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

Skip to comments.

The concept of Net Neutrality goes back to the 1800's

Posted on 06/03/2011 1:32:22 PM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing

Some have argued that the concept of net neutrality goes back to the 1800's. In one way, they're correct, but it's not the way they think they mean. The father of Net Neutrality, Tim Wu has this to say:

In the class at MIT, Wu floats some hypothetical ways you could fight abuse. One would be creating mechanisms that are "something like term limits for monopolists. In theory, the government could say, 'Well, this company has clearly shown it's corrupt. ... So let's just nationalize their source code.'"

That's straight forward enough. That does not sound like freedom to me. That sounds like marxist domination. Step out of line, we will bury you.

The scholar who coined 'net neutrality' fears a corporate takeover of the Web, but who is protecting us from his marxist takeover of the internet?

If you don't believe that nationalizing and taking over is marxist, fine. Believe what you want. But with this kind of comment from the father of net neutrality, it can indeed be confirmed that the concept of net neutrality goes back to the 1800's. To be exact, it goes back to 1848.

That's when the communist manifesto was written.


TOPICS: Computers/Internet
KEYWORDS: nationalization; netneutrality; socialism; timwu
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-85 next last

1 posted on 06/03/2011 1:32:30 PM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing

Fantastic post! Succinct, to the point, and hard to refute!

I can’t believe that some Freepers support “net neutrality.” It’s pure marxism!


2 posted on 06/03/2011 1:39:50 PM PDT by piytar (Obama opposed every tool used to get Osama. So of course he gets the credit. /hurl)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing
So let's just nationalize their source code

Exactly. The issue is whether the government will concede that the Internet "backbone" is a privately owned asset or a publicly-owned utility. If it's the latter, the government can force net neutrality. If it's the former, the government can play socialist, nationalize it, and then force net neutrality.

3 posted on 06/03/2011 2:04:14 PM PDT by Alex Murphy (Posting news feeds, making eyes bleed: he's hated on seven continents)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: piytar

Uh...”net neutrality” is what we have now.

The internet connection I have going into my PC doesn’t discriminate between between ones and zeroes from one web site, and ones and zeroes from any other web site.

The idea is to protect this happy state of affairs from those who would infringe on it, be they corporate monopolists, or governments.


4 posted on 06/03/2011 2:23:41 PM PDT by I Shall Endure
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: I Shall Endure

Documents show FCC coordinated ‘Net Neutrality’ effort with outside group
FCC Colluded with Soros Leftist Organization to Regulate Internet

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2729028/posts?page=14#14

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2729438/posts

Thankfully, judicial watch is protecting us from big government net neutrality.


5 posted on 06/03/2011 4:47:24 PM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing ( Net Neutrality - What's the biggest threat to the leftist media's old order?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: I Shall Endure

“The idea is to protect this happy state of affairs from those who would infringe on it, be they corporate monopolists, or governments.”

Good intentions. The problem is that once the government starts regulating, they never stop, and all power over the net will end up in politicians’ hands.

That will eventually happen anyway, but I’d rather see it delayed as much as possible.


6 posted on 06/03/2011 8:51:05 PM PDT by piytar (Obama opposed every tool used to get Osama. So of course he gets the credit. /hurl)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: piytar
The problem is that once the government starts regulating, they never stop

The government's been regulating the Internet for years. Hell, they CREATED IT! The camel's nose analogy is false.

7 posted on 06/07/2011 7:01:07 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing

I humbly suggest it goes back even further - to the mid 1600s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensing_Order_of_1643

The Licensing Order of 1643 instituted pre-publication censorship upon Parliamentary England. Milton’s Areopagitica was written specifically against this Act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensing_of_the_Press_Act_1662

The Licensing of the Press Act 1662 is an Act of the Parliament of England (14 Car. II. c. 33), long title “An Act for preventing the frequent Abuses in printing seditious treasonable and unlicensed Bookes and Pamphlets and for regulating of Printing and Printing Presses.” It was repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act 1863.


8 posted on 06/07/2011 7:10:18 AM PDT by abb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing
Well, this company has clearly shown it's corrupt. ... So let's just nationalize their source code

When an organization has been shown to be corrupt, has been shown to be breaking the law, isn't it normal to confiscate some of that organization's property? Normally that's in the form of a monetary fine, but then I've always been a fan of alternative, targeted sentencing.

it can indeed be confirmed that the concept of net neutrality goes back to the 1800's. it can indeed be confirmed that the concept of net neutrality goes back to the 1800's. To be exact, it goes back to 1848.

I taught you that, and now you're corrupting it. Marxism had basically no influence in American government until much later, certainly not enough to set telecommunications policy. The general policy continued through the telephone age, both in monopoly and after, during times of nationalization (yes, our phone system has been nationalized before) and privatization.

You seem to have a misunderstanding of what net neutrality is. The government removes their power to interfere with commerce. Do you mind the government preventing interference with commerce? That's what trademark does. Should we eliminate trademark enforcement?

9 posted on 06/07/2011 8:02:37 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: abb

That’s all about fairness doctrine. Got anything relating to net neutrality?


10 posted on 06/07/2011 8:03:59 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
Should we eliminate trademark enforcement?

That's all about trademark enforcement (and a bad analogy). Got anything about net neutrality?

11 posted on 06/07/2011 8:17:26 AM PDT by palmer (Cooperating with Obama = helping him extend the depression and implement socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: palmer
That's all about trademark enforcement (and a bad analogy).

It's government laws preventing companies from interfering in commerce. Where else do you see equivalents to net neutrality? If you're a business in New York, do you have to pay some phone company in California for their customers to be able to call you with any reasonable quality? Of course not. For the Internet networks, the government created it, the government subsidized construction of lines to the tune of billions of dollars, the government granted monopolies, easements and eminent domain. This is not an entirely free-market place we're going into, it's a public utility network run by public resources and private entities who do already profit off of the current neutral system.

Got anything about net neutrality?

What would be interesting would be to see the anti-neutrality crowd post only stuff about net neutrality, instead of confusing things with the unrelated issues of fairness doctrine and universal access.

12 posted on 06/07/2011 9:00:11 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat; Halfmanhalfamazing
That’s all about fairness doctrine.

I completely disagree. Licensing of printers is government control of that particular human communications format known as moveable type. The King wanted NO printing done that dared challenge his rule, and was not interested in seeing that two sides of a political argument be given ink and paper.

Licensing was an attempt to control content, just as net neutrality is today.

13 posted on 06/07/2011 9:38:44 AM PDT by abb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: abb
Licensing was an attempt to control content, just as net neutrality is today.

Net neutrality prohibits control of content by the ISPs. It does not at all address restrictions on or licensing of, indeed any regulation whatsoever of, any content creator. You are, again, thinking about fairness doctrine. Furthermore, content creators, and the those who run the servers containing the content, are already subject to quite a bit of government regulation. Some of that regulation is restrictive (such as privacy for minors) and some of it is protective (such as not holding them liable for copyright infringement for posted content).

14 posted on 06/07/2011 10:51:11 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: abb

Fair enough.

Though, there aren’t many net neutrality pimps out there saying it goes back to the 1600’s.

I was merely making an illustration based on one of their own talking points, coupled with the words of none other than the father of net neutrality himself, Tim Wu.


15 posted on 06/07/2011 1:24:48 PM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing ( Net Neutrality is internet social justice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

—————When an organization has been shown to be corrupt, has been shown to be breaking the law, isn’t it normal to confiscate some of that organization’s property?—————

No. It’s SOP to go through legal proceedings and find a proper litigatory (Probably not a word) sentence or fine.

That’s not what Wu is talking about. He is talking about theft. The word “nationalization” is not an accident. They know what they’re saying when they use it.

-————Normally that’s in the form of a monetary fine, but then I’ve always been a fan of alternative, targeted sentencing. ——————

Nationalization doesn’t require the use of judges or juries.

————I taught you that, and now you’re corrupting it.—————

You give me too much credit.

Yes, I did first become aware of that talking point via your postings, but I’m not the one who corrupted it. Tim Wu is talking about nationalization of source code. The FCC is as infiltrated as FDR’s presidency was.

To say I’m corrupting it would be akin to wiping alger hiss out of the history books.(not equivalent, but akin)

-————You seem to have a misunderstanding of what net neutrality is.—————

No, I don’t. Tim Wu, Free Press, and the people at the FCC are being very clear about their intentions. They’ve used Elmo for propaganda, they’ve talked about taking over content on TV for ‘racial equality’, and quite a few other things. Oh yeah, popups for alternative views on websites.

-————The government removes their power to interfere with commerce.—————

With the level of collusion between the FCC, Obama’s Czars, and a host of other things, there’s no evidence of that.

The evidence points to government removing everybody’s power to interfere with government. That’s what marxists do, every time. Check the history books.

They do it every time. And you won’t argue otherwise.


16 posted on 06/07/2011 1:33:49 PM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing ( Net Neutrality is internet social justice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat; abb

——————Licensing was an attempt to control content, just as net neutrality is today.

Net neutrality prohibits control of content by the ISPs.—————

Your purist view of net neutrality is laughable at this point, thanks to the hard work of people who actually know what freedom means; Judicial Watch. They’ve exposed the collusion. It’s over. We have the documents. The net neutrality you believe in is not what this government wants. They do not want it.

———————Net neutrality prohibits control of content by the ISPs.-——————

This is vague at best, and is exactly what I mean by purist view.

Yes, *technically* net neutrality will prohibit control of content by the ISPs ***********BECAUSE************ the marxists will be the ones in control. And nobody screws with the marxists once they’ve gained power.

Obama’s regime generally agrees with Mao, that power generally comes from the barrel of a gun.

Direct quote. Argue otherwise.


17 posted on 06/07/2011 1:39:23 PM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing ( Net Neutrality is internet social justice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing
Your purist view of net neutrality is laughable at this point, thanks to the hard work of people who actually know what freedom means; Judicial Watch. They’ve exposed the collusion. It’s over. We have the documents.

Yes, we know they also want fairness doctrine and universal access. That doesn't make it net neutrality. Quit trying to distort the issue. If you don't like fairness doctrine, then fight against that. If you don't want universal access, then fight against that. You do service to no one, and alienate allies, by lumping those issues in with net neutrality just because some groups are proponents of all of them.

You know, the ACLU successfully defended the rights of Christian street preachers, and the rights of a high school student to write a Christian message for her yearbook. Such religious freedom must be a bad thing since the ACLU also has a huge Marxist streak, supporting many causes we don't agree with, and opposes the 2nd Amendment. That's your logic, not mine.

Yes, *technically* net neutrality will prohibit control of content by the ISPs ***********BECAUSE************ the marxists will be the ones in control.

As I said before, the camel in your tent just took a dump on your dinner plate. Why do you keep eating while you look for one that MAY stick its nose under the tent?

18 posted on 06/07/2011 2:00:08 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing
No. It’s SOP to go through legal proceedings and find a proper litigatory (Probably not a word) sentence or fine.

And he said that in the context of how to punish illegal monopolies. That does go through legal proceedings. I don't like Wu or his larger vision, but this basic point is correct. If a monopolist is convicted, the government should be able to determine the best remedy. If that remedy is determined to be source code (which has a monetary value), then that amounts to nationalization of the source code.

Nationalization doesn’t require the use of judges or juries.

IIRC, the last time the government nationalized an industry was the telephones in 1918. Initial debates over it years earlier came from it being seen as a more modern version of the postal service and its roads, a constitutional role of the federal government, and the term used was "postalization." The government had already been heavily involved in, and had financed and given other considerations to, the telegraph and the phone system before then.

It was briefly nationalized in 1918 for national security reasons of WWI. You'll love to know that the main impetus was to prevent a planned strike by operators trying to become unionized (remember, back then there were no government employee unions). Even though the nationalization was a war power enacted by Congress, it did hit the Supreme Court, which agreed. There is remedy in the courts, and it was used. BTW, AT&T loved the nationalization, and profited heavily from it.

Yes, I did first become aware of that talking point via your postings

Your underhanded way of saying "Yes, you're right, you taught me that."

Tim Wu is talking about nationalization of source code. The FCC is as infiltrated as FDR’s presidency was.

Actually, Wu was talking about that in the context of the FTC. You really need to read up instead of just catching corporate talking points. Wu is my enemy on many fronts, so I bothered to do it. Why don't you?

19 posted on 06/07/2011 2:25:53 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

-—————Yes, *technically* net neutrality will prohibit control of content by the ISPs ***********BECAUSE************ the marxists will be the ones in control.

As I said before, the camel in your tent just took a dump on your dinner plate.———————

This is an insane position to take, especially now that we have the documents.

-——————Why do you keep eating while you look for one that MAY stick its nose under the tent?-——————

We have documents to prove that it wasn’t a camel that took a dump on the plate.

And I’m not eating it. I may very well be the loudest person on FR about these marxists and net neutrality. And I don’t find that something to brag about.

You’re fully capable of defending your own freedom from these people. But you choose not to do so. You choose not to read the documents. You choose not to read their own words. You choose to think they’re just playing. You choose to think the FCC isn’t really listening to their advice.

You deserve the chains they’re preparing for you if you can’t even say “hey, those are chains”. If you can’t even do that; you’ll be the one putting the chains on yourself. You’re already doing it.


20 posted on 06/07/2011 3:38:51 PM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing ( Net Neutrality is internet social justice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

-—————And he said that in the context of how to punish illegal monopolies.——————

Two wrongs don’t make a right in a constitutional republic.

-—————but this basic point is correct.——————

No it’s not. You’re acting as if his use of the word ‘nationalization’ is totally coincidental and doesn’t carry the implications that it does.

The man didn’t even want to call ‘net neutrality’ as ‘net neutrality’. He wanted to call it ‘broadband discrimination’. That’s classic orwellian big government double speak. Couch totalitarianism under the guise of civil rights. That’s what they’ve done for the past century.

-————IIRC, the last time the government nationalized an industry was the telephones in 1918.-——————

Wu didn’t talk about nationalizing an industry.

——————Wu is my enemy on many fronts-—————

He’s not your enemy where it matters most.


21 posted on 06/07/2011 3:45:16 PM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing ( Net Neutrality is internet social justice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
unrelated issues of fairness doctrine

It is related because the government does not do one thing. Or anything well for that matter. Not that they don't try and in the process stretch their mandate far beyond what was originally specified: "These interests are wide-ranging, including consumer protection in commercial contexts; the development of technological tools to empower users; and speech and democratic participation". So please tell me why you need a government "net neutrality" commission to ensure your "democratic participation" unless somehow you can't post here anymore because your ISP only allows their own brand of forum and not FreeRepublic.

22 posted on 06/08/2011 4:16:31 AM PDT by palmer (Cooperating with Obama = helping him extend the depression and implement socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing
You deserve the chains they're preparing for you if you can't even say "hey, those are chains". If you can't even do that; you'll be the one putting the chains on yourself. You're already doing it.

Yep. It's kind of amazing how people suspend their judgement on their pet issue. We used to have a few freepers who maintained that "global warming" was going to kill billions of people or something like that. Irregardless of the merits of the scientific argument for global warming, they should have at least recognized the evil of putting a world government in charge of all energy use. But nope.

23 posted on 06/08/2011 4:20:37 AM PDT by palmer (Cooperating with Obama = helping him extend the depression and implement socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: palmer
It is related because the government does not do one thing.

Yes, if the government engages in constitutional regulation of interstate commerce (net neutrality), it perfectly follows that the government will use that in order to quell free speech. You have presented the worst slippery slopes I have ever seen to try to connect net neutrality with other issues.

24 posted on 06/08/2011 7:03:34 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing
Two wrongs don’t make a right in a constitutional republic.

I've heard this before from leftists in the context of capital punishment.

The man didn’t even want to call ‘net neutrality’ as ‘net neutrality’. He wanted to call it ‘broadband discrimination’.

Basic concept: Net neutrality forbids broadband discrimination. Simple enough?

Wu didn’t talk about nationalizing an industry.

You were the one talking about nationalization. All he's talking about is legal punishments for illegal activities. Heaven forbid the government punish wrongdoers.

He’s not your enemy where it matters most.

Fairness doctrine. That's where it matters most, that's where he's my enemy. That's what actually affects freedom of speech rather than just regulating interstate commerce. He has also campaigned against China's censorship of the Internet. Should I automatically think opposing such censorship is a bad thing because Wu does?

25 posted on 06/08/2011 7:40:28 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing
The documents show nothing new. The FCC always seeks input from all sides of an issue.

We have documents to prove that it wasn’t a camel that took a dump on the plate. And I’m not eating it.

You concentrate on the POSSIBILITY of what net neutrality COULD do in the future IF your paranoia turns out correct. Meanwhile, you ignore the large number of other attempts to stifle our freedom on the Internet, many of which have already succeeded. That is the malicious camel already in your tent.

Second, you falsely assume that ANY regulation will lead to bad things, ignoring the fact that we already have a large number of laws and regulations governing the Internet that you likely wouldn't oppose. This includes the safe harbor provision of the DMCA (unless you're in the copyright cartel, then you oppose it, but you seem to be a telco backer, so you'd like it), digital signature laws, laws against unauthorized computer intrusion, and the various laws and regulations that created the governing structure of the Internet.

One camel is taking a dump on your plate, while the others are helping clean up, yet you still search for that ONE camel that might peek its nose under.

And worst, you damage the fight against real dangerous issues such as fairness doctrine by mixing them with and attacking an unrelated issue simply because some groups support both. Confusing the issue helps no one. The person you really need to be watching out for is Cass Sunstein. He's your fairness doctrine guy who wants to force opposing views on any site he doesn't like. He also wants to ban hunting and give animals the right to sue. Yet if he said torching a bin of live puppies with a flamethrower was a bad thing, I'd have to agree. I wouldn't automatically assume what he said must be wrong because of his other opinions.

26 posted on 06/08/2011 8:34:49 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: palmer

——————Yep. It’s kind of amazing how people suspend their judgement on their pet issue.-——————

I don’t claim to know people’s intentions all the time. I sometimes ask, but you can’t be sure.

Between the marxist that invented net neutrality, the marxist roots of net neutrality, the marxists guiding the debate, and the marxists who are colluding with the FCC to get it all done, the debate on the Net Neutrality is over. We can track it. From birth until now.

The baby was born red, and has remained red as it has grown.

—————We used to have a few freepers who maintained that “global warming” was going to kill billions of people or something like that. Irregardless of the merits of the scientific argument for global warming, they should have at least recognized the evil of putting a world government in charge of all energy use. But nope.——————

Maybe it’s just as simple as emotion. But you’re right, it’s incredible.


27 posted on 06/09/2011 10:25:10 AM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing ( The liberal media is more ideologically pure than Barack Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat; palmer

—————You have presented the worst slippery slopes I have ever seen to try to connect net neutrality with other issues.-————

Nobody “presented” a slippery slope.

You are standing on a slippery slope. As has been proven, the FCC is listening to marxists in order to make these rules.

That means both the FCC and ‘free press’ marxists are icing the ground. Look at their ice machine. Look at it.


28 posted on 06/09/2011 10:29:31 AM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing ( The liberal media is more ideologically pure than Barack Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

——————Basic concept: Net neutrality forbids broadband discrimination. Simple enough?——————

It is when you understand marxism and their need to cloak tyranny in the garb of freedom.

Outside of that, nope. It’s convoluted.

-————Wu didn’t talk about nationalizing an industry.

You were the one talking about nationalization.—————

No, I commented on how Wu was talking about nationalizing source code. But nobody talked about nationalizing industry. Words matter.

-————Heaven forbid the government punish wrongdoers.-—————

Heaven forbid the government become an even bigger thief.

—————He has also campaigned against China’s censorship of the Internet. Should I automatically think opposing such censorship is a bad thing because Wu does?-————

The question is: “Why is he opposing China’s censorship”.

I don’t know of Wu is rich or not, but if he’s not rich then you can’t follow them money with Wu.

Your only choice is to follow the ideology. Where does it lead you? We know he’s not a constitutionalist.


29 posted on 06/09/2011 10:33:54 AM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing ( The liberal media is more ideologically pure than Barack Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

-—————The documents show nothing new.——————

Technically, that’s correct. I didn’t need to see the proof to know where the power was going. But for most others, no. They establish proof. The proof is new.

—————The FCC always seeks input from all sides of an issue.-—————

Hah! Great wording. How about “The FCC always listens to input from all sides”.

Based on the FCC’s own actions, they aren’t listening to groups that understand freedom. They’re listening solely to the marxists.

—————You concentrate on the POSSIBILITY of what net neutrality COULD do in the future——————

Hah! Net neutrality is a solution in search of a problem, and I’m the one stuck on possibilities? I’ve proven everything I’m saying:

1: Net neutrality was born by a marxist.
2: Net neutrality is primarily driven by marxist ideologues
3: The FCC is listening to these marxist ideologues.

Particularly #2: How many people besides me have posted about McChesney, Lloyd, Genachowski, Copps, here on FR?(There’s several other names too)

-—————Meanwhile, you ignore the large number of other attempts to stifle our freedom on the Internet, many of which have already succeeded. That is the malicious camel already in your tent.-—————

The sad thing is, you’ve misidentified this camel. I keep trying to tell you that the camel is red, but you just can’t see it. It has a huge hammer and sickle on the side of it, and everybody can see it.

But you.


30 posted on 06/09/2011 10:42:38 AM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing ( The liberal media is more ideologically pure than Barack Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing
Its all nonsense of course...the Feds have all the regulatory legislation they need to assert any anti-trust actions anywhere anytime against monopoly or pending monopoly in any industry that refuses to cut them in on it. They could certainly keep any particular ISP “giant” at bay -if that were the objective.

Increasingly with most Federal regulatory and legislative endeavors, the titled “objective” has to be twisted 180 degrees to arrive at a proximation of the truth of the deal they're trying o cram down our throats. “Net Neutrality” being a primo example.

31 posted on 06/09/2011 10:53:30 AM PDT by mo ("If you understand, no explanation is needed; if you do not, no explanation is possible")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mo

——————Its all nonsense of course...the Feds have all the regulatory legislation they need to assert any anti-trust actions anywhere anytime against monopoly or pending monopoly in any industry that refuses to cut them in on it.——————

I agree. However, the FCC chief thinks differently:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2716212/posts

Which is stupid. They could easily work to have laws updated to apply to new content medium.

But they don’t want that. If laws reflected new ideas, then lawsuits *WOULD* work and then you and I would have no need for the precious bureaucrats.

And that’s really what it’s all about. They want the power. And by default, they have to take the power away from us.


32 posted on 06/09/2011 10:58:52 AM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing ( The liberal media is more ideologically pure than Barack Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing

I suspect most of it all reflects the fact that most legislation , contrary to Federal Law, is originating and being written in the agencies..and Congress has merely become its rubber stamp as the agencies are clever enough to write the rules to incorporate sufficient funds in their project that will eventually flow back into campaign coffers.

Its gonna be a real project to bloodlessly drain the DC swamp -but that really is the challenge of this generations dedication to freedom.


33 posted on 06/09/2011 11:21:53 AM PDT by mo ("If you understand, no explanation is needed; if you do not, no explanation is possible")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing
Based on the FCC’s own actions, they aren’t listening to groups that understand freedom.

You can't say they're against the freedom of corporations. They just approved the Comcast buyout of NBC. Or maybe that was just because Comcast had an insider on the FCC.

I’ve proven everything I’m saying: 1: Net neutrality was born by a marxist. 2: Net neutrality is primarily driven by marxist ideologues 3: The FCC is listening to these marxist ideologues.

Here are the facts, without your guilt by association, paranoia, and politicking:

1: Net neutrality is the state of the larger Internet, what allowed it to become as big and important as it is.
2: Most people want to keep net neutrality to maintain the Internet as the great equalizer for free speech and commerce, you don't need to be a big guy to reach everybody.
3: Other people want to eliminate that freedom for their own profit.

I keep trying to tell you that the camel is red, but you just can’t see it. It has a huge hammer and sickle on the side of it

The camel that's crapping on your plate already has a hammer and sickle on its side, and it has a bunch of corporate logos on it too, and it's wearing four jackboots. Yet you still fail to notice it while searching for that nose.

34 posted on 06/09/2011 12:58:22 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing
That means both the FCC and ‘free press’ marxists are icing the ground. Look at their ice machine. Look at it.

Fairness doctrine existed before the Internet. The liberal call to bring back fairness doctrine existed before the recent call to retain neutrality in the Internet. Fairness doctrine bills were introduced and promoted before the net neutrality issue. Many laws and regulations already govern the Internet and conduct on it. Many laws and regulations already govern the conduct of the telcos.

Somehow, enforcement of the neutral state of the Internet is supposed to be a slope towards all of that government action that has already been taken? I didn't know you could slide up an icy slope. Which way does gravity work in your universe?

35 posted on 06/09/2011 1:12:20 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat; Halfmanhalfamazing
1: Net neutrality is the state of the larger Internet, what allowed it to become as big and important as it is.

Backwards. Net neutrality came because the internet became big and important. In the old days there were millions of people on crappy proprietary providers who demanded to be on the open internet developed vy newer providers. Many voted with their feet. Providers who try to do the same today will find people abandoning their services for new open ones. Govt regulation will protect the current monopolies and prevent new open competitors. It always has and always will.

2: Most people want to keep net neutrality to maintain the Internet as the great equalizer for free speech and commerce, you don't need to be a big guy to reach everybody.

Non sequitur. Most people just want free stuff and could care less about that other crap. The government is going to give them free stuff. It has nothing to do with free speech, open commerce, or being a little guy (although the government will use that as their excuse to regulate).

3: Other people want to eliminate that freedom for their own profit.

Well there you are. Profit is evil. Any other lessons for us?

36 posted on 06/09/2011 4:40:51 PM PDT by palmer (Cooperating with Obama = helping him extend the depression and implement socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

-—————You can’t say they’re against the freedom of corporations.-——————

I can. This government is only friendly with progressive corporations, such as Comcast, Google, or GE/NBC. Err, Comcast/NBC. Same difference.

-————Here are the facts, without your guilt by association—————

I don’t do guilt by association. They are in bed with each other.

————Most people want to keep net neutrality to maintain the Internet as the great equalizer————

Only a fool thinks a marxist has that same goal.


37 posted on 06/09/2011 4:57:23 PM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing ( The liberal media is more ideologically pure than Barack Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

You won’t look at their ice machine.

All their own history, their documents, Obama’s czars. Their words. All of it.

They are icing the ground. It’s time you looked.

—————Somehow, enforcement of the neutral state of the Internet is supposed to be a slope towards all of that government action that has already been taken?-—————

Yep, because up until now they haven’t taken direct action initiatives; driven largely by marxists. That’s the difference.

——————I didn’t know you could slide up an icy slope.-—————

Nobody’s talking about sliding up. We’re talking about ice being formed where there wasn’t ice before.

Look at their ice machine. It’s sitting right there.


38 posted on 06/09/2011 5:09:57 PM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing ( The liberal media is more ideologically pure than Barack Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: palmer
In the old days there were millions of people on crappy proprietary providers who demanded to be on the open internet developed vy newer providers.

Huh? In the old days, you just got onto the Internet by whatever means. The ISPs didn't have DPI to see what you were doing and slowing it down if it competed with their services.

Most people just want free stuff and could care less about that other crap. The government is going to give them free stuff.

This is free as in speech, not as in beer. You should pay for your Internet connection, but the ISP should not be able to restrict your legal activities while using that connection. I might actually make an exception for an ISP that never any type of subsidy, monopoly, privilege, easement or eminent domain consideration. Then you would be talking interference in the free market. I don't think that exists, so it's probably a moot point.

Well there you are. Profit is evil. Any other lessons for us?

Profit is good. Anti-competitive activities that prevent the competition from making a profit by leveraging your position in the market is not good.

39 posted on 06/10/2011 6:32:38 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing
I can. This government is only friendly with progressive corporations, such as Comcast, Google, or GE/NBC. Err, Comcast/NBC. Same difference.

Your view that every decision runs on liberal/conservative ideological lines continually brings up contradictions. The FCC is AGAINST Comcast on the net neutrality issue. The FCC was FOR Comcast on the merger issue. If the FCC thought Comcast was a liberal bastion, and made decisions only on ideological lines, they would logically not want net neutrality since they could then count on Comcast censoring conservative views -- Free Republic and Breitbart suddenly become hard to access while Kos would have blazing speed to all customers.

Only a fool thinks a marxist has that same goal.

Here's our basic difference. If they support something that retains freedom, like net neutrality, then we finally get to use them as the useful idiots. I see no need to fight them when they play a broken clock, are actually on the right side of an issue for once. It doesn't matter what their end goal is. It save us energy to fight them on issues that actually help them reach their goal.

Think of it this way. When the ACLU was defending the rights of that Christian street preacher, would you have found it necessary to go to court in opposition of the ACLU's position? Or would you have supported the ACLU's position? Why would you have supported the ACLU when you know their end goal?

40 posted on 06/10/2011 7:07:47 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing
Yep, because up until now they haven’t taken direct action initiatives; driven largely by marxists. That’s the difference.

So fairness doctrine was never enforced? None of the laws concerning the regulation of the Internet and those on it have ever been enforced? Do you really want to continue with that claim?

41 posted on 06/10/2011 7:10:09 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

—————Your view that every decision runs on liberal/conservative ideological lines continually brings up contradictions.-———————

I don’t look at it that way. Progressivism is a cancer, and it’s in both parties.

—————The FCC is AGAINST Comcast on the net neutrality issue.—————

Only on the surface. Comcast seems to be positioning to be the preferred candidate if/when the time comes for an internet-as-a-utility.

Have you seen any changes to MSNBC since comcast took over? I haven’t. And I don’t doubt the reasons why that is.

——————If the FCC thought Comcast was a liberal bastion, and made decisions only on ideological lines, they would logically not want net neutrality since they could then count on Comcast censoring conservative views——————

Why only control comcast when you can control the whole thing?

As I mentioned above; MSNBC. And NBC. Comcast isn’t trying to change them. NBC/Comcast like any other progressive media company, is more than willing to go down with the ship.

If Comcast were really just simply the corporation you paint them to be, we’d already have a second fox news. The simple fact is that MSNBC doesn’t attract viewers. Fox does.

—————If they support something that retains freedom, like net neutrality——————

There’s no evidence of that. The facts point in the other direction.

———————It save us energy to fight them on issues that actually help them reach their goal.——————

With everything they’re saying, and with as hard as they’re fighting for this, it’s clear that net neutrality does help them reach their end goal.

-——————Think of it this way. When the ACLU was defending the rights of that Christian street preacher, would you have found it necessary to go to court in opposition of the ACLU’s position?——————

I would have given a serious consideration to it, yes. If anything, I would put out any information that I could find as to the ACLU’s real goal.

I don’t believe any preacher should go to jail for simply preaching.

But I have huge doubts as to if this was any preacher. I can’t find what church he comes from, but my gut instinct tells me that this guy comes from a social justice church.

That’s the problem. None of these things are ever as they seem, primarily because of the huge uphill battle to reach the truth that the media represents.

Searching using different terms, I can’t dig beyond the surface of the Shawn Miller case. So the only thing that’s left standing is the left wing media’s/ACLU’s reality.


42 posted on 06/10/2011 4:48:01 PM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing ( The liberal media is more ideologically pure than Barack Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

——————So fairness doctrine was never enforced?-——————

It might be a good idea if you read/reviewed discussions ahead of time. I made specific comments regarding the difference in regulations:

==============(antirepublicrat said)—————Somehow, enforcement of the neutral state of the Internet is supposed to be a slope towards all of that government action that has already been taken?-—————

(My reply)Yep, because up until now they haven’t taken direct action initiatives; driven largely by marxists. That’s the difference.===============

And I stand by the observation of those differences. Any regulation of the internet has been minimal and hands off. Net neutrality represents something larger and harsher than the fairness doctrine ever could’ve been for talk radio.

The fairness doctrine only wanted “fairness”, similar to the equal time rule.

Look at all the players involved. Net neutrality might as well include the name “china” in it, because that’s where they’re going.

Net Chinality. That’s what this is. That’s what they want to do. They’re all marxists or progressive ideologues.


43 posted on 06/10/2011 4:54:06 PM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing ( The liberal media is more ideologically pure than Barack Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: abb

You watch media just like I do..... (?)

Have you seen any changes at NBC/MSNBC since comcast took over? Or is it still full steam ahead progressivism?


44 posted on 06/10/2011 4:55:45 PM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing ( The liberal media is more ideologically pure than Barack Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing

Don’t watch MSNBC that much. Governsleastgovernsbest is the expert on them. I do watch CNBC a goodly amount. The only change I notice is they seem to acknowledge their new masters/owners from time to time.


45 posted on 06/10/2011 5:06:20 PM PDT by abb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing
Only on the surface. Comcast seems to be positioning to be the preferred candidate if/when the time comes for an internet-as-a-utility.

Seriously, you're going all conspiracy theory on me now. No facts can get through, all must be bent to support the conspiracy. If net neutrality is liberal, and if liberal companies do everything based on liberal ideology above profit, and a liberal company opposes it, well, you have to start making stuff to reconcile the logical conflict.

But I have huge doubts as to if this was any preacher. I can’t find what church he comes from, but my gut instinct tells me that this guy comes from a social justice church. That’s the problem. None of these things are ever as they seem

That's the problem for you, they're usually exactly what they seem. Let's pick an extremely non-progressive case. How about Edwin Crayton in Louisiana, a Christian protesting about Wal-Mart's support of homosexuals? How about St. Petersberg, Florida in 2007, when Christians wanted to protest a gay pride parade and the city tried to stop them? What about the Christian Missouri library employee who was disciplined after refusing to be involved in Harry Potter promotions? The ACLU defended all. Were those "social justice"? I have many more, all quite clear.

I can’t dig beyond the surface of the Shawn Miller case. So the only thing that’s left standing is the left wing media’s/ACLU’s reality.

If the facts don't match the theory, then keep digging and go on the assumption that you just haven't found all the facts yet. You are a conspiracy theorist.

46 posted on 06/13/2011 6:46:14 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

———————Seriously, you’re going all conspiracy theory on me now.-—————

I am? You yourself have pointed out “The real poison, as even Ayn Rand mentioned, is in the incestuous relationship between corporations and government.”(source: EFF/Soros funding thread)

The question isn’t if. It’s when. And Comcast most certainly is positioning itself the way I stated.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2646969/posts?page=17#17

Public utility is often times how it begins. So what conspiracy? It’s all out in the open.

-—————and if liberal companies do everything based on liberal ideology above profit——————

You’re the one who can’t admit that NBC and MSNBC are just as liberal as they were before, with no end in sight to the liberalism, since the comcast merger.

And I’m the one who can’t let facts get through.

—————That’s the problem for you, they’re usually exactly what they seem. Let’s pick an extremely non-progressive case.—————

Sure. Keep citing exceptions to the rule, then try to paint me as a kook while ignoring the whole history of the ACLU.

With the ACLU, progressivism is the rule. Anything you can cite is the exception. Go ahead and ask the wider freeper audience.

-————If the facts don’t match the theory, then keep digging and go on the assumption that you just haven’t found all the facts yet.-—————

If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, I’m going to assume it’s a duck.

Even if I haven’t seen the duck yet. There’s feathers here. I hear quacking.

And all of this to defend marxist net neutrality. You’ve even go so far as to defend the idea of code nationalization!

I’m not the one with a problem with reality here. All the evidence shows that groups like free press are getting what they want. You want to discuss halfmanhalfamazing. All the evidence shows that the FCC is as compromised by insiders as FDR’s administration. You want to discuss halfmanhalfamazing. All the evidence shows that the FCC only listens to groups with a similar agenda. But all you want to discuss is halfmanhalfamazing.

Don’t worry. I know what I’m doing around here is working. You are being surrounded. The facts speak for themselves. There are far less people who are willing to ignore the soros money than you are, and they’ve turned on the concept of net neutrality based on the merits, and the merits alone.

It’s the merits.


47 posted on 06/13/2011 1:53:36 PM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing ( The liberal media is more ideologically pure than Barack Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing
With the ACLU, progressivism is the rule. Anything you can cite is the exception.

Very true. Yet, somehow, there's no way net neutrality can be the exception. Did I miss your response to my question of whether I should now love the DMCA and embrace unconstitutional copyright abuse because a couple of these organizations fight against them too?

I want to know what my position needs to be here. You have basically told me that these issues are now poison because of who promotes them, yet I'd like to be a conservative and fight against such things like unconstitutional copyright abuse and remove unconstitutional restrictions and chilling effects on freedom of speech.

All the evidence shows that the FCC only listens to groups with a similar agenda.

And when the agenda isn't similar, invent one in your conspiracy world where they are. Net neutrality is liberal, proponents are liberal and opponents are conservative! The FCC is full of liberal insiders! Wait, Comcast has an insider in the FCC and they're against net neutrality? Wait, that means they must be conservative, but I've already called them liberal. Oh, it must be a long-term conspiracy to gain the upper hand in the future when Internet access becomes a monopoly utility!

The facts clearly didn't agree with you. The Comcast involvement blew away your one-dimensional liberal/conservative view of the issue because Comcast was on two opposing sides, so you had to invent a grand conspiracy to make it align again.

I'm done with conspiracy theories. I stopped talking to Truthers long ago, and I'm stopping it on this issue too. Feel free to discuss net neutrality itself, but I'm not going to try to make sense of conspiracy theories anymore.

. I know what I’m doing around here is working. You are being surrounded. The facts speak for themselves.

Facts? Is that why I constantly find myself having to re-educate people about the fact that net neutrality is not fairness doctrine, or whatever else you've falsely equated it with this week? Feeding people a bunch of lies and corporate talking points, and having them believe you, is not something to be proud of.

It’s the merits.

The merits? Strange then that you spend almost all of your time talking conspiracy theory, who has what money and which organization is aligned what way, and what other issues they support. If you want to talk the merits, fine, but as I said above, I'm done with guilt by association and wacky conspiracy theory.

48 posted on 06/13/2011 2:24:42 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

——————Very true. Yet, somehow, there’s no way net neutrality can be the exception.——————

As I’ve mentioned, I myself used to support net neutrality.

That was before I started asking the question “who are these people” and even “who is funding them”.

Just because you can’t ask those questions, I can’t help that. But no, net neutrality can’t be an exception. Not with this many marxists at the FCC. Not with this large of a marxist influence. Not with this much soros money.

It can’t be the exception. There’s just too much.


49 posted on 06/13/2011 2:32:08 PM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing ( The liberal media is more ideologically pure than Barack Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing
That was before I started asking the question “who are these people”

That was when you stopped examining the issue on its merits. They are the main people fighting against DMCA abuses. Does that make the DMCA automatically good? Of course not, we don't take such a view. We judge the DMCA based on its merits.

50 posted on 06/14/2011 6:13:24 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-85 next last

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