological cake. If you follow the money, the puzzle is murky. If you follow the ideology, all the puzzle pieces fit.

Look at how friendly they are with the Obama regime.

Heck, the entire technology sector is largely progressive.

—————That is the same motive for them supporting net neutrality.——————

On the surface. The details tell a quite different story. They are hoping to become one of a handful of government supported monopolies.

All the signs are there. This isn’t a standard run of the mill profit seeking corporation. They’re a part of the ruling class.


32 posted on 05/11/2011 5:53:36 PM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing ( Net Neutrality - What's the biggest threat to the leftist media's old order?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing
You picked one out of quite a few examples.

It's the example that fits this case. Unless you are absolutely blinded by side issues, it is obscenely obvious to all but the idiotic that this is about profit. The telcos threaten it, Google wants to retain it.

They are hoping to become one of a handful of government supported monopolies.

As opposed to the telcos, which are already government supported monopolies in many areas.

33 posted on 05/11/2011 8:05:05 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

-—————It’s the example that fits this case.—————

All of the examples fit the case.

You don’t paint a colorful painting/scene with one color where multiples are relevant and important.

Google’s censorship in china, is clearly red. Google’s censorship here in the states is another color. Their other thing is another color. Their..... what did that guy list, 6 things? That’s 6 colors.

Now you have an ugly painting of google to look at. These colors don’t separate. This is google, this is progressivism.

—————As opposed to the telcos, which are already government supported monopolies in many areas.-————

No, not as opposed to the telcos. Along with the telcos, that’s what google wants it’s future to be. The telcos, which have a long history of........... I don’t need to explain this to you. We both agree on how dirty the telcos are. It’s getting you to admit that marxism and progressivism is dirty. That’s the hard part.


34 posted on 05/12/2011 6:04:41 AM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing ( Net Neutrality - What's the biggest threat to the leftist media's old order?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing
It’s getting you to admit that marxism and progressivism is dirty.

I admit they're dirty. I'm just not finding them under every pillow as you are. Google is a successful business, accomplished without the direct help of the government (although riding on the back of a government creation -- the Internet). If they went only on progressive ideals they would not be such a successful business. If they went on Marxist ideals they would not be a business, period.

It helps to not be paranoid and see reality for what it is.

35 posted on 05/12/2011 6:11:57 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

-————I admit they’re dirty. I’m just not finding them under every pillow as you are.—————

They’re not under every pillow.

Where they are, is under the most important pillows, specifically, the legislative and regulatory pillows. Particularly the regulatory ones. That’s the real danger because there are far too few people who question regulation.

—————Google is a successful business, accomplished without the direct help of the government (although riding on the back of a government creation — the Internet). If they went only on progressive ideals they would not be such a successful business.——————

You could only make such a comment if you only focused in on the sales pitches that progressives made, instead of looking at their real world results.

How many rich progressives can you name? They don’t live by their own sales pitches. But they do force us to live by our ideals. Read Rules for radicals, it’s right there.

-————If they went on Marxist ideals they would not be a business, period.—————

I’ve not seen much that implies that progressivism is explicitly/strictly marxist. Their own history is more Fabian than anything. But where they all agree is that freedom needs to be destroyed, and that centralized planning is the way to go. Man cannot self govern.

This is why we’re seeing divergent views. Wu wants nationalization of code, wheras Sunstein wants popup windows for opposing views.(for example)

But it’s foolish to think that Wu would oppose Sunstein’s popups, knowing the high likelihood that after they silenced speech in that manner that Wu would get to steal all the source code he wanted - with Sunstein’s approval. Long live centralized planning. They have for a long time scratched each others’ backs, check a history book. Heck, just look at the last 2+ years of Obama governance. The socialists have supported the communists; have supported the progressives; have supported the muslim radicals.

The all have one common uniter. Freedom needs to go.


36 posted on 05/12/2011 6:23:37 AM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing ( Net Neutrality - What's the biggest threat to the leftist media's old order?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing

You still have an inability to differentiate an issue with an organization that supports it, even the main organizations supporting it. For example, a recent thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2718796/posts

I think both of us would agree with their mission here: protecting your culture and preventing illegal immigration. The NPD is the main party in Germany upholding this platform, they are the spearhead. Most of the German people agree with this aspect of their platform to some extent. The problem is the NPD is basically neo-Nazis with a thin veneer to make them technically legal in Germany. They ARE racist.

So look at us here. We are against illegal immigration and want to protect our culture. But we’re called racists by the left. We know we’re not racist. But according to your logic because a group like the NPD is the spearhead for this in Germany, in Germany it would be right to call us racist for holding our views. In fact, it wouldn’t only be right to call us racist, we are by definition racist because we hold this view.

So, are we racist because we agree with the neo-Nazis? Is net neutrality automatically a bad thing because these people are at the forefront of supporting it?


37 posted on 05/12/2011 4:49:21 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

I like this post. You’re getting dangerously close to asking the right questions.

—————You still have an inability to differentiate an issue with an organization that supports it—————

I have the ability.

On ‘Net Neutrality’, I choose not to differentiate. It’s not warranted. We’re dealing with revolutionaries, there aren’t many coincedences.

—————The NPD is the main party in Germany upholding this platform, they are the spearhead.—————

According to Soros funded wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Democratic_Party_of_Germany

==========It is currently represented in two of Germany’s sixteen state parliaments with no seats at the federal level.========

You’re making it fairly clear that you’ve equated NPD with any number of net neutrality astroturf groups. But highlighted above is the problem with this.(it’s a good comparison BTW)

It isn’t just that these marxist groups are spearheading net neutrality, they have friends in high places to make it so. Let me put it to you another way:

Obama *IS* free press.(or Wu, or any of these other groups)
The FCC *IS* ‘the same’
Cass Sunstein, same.

Can you say the same for Germany? Is germany’s equivalent of the FCC loaded with NPD types? How about it’s senate? It’s regulatory body? Merkel is CDU, not NPD. So.......

—————Is net neutrality automatically a bad thing because these people are at the forefront of supporting it?-————

Yes, twice.

1: Take the next step into the reigns of power. Complete the picture.(I have repeatedly throughout this debate, talked about the link between these groups and the reigns of power)
2: These people are the people who actually invented it. You don’t get good fruit off of a bad tree.


38 posted on 05/13/2011 5:42:20 AM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing ( Net Neutrality - What's the biggest threat to the leftist media's old order?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing

Thank you. According to your logic we are both racist for supporting immigration control. Sorry, that’s your logic, not mine.

I see you had to look up what the NPD is. That’s probably why you still fail to understand.


39 posted on 05/13/2011 3:14:09 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

This post was clearly dishonest. I did not say that.


40 posted on 05/13/2011 3:34:31 PM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing ( Net Neutrality - What's the biggest threat to the leftist media's old order?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

—————You still have an inability to differentiate an issue with an organization that supports it—————

I have the ability.

On ‘Net Neutrality’, I choose not to differentiate. It’s not warranted. We’re dealing with revolutionaries, there aren’t many coincedences.

—————The NPD is the main party in Germany upholding this platform, they are the spearhead.—————

According to Soros funded wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Democratic_Party_of_Germany

==========It is currently represented in two of Germany’s sixteen state parliaments with no seats at the federal level.========

You’re making it fairly clear that you’ve equated NPD with any number of net neutrality astroturf groups. But highlighted above is the problem with this.(it’s a good comparison BTW)

It isn’t just that these marxist groups are spearheading net neutrality, they have friends in high places to make it so. Let me put it to you another way:

Obama *IS* free press.(or Wu, or any of these other groups)
The FCC *IS* ‘the same’
Cass Sunstein, same.

Can you say the same for Germany? Is germany’s equivalent of the FCC loaded with NPD types? How about it’s senate? It’s regulatory body? Merkel is CDU, not NPD. So.......

—————Is net neutrality automatically a bad thing because these people are at the forefront of supporting it?-————

Yes, twice.

1: Take the next step into the reigns of power. Complete the picture.(I have repeatedly throughout this debate, talked about the link between these groups and the reigns of power)
2: These people are the people who actually invented it. You don’t get good fruit off of a bad tree.


41 posted on 05/13/2011 3:35:04 PM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing ( Net Neutrality - What's the biggest threat to the leftist media's old order?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing
This post was clearly dishonest. I did not say that.

We support immigration control. The group spearheading that in at least one country is racist to the core and wants to control immigration for racist reasons. Thus, we are racist for supporting immigration control in that country. Or do you want Germany to be overrun by Muslims? Do you support that? If not, you're racist, and so am I.

42 posted on 05/13/2011 5:36:35 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing
Take the next step into the reigns of power. Complete the picture.(I have repeatedly throughout this debate, talked about the link between these groups and the reigns of power)

Give it a rest. The government is already doing this, and doing it in a way that groups like the EFF oppose. Republican Lamar Smith just introduced a bill to mandate ISPs track and retain your actions online. Democrat Patrick Leahy just introduced the PROTECT IP Act at the bidding of the copyright cartel (software industry, record labels, movie studios, TV networks) to basically allow them to blacklist and shut down any site on the Internet. With that going on, you think net neutrality is a step to anything?

Dude, the camel in the tent just took a big dump on your dinner, and you're about to continue eating because you are looking for the other camel that *might* put its nose under the tent.

43 posted on 05/13/2011 5:47:34 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson