Even Left Groups Mobilize Against A Government Takeover of the Internet
by Capitol ConfidentialOn Thursday, the Federal Communications Commission will consider “a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on policies to preserve the open Internet.” That’s a long way of saying that the FCC, led by Julius Genachowski, Obama’s old friend from Harvard Law School, will take its first steps towards forcing through net neutrality, a controversial policy that critics say would amount to a government takeover of the internet.

Internet Service Providers—the ones who have actually invested in the architecture and infrastructure that enables us all to access the internet—have long been opposed to net neutrality, as have conservatives and libertarians concerned about maintaining free markets and promoting innovation and quality service.
But, with concerns that the FCC might now act to push net neutrality through, some voices less traditionally associated with opposition to the policy are speaking out regarding the proposed rulemaking, too. In fact, a number of Democrats and groups typically aligned with the left—the online component of which has long treated net neutrality as a top three policy objective—seem to be feeling less than warm and fuzzy about increased government intervention with regard to the internet.
Those groups include the Communications Workers of America labor union, which in a letter to Chairman Genachowski from Thursday, raised concerns regarding the impact that the FCC’s rulemaking could have on job creation at a time of 10 percent unemployment. Groups like the Asian American Justice Center, National Council of La Raza, the League of United Latin American Citizens and the National Urban League, keen to avoid a widening of the “digital divide,” also voiced concerns in a letter to the FCC dated October 13.
Democratic Governors, including Arkansas Gov. Mike Beebe and North Carolina Gov. Beverly Perdue, have urged caution with regard to the issue. Meanwhile, Oklahoma’s Democratic Gov. Brad Henry wrote to Genachowski earlier this month to tout the positive effects of his state’s model of “light or no regulation for landline, broadband and wireless services.”
Last Thursday, 72 Democratic members of the House of Representatives, also in a letter to Genachowski, wrote that “it is our strong belief that continued progress in expanding the reach and capabilities of broadband networks will require the Commission to reiterate, and not repudiate, its historic commitment to competition, private investment and a restrained regulatory approach.”
A restrained regulatory approach net neutrality would not be, of course. Opponents of the policy rightly argue that its implementation would stifle innovation and impact service—a little bit the way that a government takeover of health care would with regard to that industry. Also like health care, the internet is something that most Americans are unable and unwilling to go without. Turning the internet into the functional equivalent of the US Postal Service (a communications system in which Genachowski takes a deep, and arguably ironic, personal interest) is the wrong answer to preserving it in a viable, useful form.
Of course, Genachowski should know this. Here’s hoping some of his fellow FCC commissioners bear it in mind before going along with their Chairman’s big government, overtly leftist and doomed-to-fail scheme.





Subscribe via RSS
86 Comments
Who wants government rationed Internet? Look like lftists are even smart enough to figure that out. Forcing all to the same will result in no advances.
I suspect the major companies have already signed on because they were made offers(threats) they could not refuse.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by SavageNews and DRIP USA, AZ grassroots. AZ grassroots said: Even Left Groups Mobilize Against A Government Takeover of the Internet http://bit.ly/z8mbq #dripusa #ocra #tcot [...]
It is next to impossible to regulate the internet. China hasn't perfected it, Iran hasn't perfected it and Hugo Chavez isn't even close, so what makes these schmucks think they can even come close to it. They can't even get the Postal service right (they brought it up). This is just another regulatory pipedream that these Fascist pieces of crap want to foist on the American people. Won't happen, but the fact that they want to is all that matters in this case.
Kind of reminds me of Jimmy Carter and the Fairness Doctrine.
I am curious, if the Government takes over and regulates the internet, will it work as effeciently, and be as economically feasible as the Post Office, CON-Rail or Amtrack? Anytime in my experience the Government has anything to do with traffic of any kind, it is usually "FUBAR".
In further wondering, will Al Gore be named Internet Czar?
Obama's takeover of the internet?
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/1591...
What else would a dictator do?
"As very few of our Congressional elected officials—Democrats AND Republicans—are taking any actions or exhibiting any desire to stop the Obama Dictatorship and We-the-People are now being completely left out of any and all legislation that directly affects us, I can only surmise that we as the Nation of the United states of America may have reached the point of no return in our rapidly forced descent into totalitarianism."
Perhaps some of those on the left that are worried about this are seeing what is coming for them once it steam rolls over conservative media. Perhaps I am giving them way too much credit.
Hope and Change? Change we can believe in?
How about Opaquely Transparent?
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/1593...
This is NOT change. It is treason.
There is still time to save this great nation, but the clock is ticking. The pace of the socialist takeover is accelerating. The time for complacency and standing on the sidelines is gone. Richard Nixon resigned and Bill Clinton was impeached for far less.
Or are being "paid" incentive dollars to sign on.
Is anybody making a list of all the stuff we/re gonna have to roll back? Again, another highly educated idiot with no common sense elevated to an elite position of power. Did these guys get the crap kicked out of them on the playground in elementary school or what?
Don't you mean Jimmaah?
Cowboy Logic – your posts are always right on topic and filled with great satiric humor! FUBAR is an accurate analogy that anything the government "takes over" ends up resembling – except for maybe, national defense and espionage (for the trolls, I will explain – espionage means spying on your enemies – and our national security cannot thrive without it!) FUBAR is a wonderful term! One that hold out only for those entities most deserving. This administration is most deserving on all levels!
What is the difference between this and Chavez taking over the oil companies, radio stations and hotels?
Crap. Here we go again.
There are three aspects to this, and I want an analysis of the proposed rules (or, heaven forbid, a link to them) before I condemn them.
On one side: The Obama administration, Marxist shills. I don't trust them as far as I can throw them.
Second side: AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner, etc., all protecting legacy businesses that stand to gain by using monopoly (or duopoly, at best) status to manipulate people to buy pay-per-view, high-end channel packages, or land-line telephony, rather than compete on Internet delivery, which can deliver all the above more cheaply. This obviously threatens their cushy position. (We need some pure-play broadband internet providers nationally…)
Third side: Me, and people like me, who are sick of hearing that lots of the world has faster broadband, and cheaper than us. I want my Voice-over-IP to work without AT&T slowing the packets. I want Netflix "watch now" movies to work, rather than have Time Warner choke off the delivery. And I want the scuzzy providers to lose their monopoly status and to have to compete.
So it depends on the proposed rules. I might like them; I might hate them. And I don't want a freaking government takeover of anything else, thanks.
These fascists are begging for a Revolution. If they think Americans will tolerate a fascistic totalitarian govt they are sorely mistaken.
A small bone to pick with the author of this article and all others who continually use the term "Democratic". PLEASE stop referring to Democrats as "Democratic", especially as they are not in the least. It is incorrect and drives me crazy. Democrat governers, et al should be identified by their party, not a description of governance.
Arrrrrgh. Thank you.
An introduction to traffic shaping:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/989209/Traffic-Shaping-...
Comcast throttling their users:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/01/p...
The consequence of an ISP "shaping" their network is that if your VoIP connection goes through someone else's network then your call may degrade or be disconnected. If I use a competitor's website to do something then my ISP may degrade the performance of that connection so I will choose to use their service.
Bittorrent is used by many people in the IT industry. Degrading that performance will impact our performance.
One reason that they would want to prioritize traffic is so that they don't have to upgrade their networks even though
Point:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2365...
(He actually misses the point of net neutrality by saying that we will subsidize high bandwidth users. This is factually incorrect. It is designed to keep your traffic from being prioritized lower when going through some other companies network.)
Counterpoint.
http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/2702
A couple of thousand miles, and the Gulf of Mexico.
Thank you. Alot of folks don't appreciate dry humor, and the rest of them, it goes over their heads. Years ago, I heard Rush was quoted (and I never fact checked it) as saying the "sole purpose of the military was to invade places and break things". I chuckled at that.
Personally, for twenty-five years i have always believed that the single, solitary thing that the United States Governenment runs with any order, any effeciency, is the Military. Why shouldn't they? When money is not an object, anything is possible. Other than the military, what else is there? Everything the government touches is a joke.
Obama's big plan is not to regulate it. It is to shut it down when we decide to take our country back.
Can I say ' Demoncratic'?
I found the "counterpoint" logical although very confusing, like walking though a maze. Not that I am totally network ignorant, but this has to be explained in a way that ordinary people can understand the arguement.
They just cant stand it until they take over every last part of our lives. Obama and his cronies just want complete and total control of everything.
The next thing i expect to hear is that he’s passed a decree declairing himself president for life
Some of y'all need to get frosty on the outrage trigger. A couple of posters get it, especially Geezerboy.
Net neutrality is a response to the possible monopolistic intent of the large carriers. That's not saying big business is evil. Corporations don't wear black hats or white hats. They exist to profit their shareholders and they will do so at the expense of the consumer if they control the marketplace. Anyone old enough to remember AT&T?
Anyway. Not saying that what is being proposed is a good thing. Someone either makes money or gains power on every piece of legislation.
But telling carriers that they have to treat all traffic equally is not a bad thing. Anyone know how much "We the Taxpayers" put into the backbone that these carriers use?
An ISP is like a city, and there are a lot of cities. Think of the internet as the roads and bridges. Now imagine that each city makes sure that only it's residents can drive fast there, and only if they do what the city tells them to do. The city controls the speed of the different vehicles. All other out of city traffic will not enjoy going there because they are forced to move in the slow lane or sometimes even pulled over altogether. Out of town cars are easily identifiable by their license plates (P addresses).
So if I have Acme VoIP (Voice over IP) and someone who I am calling also has Acme VoIP I will get a great connection because they would prioritize calls from outside of their town a bit lower.
The effect to me, as long as I stay within their network, is negligible, possibly a slightly better voice quality because those from out of town are getting trodden upon.
Now let's pretend that I want to call my friend who uses Miracle VoIP. It is working great right up until my city sees that there is a phone call to another network. Both sides can demote the priority of your voice call because it contains packets from the other network.
I don't know about you, but if my phone company (or the other one) degraded the quality of my call because I called someone on another network I would be pissed.
What the proposal is for Net Neutrality is to ban that form of packet shaping. One of the unintended consequences of Comcast's shaping of BitTorrent was that the connections looked a lot like a VPN connection. Imagine those people trying to work from home when all of a sudden their VPN connection slows to a crawl or is disconnected.
While I oppose Big Government and want to see a minimalistic governance there needs to be rules to protect consumers from business practices that harm consumers.
You can check to see if your packets are being shaped by going to this link:
http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~partha/diffprobe/shaper...
By the way, who would you turn to for service if your internet provider started sabotaging your connections?
Somehow I think a common denominator between Net Neutrality, media "bailout" proposals, and the War On Fox News is ultimate control over communications, whether via mass media venues or gossip sessions at the local tavern.
Wow! That sounds like something that they would try, but what about our phones? I really don't think they could completely shut down all communications in this day and age.
You didn't know that he already did that? We're stuck with him,
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/1592...
Everything that is going on right now is eerily similar to what Chavez has done. I feel like I keep saying it, but no one will listen.
If the government runs the internet, will they be keeping track of those of us who oppose them?
You have to understand obama's motive.
1. news print is going bankrupt and you know what side they are on. The intent is to give a chunk of cyberspace to them so that they can charge for news content you receive
2. The post office is also going belly up so they want is another chunk of the bandwidth so when you send like emails you have to pay them like a postage stamp
3. he wants his mexican and african voters who cannot afford internet services free access, this allows them to take up as spreading the obama message through them to take over as much as they are in the schools.
Just how much more do you all intend to take before you see the writing on the wall as stated today there is 40 million mexicans here in the USA and by 2050 it will be up to 132 MILLION.
Government regulating the internet, I can’t wait.
A cable connection costing $400 a month with 14.4 modem speeds.
And the only compatible software will be DOS based.
Yes. They are watching you now………….
Way to play to my fears Cowboy!
LOL! You got it!
Love Al Gore as Internet Czar! Good one!
I FIND IT SHOCKING THAT THE MAIN STREAM MEDIA IS NOT REPORTING ON THIS WHEN THE INTERNET IS THE MAIN SORCE OF INFO. THIS LIKE CHINAS CONTROL OF MEDIA………
IF THIS WHITEHOUSE DOES THIS IT WILL BRING WAR TO THE US…..
The leftwing media welcomes this; they'd like to go back to the days of no dissenting voices [Fox News] where they spewed all propaganda all of the time. Obama has made it clear if you're not a goose-stepping leftist then you're an enemy.
This admin is a fraud; completely illegitimate.
More of the American Governemnt showing it's disdain for the populace to freelly think choose and voice their opinion. But wait, never mind, as long as we agree with every syllable they utter than we have nothing to worry about.
Never before have I seen our own government wage war on us. It seems the time for discussion is over for them. They are going to ram it down our throats no matter what we say, they know what's better for us than we do right?
I really am starting to miss good ol Bill Clinton. As much of a lying SOS he was he never did things as insidiously evil as BO and the worst that he did was play cigar tricks in the oval office. At the time my greatest disgust was the degradation of the office of the president. As of now I would take degrading the office over the complete destruction of the republic.
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by AZgrassroots: Even Left Groups Mobilize Against A Government Takeover of the Internet http://bit.ly/z8mbq #dripusa #ocra #tcot…
This I am in total agreement with.
Since he invented it….it would only be right…..no…wait a minute…that was global warming.
By forcing all carriers to jack up all prices and then hand them more of our money as in taxes, through the back door, oh that's a great idea, NOT. So they get us coming and going. We need the government out of the way, put back in their little house to LEAVE US THE H&LL ALONE! Quit demonizing businesses and glorifying the government. EVERYTHING THE GOVERNMENT TOUCHES THEY SCREW UP. GOVERNMENT=CRAP FOR YOU AND ME You let the market take care of these companies that aren't treating the consumer right NOT the government. Oh and AT&T is a crap company, the gov screwed that up too. Not one company can control the market but the government sure can destroy it like they are now. Wise up libtard or you'll get what you wish for and then you'll be the first one whining about how there's no internet at all. Oh that's right they're going to vote to regulate and screw that up on Thursday. THIS ADMINISTRATION SUCKS
Remember on 9/11 how landline and cellphone systems got overloaded and they virtually locked up?
"For the safety of our fellow Americans during this national emergency, the exigency of such action having been demonstrated historically…"
They tell the phone providers to shut down so "emergency services" has full use of the system, we "normal users" will likely only get 911 service, and that's that. Even cable and satellite phone services route through the central backbone, they do not go point-to-point. Plus, where before there may have been ham and CB radios used for communications, now the cell and satellite phone services are found.
If something dragged on long enough, we could cobble something together. I have heard there are "provisions" if something happens but nothing concrete. As it stands, if the Second Revolution occurs then it had best be massive and swift with phone service getting restored quickly. Otherwise "secure communications" will only arrive in time to benefit what is left of The Resistance.
" … today there is 40 million mexicans here in the USA and by 2050 it will be up to 132 MILLION."
No, the entire Obama strategy is aimed at solving the illegal immigration problem: By destroying the US economy, eliminating private businesses and all of their jobs, side-lining the independent-minded media such as Fox News & talk radio, and putting a muzzle on dissenters with "domestic terrorism" and "nut-job" labels — Obama knows the illegals will look elsewhere for a "land of opportunity" and set sail for Hondurus, Tokyo or South Korea.
See that? There's a method to the madness.
I agree! I'm a very conservative free marketer, but I'm also a supporter of net neutrality. To call it regulating the internet would be wrong and misleading. There's a reason the internet is awesome and cable tv sucks. It's because today we have de facto net neutrality.
If we don't mandate neutrality soon then Comcast can – and is planning – to decide they want me to pay more for let's say bigovernement.com as a premium service like they do with Fox News on the cable side. Or, perhaps they'll just throttle back the packets from bighollywood.com which would make the site unbearable to visit and kill it's traffic.
Do you want to live in a world where access to the sites you like is controlled by some liberal corporate asshat working for AT&T, Concast, or GE? I don't! Unless required to carry all traffic equally they will use their power to stifle the little guys and optimize the MSNBCs of the world. Why should we let them pick the winners.
Just because some liberals like it doesn't necessarily make it wrong. Both side agree on free speech and this is very much like that – some company should not be allowed to limit your speech because they happen to have control of the delivery technology. We lived to long in a big 3 network controlled world to go back to corporate gatekeepers blocking conservative points of view.
I say let the packets run unhindered and let the ISPs continue to charge based on volume or speed rather than content. Net neutrality now!
You're absolutely right – this is about equal access! The ISPs can already charge us more for faster connections and higher bandwidth usage. What they want to do now is optimize their favored (read pay to play) sites or services at the expense of your preferred content and make us pay more for some content. This makes them the arbiter of what is accessible by us and at what quality. Neutrality means all packets get treated equally.
maybe this explains the 13 trillion that is missing from the Fed, which justifies Bernakes forceful resistance to an audit of the fed..A sort of secret fund to pay various incentives,i.e. payoffs to various voting blocks and endorsers to HC (AARP,AMA(only29% of physicians),cap& tax (special corp ,(GEvarious Green industries),community orgs, UAW,SEIU,Czars payroll and now seniors( $250/one time in lieu of COLA), Pay to Play Chicago Thugocracy!!!
From the days of prohibition the government steps in to regulate everything and anything ie (Marijuana is on the rise for legalization), to the internet, any place they can tax, assign a fee and increase their revenues, in the name of stimulating the economy and bringing down the GNP…………………is what they will do. Hmmmm, is this going to change anything for those that need the most change, the self employed, the small business man, NOPE.
Ah, I love the freedom, retired Military!
The leftwing media welcomes this; they'd like to go back to the days of no dissenting voices [Fox News] where they spewed all propaganda all of the time, which they still do when they're not busy attacking dissenters. Obama has made it clear if you're not a goose-stepping leftist then you're an enemy. Only thing missing from the empty suit is that little mustache.
This admin is a fraud; completely illegitimate.
This is a marketplace issue. In my experience government intervention or regulation has never improved anything. All they will produce is another massive boondoggle that rewards their friends or diverts money to their respective districts and then walk away leaving the smoking pile behind them as they move on to lay waste to another industry they don't understand.
The bill submitted, HR 1319: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill...
Any small business owner who wants to do business online without paying a “quality of service tax” or other extra charge should let their member of Congress know how they feel about the bill. Yeah or Nah.
Ponder this:
If wireless dies the same death as phone lines who will maintain it? If the FCC takes over the infrastructure, shouldn’t the government take ownership for the potential 100’s of thousands of job losses?
[...] Big Government – Even Left Groups Mobilize Against A Government Takeover of the Internet Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Online Freedom ActClosing the Digital Divide: The Internet and IranRegulating the InternetICANN drops its US Government affiliation [...]
[...] Cement Shoes for a Website? Union Threatens AFTexposed.com Looks like that website struck a nerve Even Left Groups Mobilize Against A Government Takeover of the Internet Deep down inside they know a future Republican administration could do serious payback Hope Rush [...]
White House boasts: We 'control' news media
Communications chief offers shocking confession to foreign government
Posted: October 18, 2009
7:11 pm Eastern
By Aaron Klein
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Anita Dunn
TEL AVIV – President Obama's presidential campaign focused on "making" the news media cover certain issues while rarely communicating anything to the press unless it was "controlled," White House Communications Director Anita Dunn disclosed to the Dominican government at a videotaped conference.
"Very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn't absolutely control," said Dunn.
"One of the reasons we did so many of the David Plouffe videos was not just for our supporters, but also because it was a way for us to get our message out without having to actually talk to reporters," said Dunn, referring to Plouffe, who was Obama's chief campaign manager.
"We just put that out there and made them write what Plouffe had said as opposed to Plouffe doing an interview with a reporter. So it was very much we controlled it as opposed to the press controlled it," Dunn said.
Check out the hot new best-seller — "Muslim Mafia"
Continued Dunn: "Whether it was a David Plouffe video or an Obama speech, a huge part of our press strategy was focused on making the media cover what Obama was actually saying as opposed to why the campaign was saying it, what the tactic was. … Making the press cover what we were saying."
Video of Dunn's remarks at the conference can be seen below:
How would you like it if the largest web access provider serving millions of people served up MSM sites at twice the speed of BigGovernment.com or FoxNews.com?
Please take a look at the thread above that I started. I feel it may be self explanatory. That or you can check out my comments here:
http://intensedebate.com/people/Navilor/comments….
This has been a topic of concern since President Bush was in office. I commented above on the situation. Check that thread and see for yourself.
Net neutrality has been a topic of concern since President Bush was in office. I commented above on the situation. Check that thread and see for yourself.
Obama Diversity Czar:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/seton-motley/2009/09...
"White People need to step down, so others can have power."
[...] by Capitol Confidential [...]
North Carolina Unemployment in August 2009 (BLS data)
http://www.localetrends.com/st/nc_north_carolina_...
versus North Carolina Unemployment Levels 1 year ago
http://www.localetrends.com/st/nc_north_carolina_...
With all of the creative hackers out there, it would be a matter of minutes before holes started appearing in the communications blackout. As soon as that happened, all bets would be off. You bring the tar and I will bring the feathers.
Easy on the outrage. I'm a free market conservative too, but until I see the actual proposed FCC guidelines I'm not convinced this is a "govt. takeover." Go check out Google's policy on net neutrality (http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html). Essentially, net neutrality means that your ISP can't prioritize how fast (or if) different content arrives at your computer–just like your phone company can't limit who you are able to call or what you can say.
Epic Fail
[...] the Left is lining up against the WH proposed Internet regulation. A [...]
Hackers would need to first get online. This would be tough when there is no "online" to get to. They would also have to be very creative to turn on the physical electrical switches that control the power to the needed telecommunications equipment. Good luck trying to throw the lever on a locked electrical panel from a chair in front of a monitor.
Meanwhile the federal government, by the military, maintains its own communication systems that are not tied into the internet and operate outside of "civilian" networks. Those would be the ones that would have to be accessed as they would be the ones still operating. With all the foreign governments who routinely (despite denials) try to break into them using their "best and brightest" people, they are very well defended. Moreover there are hardly any hackers who specialize in such systems, as it is high risk with very low profit incentive.
Besides, those you could find would have gained their experience acting against America, by attacking the military communications. Are those the types who would "patriotically" agree to help rebuild a stronger America?
Reality check time. Anything happens, write off the internet, phones, anything like that we have gotten used to using. Only unusual solutions will be of benefit, and those seriously worried about a government takeover should be seriously looking into acquiring them.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by 912PPP_don, Ann Malchak. Ann Malchak said: @NorsU http://bit.ly/fxPhn #tcot Net Neutrality=FCC & its Socialist BHO puppets are dissolved #tlot #iamthemob [...]
Racist
Who?
The Obama Diversity Czar, Obama, or you?
FCC to vote this Thursday on regulating the internet (Another freedom being lost)
Date: 2009-10-20, 6:06PM EDT
Reply To This Post
This Thursday the FCC is going to vote on a regulation for the internet. This regulation will determine what can and can't be said on the Internet. They are voting on putting tax payer money into taking control of the Internet. This control will definitely effect all that use the Internet for good purposes and also will regulate what you can and can't say right here on Rants & Raves. Mr Obama is also looking at bailing out the Newspapers, Is this for control of what content you can and can't read? or what the Government only wants you to read? People WAKE UP!! Your freedom of Speech is slowly being taken away from you and you don't even realize it or don't even care! One day when you want to care it may be too late. THIS IS OUR COUNTRY!! This country is not ONLY Obama's but OURS and will you let him take away your freedoms??? If you don't believe me, GOOGLE IT!! what's a matter you afraid of the truth?
I know you nut jobs out there will call this paranoid, but didn't Obama fire a CEO of a PRIVATE company once gov't stepped in? THIS IS FOR REAL!! YOU ARE LOSING YOUR FREEDOMS and don't seem to care about it!! Soon Government will control all aspects of your life. Your freedoms are being taken away slowly so you don't notice and when brought to your attention you still do nothing but think it's all a scam
PEOPLE OF AMERICA, WAKE UP!!!!!! I enjoy the Freedom of Speech and the Freedom of the Press but soon that Freedom of the Press will be taken away once gov't gets their hands into OUR local newspapers. CALL and WRITE your senators and congressmen and tell them to PUT A STOP TO ALL THIS MADNESS!! You can make a difference this NOVEMBER…..Get out and VOTE!!! Vote all the incumbents out of office. IT IS NOW TIME FOR A CHANGE IN GOVERNMENT and WE can Make that change not OBAMA or ANYONE ELSE!!!
again you afraid to GOOGLE it or look at what you government is actually doing to you? STAND UP and BE HEARD!!!
Quoted from and linked to at:
GET UP, STAND UP, STAND UP FOR YOUR RIGHTS
The ignorance in this thread is astounding. Comparing net neutrality to a takeover of the internet? Please, please. Take a breath, people! I’m as opposed as anybody to Obama in general but this is just silly.
This is about preventing business from degrading your service when it comes from another content provider. Nothing more or less. Please think before you freak out, socialism Chaves govt. takeover people! You’re diluting your argument.
I have to save a special laugh for the guy who thinks Bill Clinton was better on the internet. Ever heard of Echelon? Carnivore? FBI viruses? The Clipper Chip?
Good grief.
I’m a Sr. Software Engineer and am concerned about the level of mis-information and knee-jerk reactions i’m seeing here about Net Neutrality. Please let me clarify what this is all about.
Net Neutrality has absolutely nothing to do with government regulation of the internet, nor controlling what content is or isn’t allowed on it. Net Neutrality says that an ISP can NOT slow down or limit the traffic on its network based on where that traffic is coming from. Its purpose is to PREVENT regulation of the internet by private companies that can hold hostage the traffic going across it. So for example, if you’re an Optimum Online customer, they might have agreements with google, and MSN where their traffic is fast to get to, but ebay, craigslist, and yahoo are slow. Depending on which carrier you go to, different websites, and more importantly, SERVICES, would be slower or faster depending on the agreement those companies have with the ISP’s.
An analogy would be if you call your friend up and notice the call quality sucks, and you call Verizon and say “hey- why does it sound horrible when i call my friend Bob up but not when i call Jim”. Verizon’s response would simply be “Well, Bob is a customer of Verizon, and we’ve chosen not limited the call quality between verizon customers. Jim is on AT&T and we’ve decided to reduce that quality”.
It get worse on the internet because not only can you limit websites, you can limit services like independent VOIP providers like Vonage and MagicJack.
The true competition and innovation comes from what’s build ON TOP OF the internet, not from the net itself. The Internet IS the market. Net Neutrality’s goal is to ensure that the players that are already in the market can’t prevent newcomers and startups from flourishing because they’re using the ISP’s data paths. Again, think of the call quality of 1-800 numbers in the phone world… why should the tech support line for a huge company like Dell differ (quality-wise) from the tech support line for a mom and pop shop in your home town? It shouldn’t. That’s what net neutrality wants to preserve.
It’s “regulation” only in the sense that it prevents current players from tilting and keeping the Internet in their favor, and preventing new players from building the next Google or Facebook or eBay. If you don’t want your ISP to hold YOUR data hostage and limit the quality of traffic to YOU because the websites YOU choose to go to haven’t paid their fees, then you need to support Net Neutrality.
Opponents of Net Neutrality are all the ISP’s (who have something to lose if they can’t take away your services and then charge you for giving them back). Proponents are all the other players and content providers (who will be the ones paying for the “privilege” to serve you).
An ISP’s job is to shuffle traffic from point A to point B, not to care what that traffic is. Just like the phone company’s job is to get voice calls from point A to point B, and not to care what you’re talking about on that call, and charge accordingly. How outraged would you be if you were charged more money for talking to your friend about a business venture than about going to dinner, because your phone company decided that they were helping you make money, they want a cut of it. That’s exactly what Net Neutrality is about.
So far BR Huckabee and a couple others get it.
I'm amazed at how the rest of you so easily become unwilling dupes to corporate interests. Capitalism is a beautiful thing. Monopolies and duopolies however, aren't.
This isn't about government running the net. It's about not letting ISPs have unfettered, uncompetitive control through purposely degrading traffic to "tiered" users.
All this "gov't-waging-war-on-us" is silliness. Why are you so willing to surrender the internet to the big telecoms?
spool32 is right–the ignorance on this subject is staggering. You are an unwitting dupe the big telecoms that want to strangle your service if you don't pay up additional fees.
Get a grip, man and learn to read and how to determine legitimate sources.
Then again, maybe you work for Verizon, ComCast or AT&T.
Chavez and Obama, marxist brothers from another mother!
The last bastion of freedom of the press. The government controls all other media sources. The Net needs to be keep out of government hands if any hope of freedom is to be preserved. How is that to be done? I do not know. Government only reacts to the threat of force.
[...] EVEN LEFT GROUPS Mobilize Against A Government Takeover of the Internet; The Expanding Net of Online Regulations [...]
[...] internet service providers to groups typically regarded as Obama administration-friendly, such as the Asian American Justice Center, National Council of La Raza, the League of United Latin American …. 72 House Democrats and three Democratic Governors have also raised concerns about the proposed [...]
[...] charged would amount to a government takeover of the internet. The policy has been the focus of widespread, bipartisan opposition in recent weeks, emanating from everyone from internet service providers to liberal-aligned groups [...]
[...] charged would amount to a government takeover of the internet. The policy has been the focus of widespread, bipartisan opposition in recent weeks, emanating from everyone from internet service providers to liberal-aligned groups [...]
[...] radical so-called net neutrality advocated by folks like Crawford and FCC Chair Julius Genachowski. Bi-partisan opposition, I hasten to add. The radicals in the administration, whose views are shared by the President, and [...]
[...] radical so-called net neutrality advocated by folks like Crawford and FCC Chair Julius Genachowski. Bi-partisan opposition, I hasten to add. The radicals in the administration, whose views are shared by the President, in [...]