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.
Fantastic post! Succinct, to the point, and hard to refute!
I can’t believe that some Freepers support “net neutrality.” It’s pure marxism!
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.
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.
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.
“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.
The government's been regulating the Internet for years. Hell, they CREATED IT! The camel's nose analogy is false.
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.
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?
That’s all about fairness doctrine. Got anything relating to net neutrality?
That's all about trademark enforcement (and a bad analogy). Got anything about net neutrality?
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.
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.
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).
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.
—————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.
——————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.
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?
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?
-—————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.
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.