Skip to comments.Senate Must Stop Obama Internet Takeover
Posted on 09/27/2011 2:20:13 PM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
Today, the Obama administration officially published the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) so-called net neutrality rules in the Federal Register. These rules would undo a decade of free-market, hands-off Internet policy that has made the Internet the greatest engine of economic growth, creativity, and innovation the world has ever seen. They would set us down a path to reducing the Internet into a government-regulated, government-controlled public utility. The effective date is November 20, 2011. The House has already voted to overturn the rules. The Senate now has two months to do the same and they must.
A recent Tarrance Group poll found that 74 percent of Americans believe the regulatory burden is too high in this country. Moreover, 65 percent of voters and 67 percent of Democrats oppose agencies regulating without the approval of Congress. And that is precisely whats going on.
Free from regulation, the Internet has been a bright spot in our weak economy, with tech sector unemployment at just 3.3 percent. The net neutrality order will start us down the path to crippling it with regulations. A study from NYU found the rule will destroy between 100,000 and 200,000 jobs.
And the end goal is even more extreme. Robert McChesney, founder of Free Press, a group with deep ties to the Obama administration, the FCC, and the FTC has let slip where the plan leads:
"At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies. We are not at that point yet. But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
“They would set us down a path to reducing the Internet into a government-regulated, government-controlled public utility. The effective date is November 20, 2011.”
The very day these traitors do that, will be the day that I no longer use the internet.
I understand that getting off the net would be a tough adjustment, but it’s doable.... and I will save a great deal of money.
IMPEACH this bastard son of a Communist whore.... before we devolve into a Civil War.
This sure doesn’t even pretend to be a democratic system. Why should the people trust a little cluster of eggheads in Washington to tailor the internet to its desires? It would be better to give the whole durn thing back to AT&T with a regulated monopoly.
I pray this power-grab by the FCC is thwarted by congress, as it should be. The left is over-reaching by far. This move to screw up the wildly successful internet with government rules and regulations that will choke the life out of it, along with the rotten Obama economy, is going to sink the Democrat party right along with Barack Hussein Obama. Americans are mightily fed up. The left pretending it’s only a few ‘extremist’ TEA party agitators that oppose this social crapola is just whistling past the political graveyard where their metaphorical tombstone is already in place just waiting until November, 2012.
I wish we would devolve into Civil War. I, like millions of AMERICANS are tired of this sh!t. Let's get it over with and start the eff over!
Regrettably, we agree.
I do hang onto hope that 2012 will somehow stop the destruction, but I have serious doubts.
-—————I would like to see clear complete explanation of what is being proposed.-——————
You’re not going to get that. A clear explanation.
These media marxists know they’d have full and open revolt on their hands if they did that.
There have been some unintentional leaks, however. Listen to this audio and weep.
The above post should be appended a bit.
From the FCC’s standpoint, their current regulatory proposals are fairly bland. They certainly don’t reach as far as the media marxists want them to. And the media marxists have been very vocal, like clockwork. Over at biggovernment.com they’ve done a very good job of catalogging all of this as it’s happened. They’re one of the few news outlets that’s actually been willing to look past the noise and see what these people are saying, behind the scenes. That’s when they’ll tell the truth.
But these marxists, like all other marxists, are never satisfied until they have complete and total control. Which is what makes McChesney’s words - the ones you quoted - so profound. He comes incredibly close to admitting the true intent of what net neutrality has always been all along.
My understanding of it: We’ve had de facto net neutrality for years — it’s been a sort of gentlemen’s agreement between the ISPs since the beginning, “You don’t mess with my customers’ access; I won’t mess with yours.”
The FCC wants to make that agreement official and give itself the authority to enforce it with fines and such. It already has similar authority over the telephone companies via the common carrier restrictions.
CCRs prevent an individual phone company from giving their customers’ signals priority over those belonging to another company’s customers. As long as you pay the agreed upon fee for the agreed upon service with your phone company, they can’t interfere with the routing of your call or prevent you from calling a particular number.
For example, if I place a call from my home AT&T number to my mom who happens to be a Verizon customer, Verizon cant charge AT&T extra or bump my call to make room for more Verizon-to-Verizon calls — and by the same token, AT&T can’t tinker with the routing to give higher priority to AT&T-to-AT&T calls. As long as I pay AT&T the agreed fee for the agreed upon service, I can use the use that service to contact whomever I see fit to contact. I can even call Verizon’s New Customer Service line and AT&T can’t block that call.
In the case of ISPs, you pay for the access and you can use that access to visit whatever site you see fit to visit whether it’s Free Republic or Netflix or Girls Gone Wild.
The problem isn’t with net neutrality itself; it’s that the FCC is trying to give themselves the authority to enforce it.
How ironic that the video featured on that site has been pulled. No interest in truth can be found with these people. None.
From the article:
“And it rewarded special interests, both left-wing ideological groups and companies like Google and IAC/InterActiveCorp that are close to the administration.
Didn’t Chelsea Clinton just take a job with IAC?
Or what? The law goes into effect?
Is this the same kind of deal that McConnell tried to give Obama over the debt limit, that is, give Obama the power to raise the limit unless Congress can vote to turn it down?
Thank you. I guess I’ll have to learn a lot more about the whole business to understand what’s in it for the varoius parties and their designs might be and what we consumers
are up against. Right now it seems we have a pretty good system because we all have access to everything at low cost.
Why do they want to change it? What will that do to us?
And just exactly WHY would the Senate do that? The Feds have been working toward this for 15 years .
Thanks for pointing out that the video no longer worked. Breitbart has it. It’s a Blaze/Naked Emperor News video, so it’ll always be easy to find somewhere.
Redstate has a partial transcript:
========================Sites of one point of view agree to provide links to other sites, so that if youre reading a conservative magazine, they would provide a link to a liberal site and vice versa, just to make it easy for people to get access to competing views. Or maybe a pop-up on your screen that would show an advertisement or maybe even a quick argument for a competing view. [break] The best would be for this to be done voluntarily, but the word voluntary is a little complicated, and sometimes people dont do whats best for our society unless Congress holds hearings or unless the public demands it. And the idea would be to have a legal mandate as the last resort, and to make sure its as neutral as possible if we have to get there, but to have that as, you know, an ultimate weapon designed to encourage people to do better.=========================
It makes me shudder when he says “voluntary is a little complicated”. This is how totalitarians speak.
Mr. Peabody wrote: -———————Didnt Chelsea Clinton just take a job with IAC?——————
Thank you sir, that’s a good catch!
The nepotism of these people is maddening.
In their [the FCC's] opinion, they aren't changing it -- they're merely putting the weight of law behind it to make sure it stays the way it is. Only thing, no one gave them the specific authority to do this.
They claim it's necessary to keep large corporations from controlling access to content that they don't like or approve of.
Their argument: Think of the big media companies and who owns what -- now imagine them controlling not just the content on their own outlets but controlling your access to alternate outlets. Put that way, it sounds perfectly reasonable to have some rules in place.
Which is true. The rules themselves aren't unreasonable...but a government entity can't just step up and CLAIM the authority to enforce whatever rules they want to just because most people find them reasonable. There are procedures to follow that could GRANT them that authority but allowing them to just grab it for themselves isn't the way government is supposed to work.
She’s on the board!?
Tell me this is wrong.
She’s on the board at IAC!
Is she out of school yet?