'Net Neutrality' Is Socialism, Not Freedom

Washington Examiner ^ | October 20, 2009 | James G. Lakely

[FredZarguna]

Please don’t “reply” to me anymore. You’re not even reading my posts. I don’t admit anything about “franchise monopolies.” You haven’t the slightest idea of what you’re writing.

[FredZarguna]

The GPL twittered and blogged all over the place??? Good Lord its a zillion machine-years older than tweets and blogs. And you're right -- nobody gets suckered by it -- anymore -- because nobody whose programs are actually used licenses under GNU GPL. Everybody who wants their code actually incorporated in some non-trivial work ditched Stallman's version long ago -- long before there were "tweets."

Tweets.

Save me.

People whose memories go back to the day before yesterday are lecturing me about this despicable Commie's "license agreement."

[PIF]

Nice come back very impressed!

[PghBaldy]

Copyright has been extended since 1978: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf

Under the law in effect before 1978, copyright was secured
either on the date a work was published with a copyright
notice or on the date of registration if the work was reg­
istered in unpublished form. In either case, the copyright
endured for a first term of 28 years from the date it was
secured. During the last (28th) year of the first term, the
copyright was eligible for renewal. The Copyright Act of 1976
extended the renewal term from 28 to 47 years for copy­
rights that were subsisting on January 1, 1978, or for pre­1978
copyrights restored under the Uruguay Round Agreements
Act (URAA), making these works eligible for a total term of
protection of 75 years. Public Law 105­298, enacted on Octo­
ber 27, 1998, further extended the renewal term of copyrights
still subsisting on that date by an additional 20 years, provid­
ing for a renewal term of 67 years and a total term of protec­
tion of 95 years.

[mvpel]

If Comcast started their own for-profit web forum, and decided to make it more difficult for me to access Free Republic over my Comcast broadband connection, would that simply be the “free market” at work?

[HiTech RedNeck]

“Save me”

You do admit, then, that you are in trouble.

[FredZarguna]

Save me from lame posters like you.

I admit that anybody defending the FSF, Stallman, or the GNU GPL doesn't belong on FR.

[HiTech RedNeck]

I’m not going anywhere. Your move!

[anglian]

No. 124 Neutralism: The Strange Philosophy Behind the Movement for Net Neutrality
Policy Studies > 2009
Info Technology > Internet
Info Technology > Network Neutrality
Telecom > Network Neutrality (See Info Tech)

Written By: James G. Lakely
Published In: Policy Studies > 2009
Publication date: 10/05/2009
Publisher: The Heartland Institute
The election of Barack Obama as president ushered in a new era of regulatory zeal in Washington, with both Congress and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) determined to solve alleged problems with access to and management of the Internet. Advocates of “network neutrality” have the federal government’s ear and seem closer than at times past to achieving their goal of greater government control over the Internet. Their success would change the online experience of every American.

This study examines the philosophy that underlies the movement for network neutrality, which telecom expert Scott Cleland has dubbed “neutralism.” Neutralism stands in striking contrast to the innocuous-sounding Internet “freedom” its advocates call for. Understanding neutralism helps explain why network neutrality would have consequences that are quite the opposite of what its proponents claim. Not all advocates of network neutrality believe in neutralism, and some aren’t even aware that the policy arose from such a strange philosophy. One purpose of this paper is to inform those neutrality advocates of the radical agenda they have unwittingly bought into.

http://www.heartland.org/publications/policy%20studies/article/26061/