Posted on 04/04/2009 3:53:55 PM PDT by T.L.Sink
By way of "Net Neutrality," the federal government is preparing to do to the Internet what it has done to the auto industry, public schools, the home mortgage industry, the postal service and the financial industry bailout. The Obama administration now seeks to regulate the Internet as well. "Net Neutrality" refers to the dangerous movement to have government dictate Internet providers' business models, and the manner in which they can transmit data. Obama's infamous "stimulus" package includes a $7.2 billion grant to expand broadband services that require carriers accepting government money to adhere to FCC Net Neutrality guidelines that empower the FCC and National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to devise even more rules for any Internet provider that accepts funds.
(Excerpt) Read more at cfif.org ...
Same thing they want to do with the "Fairness Doctrine"....the Orwellian name for a practice is the opposite of that.
Summarized, it's just more GOVERNMENT CONTROL.
Heard Alex Jones talk about “internet2”?
All innternet commerce is about to be taxed.
And also internet "hate speech" will become a crime.
By "hate speech" I mean speaking out factually about ethnically/sexually based politics.
Anti-tracking software will be outlawed in some states, just as radar detectors are in some.
What is anti-tracking software and where do you get it?
www.torproject.org
Well, it was really nice knowing all of you. (This is my farewell in advance, as FR will be outlawed)
"We're MAD as HELL and we're NOT gonna take it anymore!!!"
The internet is an obstacle to Obama, and he will use all his presidential powers to control it.He will use it to generate taxes, he will use it to data mine for dissension, and will use it as a propaganda tool.
Already we are seeing the obots and false leaders claiming to support patriotic dissension but are only passing out placebos.
Organizing events to placate the people, events with no teeth and a minimal bark, just keep the people occupied.
http://www.torproject.org/ thanks.
hehe, all the left wing nuts said “oh my god, dailykos will be outlawed if net neutrality doesn’t pass!!”, and all the people here say “oh my god, our forums will be outlawed if net neutrality passes”
“net neutrality” generally just says ISPs can’t due deep packet inspection for QoS or traffic-shaping purposes
Never in my 50 years of life has the U.S. government been so deserving of subversion. I hope the right has learned a lesson or two from the left over the years. Demonstrations and protests have never really been a conservative ‘thing’, but as the communist revolution takes hold, I hope at least some patriots are capable of causing these traitors some discomfort.
You use a proxy IP address, which is different every time you log on.
You can do it all by hand if you know how, but there is this software:
http://wareseeker.com/Security-Privacy/mask-my-ip-anonymity-hide-ip-address-1.1.zip/347707
Then you make sure all traces of your browsing history are erased from your PC using privacy Software like Paretologic.
Here are some links to Net Neutrality, which has been argued about long before Obama. I’ve thought that the absence of “net neutrality” is what would *control* the Internet, rather than the current maintaining of it.
From Tim Berners-Lee (invented the World-wide Web in 1989)
http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/144
Daniel J. Weitzner, Principal Research Scientist
MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
The Neutral Internet: An Information Architecture for Open Societies
http://dig.csail.mit.edu/2006/06/neutralnet.html
General Wikipedia article on it...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality
A Net Neutrality FAQ
http://www.timwu.org/network_neutrality.html
A Google company statement on it...
http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html
Brief Wall Street Journal article on it...
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090402-713158.html
An older CNN article — Keep the Internet neutral, fair and free
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/09/newmark.internet/
That’s sort of a starter on it... LOL...
I think it will start a new fad and trend, to see who can be more subservient against the government, one mans view of terrorists is another mans freedom fighters. Some blades can be sharp on both sides.
You were saying — Well, it was really nice knowing all of you. (This is my farewell in advance, as FR will be outlawed)
—
Actually, the principle of Net Neutrality would keep Free Republic from being outlawed. It would be something like the Fairness Doctrine that could interfere with Free Republic.
Net Neutrality, on the other hand, makes sure that all different kinds of accesses and modes of using the “net” would be transparent and not blocked or charged more money, just because it was either a web site that did not pay for better service access and/or it was passing certain kinds of packets that the ISP did not want to pass through (and they either block or slow them down), if the service or website doesn’t pay an extra charge for it (to the ISP).
Bookmark for later study,I`m still looking into this Tor thing,sounds ok though.What do you think of it?
“Net Neutrality” is a good thing!!
If it wasn’t for net neutrality, sites like FR(among many many others) would have never existed as we know them.
Having said that, I totally oppose the idea of Hussein and the dems doing anything regarding the internet.
The bottom line:
The Internet is just fine as it is. LEAVE IT ALONE!!!!!!
I’m sure they will disguise it as banning porn and doing it for the “Childrun”.....
It all depends on what you like.
For me TOR is too collective and convoluted. I would just rather have software that generates proxy IP addresses.
If you need encryption scurity though, TOR is the way to go.
Exactly. In fact, the CFIF article also includes “the healthcare industry, the ethanol industry, the airline industry, FREEDOM OF POLITICAL SPEECH...”
No, where can I find that?
· His first phone call was to Abbas, the terrorist leader of the Palestinian Authority and al Fatah; · His first interview was on al-Arabiya News Channel, where he apologized for the United States; · His first appointment of an envoy to Syria was the appointment of George Soros; · He bankrolled Hamas out of Whitehouse funds to the tune of $23 million, following Israel’s invasion of Gaza to stop the missile strikes; · He promised another 900 million to Gaza; · He immediately adopted the Saudi Plan as policy for Israel, which favors a contiguous Palestinian state (that is, a geographic area that connects Gaza with the West Bank and includes Jerusalem – necessarily dividing Israel); · He dismissed charges against the perpetrators of the bombing of the USS Cole; · He announced the shut-down of Gitmo, and apologized to the Islamic world for its existence; · He announced that his first summit would be an Islamic summit; · He turned a blind eye to Iran’s launch of a satellite capable of triangulating coordinates for ICBMs that Iran is furiously trying to develop for the delivery of nuclear weapons; · He turned a blind eye to the release of A. Q. Khan, Pakistan’s top nuclear scientist, who is believed to be the very person to have delivered nuclear bomb technology to North Korea; · He intends to eliminate our anti-ballistic missile defense program; · He intends to reduce our nuclear weapons arsenal by 75%; · He intends to reduce our military budget by 25%; · He has reneged on developing nuclear power; · He continues to block off-shore or expanded drilling; · He continues to try and block the production of coal (45% of our electric generating capability)
No problem. It’s geared towards Linux and BSD, but in my readings over the site I understand that they do produce a Windows port. I’ve never tried it with Windows though. I can say that it’s pretty easy to get working with Debian Etch, and Ubuntu 8.10 though (Linux).
Good point. I think it was Bay Buchanan who wrote a great article saying that the new Mc Carthyism and “hate” speech is now applied to those of us who want to enforce the law by securing our borders and stopping the illegal alien invasion. Suddenly, we’ve become “racists,” “xenophobes,” “nativists,” and worse. The Left broadcasts more hate speech and name-calling to those with whom they disagree than ever before.
If you are not worried about encrypting content , then the software solution is the way to go.
Simple works best for me, false IP addresses prevent lookup
and trace hacks.
tor buries your tracks and encrypts your coms to the final link to just before your destination .
Maybe they’ll impose the “Fairness Doctrine” on us making it mandatory the half our posts have to come from moveon.org — just to make it fair.
“I became insane in 1840, followed by horrible periods of intermittent sanity.” - Edgar Allen Poe
Thanks for the heads up.
That terrific post made my day! The guy on the right must be Henry Waxman - known to Rush as Henry “nostrilitis” Waxman. I’m still laughing as I type!
I doesn’t matter what some people think Net Neutrality is. Obama and his crew will define the way they want and I for one do not want Obama regulating anything.
Maybe somebody non-partisan and objective like Barney Frank or Dennis Kucinich.
OK - yeah, those two will do .... >snort<
I think more and more people are beginning to assert themselves by protesting (the ‘Tea Parties,’ etc.) and making their dissatisfaction with Obama’s policies known. Of course, he’s still popular but the polls show his political support is declining. Things are going in the right direction. I don’t mean this in an arrogant way but I think it will take some time before the people who supported him wake up to reality and exactly who it is that they’ve elected. But I believe that will eventually happen.
How long does FR got until it’s officially non-existent?
It’s not only closer than it appeared, it’s here! And I thought such mirrors were designed to prevent accidents - but now we’re in a big one!
Well..., that’s a mistake that I see a lot of people making. Even a political foe can produce something of benefit... LOL...
Keep in mind, that with the type of “thinking” that you’ve just mentioned (to me in your post) — if Obama offered a huge tax cut to everyone, and thus reduced everyone’s tax burden dramatically — you would oppose it... LOL..
Therefore, you have to look at “each item” individually and evaluate things for what they are.
But then again, he wouldn’t offer that tax cut, now would he? Oh contrare, he’s bumping taxes UP UP UP
Just an example to show you that you have to analyze each thing individually...
No, Net “Neutrality” forcibly prevents ISPs from offering upgraded services, like dedicated bandwidth channels for streaming hi-def video.
As streaming HD video becomes widespread, this gets kind of important if you ever want video on par with TV. The lefties that support it think that if they force companies not to offer higher tiers of service, then they’ll have no choice but to simply offer everyone connections with super high dedicated speeds and they’ll reap the benefits.
It’s the equivalent of banning Overnight, Second Day, and First Class mail so long as there’s cheapo third class junk mail. FedEx doesn’t just say “ok everybody’s mail is now overnight!” because that isn’t feasible.
All it will do is cripple web development as everyone is forced down to the lowest common denominator. (Then add all the cutesy games the regulators will play with those they favor vs. those they don’t.)
Businesses pay more for the same peak speed rating because they want guaranteed bandwidth all the time. My speed is blazing at 3am but I accept that if I hop on at peak times I might get lag.
It’s a minor inconvenience until you decide to watch movies. Why should my internet choices be forced to turn my movie into a stuttering, buffering mess in order to pass email with the same priority? If I want to pay extra for a channel dedicated to real-time video without interruptions, I should be able to.
This isn't an accident; it was planned.
You were saying — The lefties that support it think that if they force companies not to offer higher tiers of service, then they’ll have no choice but to simply offer everyone connections with super high dedicated speeds and they’ll reap the benefits.
—
Net Neutrality does nothing to prevent someone from charging more for higher bandwidth. That’s been done for quite a while and I actually pay for higher bandwidth. I’ve got several choices, and although I could pick something less than a megabit down, I picked 16 megabits down, and have to pay more for it. That’s never been the issue with Net Neutrality.
I’ve noticed that the people who argue against Net Neutrality seem to think that it applies here, but that’s never been mentioned and has never been the argument and one will always pay more for the increased and “higher speeds” (i.e., more bandwidth). Nothing will ever prevent that from being done.
You’ve got the wrong argument there...
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
And then you were saying — Businesses pay more for the same peak speed rating because they want guaranteed bandwidth all the time. My speed is blazing at 3am but I accept that if I hop on at peak times I might get lag.
—
Again, that’s a false argument. If I wanted *guaranteed* bandwidth, and the consumer version of what I have is not really *guaranteed* — then I would expect to pay more. And..., I *will* pay more — which will have absolutely nothing to do with Net Neutrality. I would be paying for a different kind of service, altogether, and it would cost me dramatically more. I know, because I’ve checked on it. But, in practice, I’ve got such high bandwidth right now, for what I pay, it makes no sense for me to go to the other type of service.
There’s nothing in the Net Neutrality concept to prevent these other types of services where businesses would get *guarantees* for bandwidth, of which the “consumer versions” do not get. It’s another service, altogether. That can still be sold with no limitations from Net Neutrality.
It’s another bogus argument that you’re presenting here...
Thanks for those references but, in my opinion, many good- sounding and plausible reasons can be made for increasing government regulation and control. But it’s not only a matter of (mis)interprestation but the law of unintended consequences. The government is very adept at choosing titles and descriptions of legislation that, once examined, prove to be the very opposite of what they purport to be. For example, the “Fairness Doctrine.” Great title! Who could possibly be opposed to “fairness?” We need only remember, for example, how the Supreme Court has distorted the “interstate commerce” clause of the Constitution as an excuse to regulate nearly everything in the nation! - even though this is clearly a violation of original intent. In other words, the words and the underlying reality and intentions can be two entirely different things. I think as a general rule that government regulation - barring a near-universal agreement that it’s necessary to rectify some specific evil - should be avoided. We’ve seen what has resulted otherwise in our insanely litigious society.
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.