Skip to comments.FCC makes its net neutrality rules official (MEGABARF - Marxists labeled as "non-partisan")
Posted on 09/28/2011 6:27:02 AM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
LOS ANGELES (TheWrap.com) - The Federal Communication Commission's net neutrality rules were made official on Friday morning, with their publication in the Federal Register.
As already announced, they will go into effect on November 20.
Consumer advocates were on the whole more positive.
The non-partisan group Free Press, which champions universal access to communications, supported the rules while also voicing reservations about loopholes.
" don't do enough to stop the phone and cable companies from dividing the internet into fast and slow lanes, and they fail to protect wireless users from discrimination that is already occurring in the marketplace and that will only get worse," Free Press Policy Director Matt Wood said in a statement.
Gigi Sohn, president and co-founder of Public Knowledge, a consumer rights advocate "in the emerging digital age," welcomed the rules while suggesting they could have been more robust.
"Although we wished they could have been stronger, we believe that the rules approved by the commission are a good start to making certain consumers and innovators are protected from the power of large telephone and cable companies to remake the Internet to suit favored partners," said Sohn in a statement.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
Both Free Press and Public Knowledge are funded by:
Kiss the Internet goodbye.
and this passed Congress when?
The FCC is a rogue agency and needs to be trimmed down and neutered.
oh so funny. hilarious.
Notice that in this instance, as in any others, those “of the spirit of antichrist” assume and arrogate the position of “neutrality”.
The discussion here seems to imply that the "Net Neutrality" rules are similar to the FCC "Fairness Doctrine" and would regulate content based on political factors.
Can anybody point to where in the actual regulations anything involving government-mandated discrimination in favor or against any site is talked about?
I presume Boehner & Co. are going to sue?
I've stated outright that Net Neutrality is not the Fairness Doctrine. It's several shades worse. Here's an article which contains fact after fact after fact regarding the agenda of these people:
-------------Can anybody point to where in the actual regulations anything involving government-mandated discrimination in favor or against any site is talked about?--------------
As of yet, no. But everybody here knows the history of marxism. I presume you know the history of marxism?
These people are out there pushing iphone neutrality, search neutrality and other such orwellian terms. One of the FCC's chairpeople said they want to control all of the internet's on/off ramps.
They are not done yet. The current regulations do not achieve any of these stated goals.
You can do what you like. But I'm not going to wait for them to silence me, then scramble to do something about it. I prefer to stay ahead of the curve. They've stated enough about their agenda, any and every one of us can stay ahead of this agenda.
But I agree with you, and your sources in your links, the the precedent is troubling: if the FCC, without any authority in the law, can impose regulation on the ISPs with respect to barring preferential treatment in transmission speed, then that precedent could be used in the future to impose a "Fairness Doctrine" on Internet content.
We need to be clear in our arguments, and not say things are in the regs that are not really there, because doing so makes us look stupid when the libs point out that we haven't read the actual regulations.
I too am curious about the issue and what may be perceived as alarmist hyperbole.
What most concerns me is that this is going to happen because of ONE SINGLE VOTE in the FCC commission.
Take a listen to what Rush had to say about Net Neutrality:
As far as what you typed, there really are only three words that stand out far, far above the rest.
----------the Net Neutrality regulations, , have nothing to do with any "Fairness Doctrine"-like suppression of politically-incorrect...........---------------
Thinking about Net Neutrality in terms of the fairness doctrine, IMHO based on all that I've seen regarding the marxists behind all of this, you are really doing yourself a disservice in thinking about it that way. To me, it's about modeling after China. Joe Lieberman has talked about a kill switch for the internet. FCC chairman Clyburn stated "openly" that she wants them to be able to control all the internet's on/off switches. To me, Net Neutrality would be more accurately described as Net Chinality. From their point of view, from the marxists' point of view, that's what they want.
To directly answer your question, no, the current proposed regulations don't really do much of anything. But anybody who says that the current regulations as they're currently written is how they'll be until the end of time is fooling themselves. I've made this comment in the past, that what I'm more worried about is the second generation neutrality, or fifth generation neutrality, or whenevethat this is as far as they're trying to go, that this is itr they get to it rules.
These people call themselves "progressives" because of how they do things is by "making progress". James Madison said:
I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations
And I would very much argue that this is Net Neutrality, circa 1788. Congress told the FCC no. The judges told the FCC no. Yet they usurped it anyways. It wasn't a violent usurpation, but it was indeed sudden. Why? So they could simply give us a bland set of regulations? There are very few people foolish enough to believe they'd go through with a usurpation like this if they didn't have a devious agenda ahead of them. There are more regulations, worse regulations, yet to come.
----------We need to be clear in our arguments, and not say things are in the regs that are not really there, because doing so makes us look stupid when the libs point out that we haven't read the actual regulations--------------
To hell with the libs! The libs lie. See post 1, Obama-Reuters couldn't even be honest with people about the fact that Free Press is loaded with marxists, and that these groups are Soros funded. They cloaked them in the neutering garb of "consumer activists" and whatnot. The libs will say McChesney's not involved, he's over at Free Press, even though he's been fighting for net neutrality since before it even had a name!
You really think they're gonna be honest about their true intentions for the internet? For the most part, they never will. But behind closed doors, they'll give you enough information to where you cannot have any doubts.
Tim Wu: The Man Who is Destroying the Tech Industry(Tim Wu is the father of Net Neutrality, it was he who named the baby He says this:)
"Well, this company has clearly shown it's corrupt. ... So let's just nationalize their source code."
Does that sound like a marxist to you?
Media Capitalism, the State and 21st Century Media Democracy Struggles(An interview with McChesney in a socialist rag He says this:)
"But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control"
With this big of a mountain of evidence, as well as their own words, this isn't a conspiracy theory. It's an agenda, that they are very much moving forward with.
Someone else on a different site gave a pretty nice analogy of what the telco's are trying to do, when relating it to another industry ...
"Imagine if your power provider wanted to charge different prices for your power based on whether you used it for toasting bread or watching TV; even further, what if it charged more for your toaster power if you used a brand of toaster that has not paid the power company for 'better' rates."
But in the case of the telco's that is EXACTLY what they are currently doing, and are looking to expand even further.