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
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.
————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.
——————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.
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.
—————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.
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:
—————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.
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.
-————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.
-—————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.
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.
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.
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.
————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.
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.
-—————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.
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.
-————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.
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?
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.
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.
This post was clearly dishonest. I did not say that.
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.