Skip to comments.Hands Off Our Net
Posted on 12/01/2010 7:47:53 PM PST by raptor22
Regulation: In the name of fairness, a Federal Communications Commission plan to impose "net neutrality" without any legislative or legal authority will in effect be silencing a conduit for the truth that keeps us free.
The Internet is once again under attack, not from hackers intent on spilling secrets or causing mischief, but by an administration intent on controlling the free flow of information that it views as a threat to its expanding power.
According to the Hill, which obtained a copy of the FCC's tentative December agenda just after midnight Wednesday, the government agency will seek to impose rules concerning "net neutrality" at a Feb. 21 meeting.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
Those ‘gurus’ of the Internet had better plan for an ‘underground’ guerrilla Web... We have had ‘pirate’ radio in the past — we will need a ‘pirate’ Internet in the near future.
A strong Alternative Resistance to government control and censorship would quickly defeat the Government’s attempt to control us.
Offshore mirror websites will be needed, quick DNS changes and massive resistance will defeat the unconstitutional actions that may come about...
The blinding speed at which these Communists are proceeding to take down the United States is clear evidence that politicians of any stripe cannot be trusted out of sight for a minute, Dem or Repub. This could not be happening unless the large majority in the halls of government were complicit. Somehow they picture themselves as coming out on top of this dung heap they are trying to create. It is up to us to bury them in the poop pile before it really is too late. IMHO.
Ya know....it wouldn’t take much to set up an alternate internet.
Say a “World Free Web” WFW, and simply tell the gubmint, it’s PRIVATE!
That’d really PO the control freaks!
I propose a new law prohibiting government employees from imposing NON-LEGISLATED arbitrary rules on ANYONE except other employees. Punishable by, oh, what would you say? 30 years in the federal pen? 40? anyone? Bueller???
Yes exactly - Alternative Internet ... I marvel at the technical capability of some of my fellow IT gurus...
We had better quickly plan for it ... router equipment is cheap these days... Alternate offshore sites are abundant - constant switching from location to location - via web switching ... it is possible...
A few week of Pirate Internet - and the government would give up — as millions upon millions of citizens would jump to connecting to Alternate routes ...
It is very similar to a 100 million Conservative Americans owning 200 million guns - which in fact we do... the government simply cannot deal with it...
Does anyone remember Senator Joe McCarthy and all the character assassination he endured over the decades? He was right. Had he been able to finish the job we wouldn’t have a lot of the problems we are stuck with. No Jane Fonda or any of the other Hollywood pretty faces that influenced stupid people over the past 50 years. No Cronkite results in victory in Vietnam.
Obama can be stopped; but will he be?
I’m not suggesting hiding it.
Just create it and let them know they have no jurisdiction.
Private property and free speech, without government interference.
That might work - out in plain sight... but if push comes to shove - it could just be taken over... best hide it ...
I couldn’t agree more. Anyone reading “Blacklisted by History” by M. Stanton Evans will come to the conclusion that a good, if imperfect, man was done in by an evil cabal of Communists and Democrats.
This is simply a form of anti-fraud enforcement which is well within the proper and required function of government.
Looks like another article calling for a “tech ping” and a bit of edumacation to correct astroturf propaganda BS.
Eliminate all totalitarians along with the play/pay-off with their UNelected UNaccountable bureaucrats. Life, liberty and the pursuit and destruction of totalitarians.
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary...
Thank you for posting some sanity. I'm at work now, but will check back later to see how it went.
Agree. Telco corporations, keep your hands off our net. And if we need Congress or the FCC to make you keep your hands off, then so be it. Now for my first use of my copy/paste for this to address common misconceptions:
Net Neutrality is not Fairness Doctrine
The Internet was built on net neutrality. This neutrality is what allowed the intense competition and innovation. For the most part, it is the way the Internet currently operates, at least in free countries. Fairness Doctrine controls content, thus it would control what the content producers do. That would be the news, blog and discussion web sites. Net neutrality targets the carriers, the wrong entity for the Fairness Doctrine.
Net neutrality says that the carriers (Comcast, AT&T, etc.) cannot interfere with lawful Internet traffic. The carriers can't block or interfere with your use of Netflix because they want to push their own video service. They can't interfere with Skype because they want to push their own VOIP service. They can't block the VPN you use to work from home. They can't block web sites they disagree with politically. They can't charge web sites like FR a fee to get to their customers either, allowing them to shut down free speech by selectively charging sources out of existence.
You may think that competition will keep the carriers in line. Unfortunately, single carriers have monopolies in many areas of the country. For most places where there is competition, it would only take a few carriers to collude to destroy net neutrality in order for most Americans to be affected. So far the only thing that has made them roll back prior attempts has been FCC threats.
Net neutrality isn't a left/right issue. It's a freedom issue.
Net neutrality isn't even an issue of the government supposedly taking over the Internet, since the government still controls the Internet, always has since it created the Internet. GW Bush refused to give up control, pissing off the UN that would use that control to spread its one-world government, pissing off China that wants to use that control to censor it, pissing off the Muslim nations that want to use that control to eliminate criticism of Islam.
Indeed. One would think that it would be intuitively obvious that for Comcast to sell "internet access" and actually provide "internet access... but with Netflix slowed down because it competes with our TV service and FreeRepublic blocked because it's a right-wing hate site" is no different from (for example) a butcher selling "filet mignon" and actually providing "filet mignon... except for the filler we added to make it weigh a full pound, and maybe you don't want to eat the one part where we had to patch up the wrapping because the flies were getting on it".
Except for anarchists who don't believe that government ought to exist at all, it's universally accepted that this sort of misrepresentation is a proper target of government enforcement.
In concept, yes. In practice, it would be a law to give attributions to the FCC to dictate and enforce the way internet providers work. “...that which they purport to provide and are contracted to provide...”; since there’s already a contract, and the means to enforce it, such a law would be nothing but a power grab.
Nobody should interfere with Internet traffic, particularly the government. The 1st Amendement was written to protect our speech FROM government. If we didn’t already have Internet freedom, we wouldn’t be having this conversation, duh. Do you really want Mark Lloyd et al regulating the Internet?>