Obama Back-Tracking on Net Neutrality?
by Capitol ConfidentialIs the Obama administration worried about the political ramifications of its push for net neutrality? That’s a question being asked by opponents of the policy in the wake of news that White House senior adviser Susan Crawford resigned last week.

Crawford, an adviser to Obama on technology and communications policy, is a strong proponent of net neutrality, which critics have 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 and elected Democrats at the state and federal level.
Crawford’s resignation attracted little attention when the American Spectator noted it on Monday, the day before the 2009 election. The results of the election have had the virtually the entirety of the U.S. media focused on Republican wins in gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia, and what has been described as a “rejection” of the Obama agenda. But observers say that Crawford’s exit may be part of that story, too: According to the Spectator, Crawford ran afoul of White House economic adviser Larry Summers, who sources say may be concerned about the political impact of net neutrality. In its write-up, the Spectator noted that:
“[Summers] and other senior Obama officials were unaware of how radical the draft Net Neutrality regulations were when they were initially internally circulated to Obama administration officials several weeks ago. ‘All of sudden Larry is getting calls from CEOs, Wall Street folks he talks to, Republicans and Democrats, asking him what the Administration is doing with the policies, and he isn’t sure what they’re talking about,’ says one White House aide. ‘He felt blind-sided, and Susan was one of those people who heard about it.’”
It now appears that Crawford is the latest to be thrown under the Obama bus, and that the Summers upset may have been responsible for the moderation of proposed net neutrality regulations away from their more radical, original form, as suggested by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski. Genachowski, like Crawford, is a strong proponent of the policy, which reportedly remains the focus of deep concern on the part of groups historically seen as Democrat-aligned, including the NAACP, 100 Black Men, National Black Caucus of State Legislators, National Conference of Black Mayors, National Minority Supplier Development Council, LULAC, and the U.S. Hispanic Leadership Institute. According to the Hill newspaper, Genachowski also came under fire yesterday from Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.), the ranking member of the House Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet, for proceeding with the net neutrality rulemaking process with insufficient analysis having been carried out confirming the supposed necessity of net neutrality rules.
Sources say that such ongoing concern and criticism regarding the push for net neutrality could further impact the thinking of key Obama advisers—including Summers and potentially Obama strategist David Axelrod—and ultimately result in the administration backing away from net neutrality entirely. The White House aide cited by the Spectator notes that radical figures within the administration “are just a bunch of targets on our back that we can’t shake.” With regard to Crawford, however, an effort to “shake” her seems to have been made, and it is possible that Genachowski could be the next to be “dealt with” in some form. The White House political operation will be keen to stop the bleeding and eliminate obvious fodder for attacks ahead of next year’s midterm elections, especially in the aftermath of Tuesday. The increased focus on net neutrality ensures that at the very least, scrutiny of Genachowski will continue.





Subscribe via RSS
93 Comments
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Michael Chavez, AZ grassroots. AZ grassroots said: Obama Back-Tracking on Net Neutrality? http://bit.ly/38uggx #dripusa #ocra #tcot [...]
Obama Convention Delegates to Administer "Net Neutrality" Rules http://optoons.blogspot.com/2009/10/obama-convent...
IN other news, The American Medical Association and AARP endorsed health care reform .legislation drafted by top House Democrats
With a public option.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/05/health.car...
If Obama pushes this mess through, every single Congress Critter who votes for it, will lose their seat ! Even if he somehow does it on his own, Americans will still wreck havoc on Dems.
If they refuse to believe that Americans are angry now/make fun of us, they ain't seen nothin' yet, should Obama follow through with this and the damned "FAIRNESS DOCTRINE" on radio and T.V. !
All cronies with no values
Interesting. Is it too much to hope that it might also create more inspection of appointments during confirmation hearings?
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by Erudite_Enigma: Obama Back-Tracking on Net Neutrality?: Is the Obama administration worried about the political ramifications o.. http://bit.ly/4DpU38…
We are ALL spending wayyyy to much time on this liar – in – chief. We have been wasting mental time that could be utilized for more productive objectives in maintaining American values. Let's just neutralize him financially by taking away the pursestrings (the House). We can deal with this sorry POS and his WOOKIE wife in 2012.
Take the House in 2010… Simply cut him off at the knees… What fun to watch his behavior when he has been… dekahonaized !
Obama knows exactly what is in this set of regulations, and so does Annita V Dunn and all his other little lackeys, I will believe it when I see pigs fly, they just haven't bought off enough special interest groups with exclusions and phoney promises.
Just like health care they will try to re-tool or slip in a watered down version that can be ginned up into something more serious as they need it.
Quite frankly, if FOX cut off the cameras, and quit reporting on him, it would newter him, and make him irrelevant.
I agree with with what you say, but we can't take our eyes off of him for even a minute. He will do everything in his power to implement bills etc that will derail this country before Nov 2010. He is in a rush and the signing of our sovereignty on Dec 7th will only be the beginning.
Does anyone else hear Eddie Murphy's voice saying "Goonie Goo Goo", in their heads when they see Michelle Obama on T.V., or is it just me?
Net neutrality is a socialist play for control of the Internet. See the following:
http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/p...
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9775
Cowboy? There is so much Obama on MSM that cutting off the cameras on Fox would only make us work harder trying to refute the BS. I think a lot of people are tuning into Fox to hear the flip side of the coin.
Perhaps you are right. I just get tired of his blathering bullshit. All Obama, all the time, for all the people, now until the hour of our death, Amen.
Barak Obama,his czarist administration and the freak show democrats in congress are responsible for taking a bad but fixable economic situation and using it to blaze a path of destruction through this country.
The real Pravda{not the American Lame Street Media}in Russia is comparing Obama's economic policies to the policies of the Soviet Union before it's collapse.And I never thought a communist news organization was this capable of seeing reality.
Wake Up america! Obama isn't going to stop until we make him. He and his friends like George the nazi Sorros are out to destory America and you with it. Net neutrality is nothing more than a another power grab by Obama to try and control what we hear and say. He doesn't want Fox or anyone else telling us the truth. He can't gte reelected if we know what he's doing and he knows it. Wake Up! stop the destruction of america by a bunch of spoiled rotten rich kids that can't make in the real world outside academics. Don't let them steal you blind or steal your children futures, stand up fight back call them, email them write them speak out against them let everyone you know that they are thieves and are out to steal their hard earned money. They've never had real jobs so they don't appreciate how hard you work to put food on the table. If they like venuzalua so much move there! Wake Up America! before it's too late! No net neutrality, no more taxes, no more government, no more obama and George Sorros!
IDIOTS
Net Neutrality isn't a government take over. It's keeping things as they are so first amendment protection control isn't ceded by the government to private entities just like control of the quantity of money was ceded from the government to the PRIVATE federal reserve in 1913.
If Net Neutrality is done away with you willl see the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) banning all sorts of websites under the guise of "hate speech"
The ADL already has Comcast's Numero Uno in their back pocket:
http://www.comcast.com/corporate/about/pressroom/...
The Ministry of Truth and absolute tyranny will be in overdrive shuld the people who are represented in the government cede control to entities like Comcast (private interests whose interests are solely their own and not the people) to control the protection of free speech.
Comcast won't have any first amendment to stop them unlike the government when subversive pressure groups tell them to shut down certain websites.
NET NEUTRALITY IS NECESSARY TO PREVENT TYRANNY.
Speakijng of net neutrality, and things internet:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/...
Madame Pelosi lied. She broke her pledge to put the Health Care Bill on the net. Lied again………
Nice try zippy. I'll take a private enterprise or an assortment of private enterprises over a government determination of who hears what, where.
In other news, both the AMA and AARP endorsed OBAMACARE early on last summer, so today's blurb is just so much regurgitating of something that was announced many months ago.
The AARP came out for it, seniors left them in droves, then the AARP attempted to backpeddle, and now they're openly for it again.
Go away scotty boy……………………your post is hardly news and a parrot could just as easily do your job.
I'm afraid you're right ; by 2012 ( 2013, actually ), even when we take back at least one House and neutralize the other, it probably will be too late.
Clinton signed a massive amount of EOs and the courts would allow President Bush the younger to get rid of far too many of them. And once there's a government program been enacted, it becomes impossible to get rid of.
He has every other channel and most of the newspapers. Unless some of them turn on him, he'll always have the constant adulation, he appears to not only need, but demand !
Moron, I bet you believe that THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE is a great thing, too.
NET NEUTRALITY AND THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE ARE THE HALLMARKS OF A TYRANT/DICTATOR.
OK, this is getting weird. What pray tell is now wrong with the fairness doctrine, which was one of the defining policies the US between 1949 and 1987?
Net Neutrality in a nutshell: carriers doesn't censor information.
Why would anybody be against it?
You're confused. You think net neutrality is intended to secure freedom of speech and information access. But when the government CONTROLS the Internet, will that be a security enjoyed for very long? Maybe Obama is committed to free speech, but will his successor, or someone 10 years from now? I'd rather have corporations beholden to the forces of the market (consumer choice) than government control of a communications medium.
Comcast got CAUGHT interfering with internet traffic. And what happened? THEY BACKED DOWN! Why, because their customers were PISSED. Ask yourself, would a Hitler or Stalin back down if dissenters to their regime were posting unflattering messages about them?
Please, read up on the issue:
http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/p...
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9775
You mean the private enterprise WHO ISN'T BOUND BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO SHUT DOWN WEBSITES UNLIKE THE GOVERNMENT.
DO YOU WANT PRO-ABORTION, PRO-GAY MARRIAGE ABE FOXMAN CONTROLLING THE INTERNET????
The government is ELECTABLE. Yes they are incompetent many times. Yes we know that there are probably people who are employed by the government who haven't showered in 30 years. We know these things.
BUT THE GOVERNMENT IS ELECTABLE. Net Neutrality ensures that the PEOPLE control the Internet and not COMCAST or Verizon or AT&T. Their big boys aren't elected by us.
If our representatives are messing with the Internet well guess what? VOTE THEM OUT OF OFFICE.
Without net neutrality all sorts of Conservative websites can be shut down by ISPs who cave into the Jessie Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the world.
Also, we have separation of powers so should the FCC mess with the first amendment the courts will ensure this wont be done b/c of the first amendment.
There was a huge non-story on this recently :
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/56662
The FCC Commissioner can't do anything about the first amendment. It's a total red herring and suspicious story.
NET NEUTRALITY MUST BE UPHELD TO PREVENT TYRANNY.
Conservatives are being lied to and played for fools and SCAMMED by those who say this is a government takeover.
I agree with you on that point. Whenever I hear 'that" voice I get this horrible feeling of regurgitating my food. So I mute him whenever possible. How can one man incite such vile, hateful feelings? I think chemotherapy would not be as bad.
Two word: How much?
I meant to say who isn;t prevented by the first amendment from shutting down websites.
The government can't do anything about shutting down Conservative websites b/c of the first amendment.
Comcast can however because they are not subject to the first amendment.
Those(well not everyone of course) who say net neutrality is a bad thing want to IMPOSE TYRANNY and ensure that the first amendment will no longer stand in the way of protecting the people's Constitutional speech rights.
WAKE UP CONSERVATIVES!!!!
Guest,
According to your link, Comcast founder and chairman emeritus (i.e. no longer chairman), was honored by the ADL. Please provide specifics that actually support your argument that Comcast currently does or plans to block certain internet content. Your argument seems to allege a weakly supported conspiracy.
Is there any evidence that US citizens have not been able to express their views over the internet because a company blocks access to that site?
As internet providers are private corporations with which subscribers sign contracts with, the US Constitution limits the federal government's ability to interfere.
Internet providers already limit the connection bandwidth depending on the subscriber service (low cost residential, business, etc.).
Furthermore, a subscriber might want to pay more to block access to websites with pornographic material from being accidentally viewed by small children in their house.
Finally, the competition found in the free market will solve the issue you raise. If my provider blocks content I want to see, I'll get a different provider. If one internet provider company buys up all of the other companies, then we currently have laws against monopolies to solve that problem. It seems that paying tax money to the government to monitor the internet providers is more dangerous than the "evil" corporations.
Given the Obama administration attach on media outlets who are critical of its policies and "radical" advisers, I would think that the dangers inherent in giving the government control over any media to be obvious. Would you want the Bush administration to shut down the Huffington post for criticizing the war in Iraq?
"…………………one of the defining policies of the US between 1949 and 1987" ?
Okay, you're completely and utterly out of your teensy widdle mind ! The damned "FAIRNESS DOCTRINE" is a way to shut down talk radio ( okay, liberal talk radio would be okay, but that's all ) and FOX.
Previously, it was a way to use a puppet/frontman black to own a station, but he didn't have to pay for it. They whole thing was and still is not only misnomered, but a scam !
I bet YOU would just love it to shut your opposition up for good and for all, just liked your "dear leader". Then where would you post…………..DU, HuffPo, Daily Kos ? Go back there, now, and leave us alone; troll.
I just got offered my own show on a Conservative Talk Radio AM station. I need other Influential GenX Conservatives as guest speakers. Please tell them to visit my site and email me for details. I will be on 4 times a month, once a week, for 1 hour. Hopefully it goes well and I can get a Conservative message to more of my Generation.
http://www.myfreepress.net
Did you expect anything different from that B***h ?
My sincere apologies to all female dogs world wide….
Bullshit !
More bullshit drivel !
Congratulations and good luck…I hope to hear you please let us know the dates and times…
i'm sorry. that both the AMA and the AARP endorse President Obama's health care reform is indeed news.
It means there are no "Death Panels", it means that was all just absurdist scare tactics. It means that the "doctor" David Janda's hit and run partisan hatchet job was total hogwash. One should hope his career should be in serious jeopardy now, if he is so at odds with the AMA there is no way I would visit HIS practice!!!
hey Dave, the AMA disagrees:
http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/01/obamacare-vs-...
So what you're saying is Tyranny = Freedom.
Oh, okay then.
Comcast only backed down when the FCC stopped them. That is the people stopped them. The Customers cant do crap because b/c in the future all these service providers WILL CAVE to the pressure groups to shut down speech.
The government cant do that b/c of the Constitution.
Why do you think the UBER-LIBERAL ADL is in favor of not doing away with net neutrality?!
Because once net neutrality is over ISPs will have free reign to shut down content.
This is the same scam that imposed the Federal Reserve (private bankers) rather than the people to control the quantity of money.
I mean the UBER-LIBERAL ADL is in favor doing away with net neutrality.
This whole Obama controlling the Internet is total BS. The government can't do anything because of the Constitution.
The people retain control thru elections and the courts.
If net neutrality is finished the people will have no say and it will be all the service providers who are in bed to caving into pressure groups like the ADL and Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton who will accuse them of being "anti-semites" and "racists".
Jason, fabulous for you. You are in San Diego, right? What am channel, as I pick up SD stations.
I agree, Mr. RightSside. Let's roll
The Internet will be just like all the big newspapers and big media who controlled the dissemination of information for decades.
All the internet services providers will be no different from NBC Nightly News, CNN, Dan Rather etc…
The message will be controlled.
This is just like the creation of the Fed in 1913.
Also, the FCC can regulate the internet just like radio and telephones, but the Constitution prevents them from messing with speech.
These service providers are basically monopolies who will all cave to the pressure groups for stifling speech under the guise of "hate speech".
Conservatives are being conned.
Another step towards total control and socialism. Censorship is next, anything that is anti-liberal or anti-Obama will never see the light of day. They are slowly eroding the very foundation of this country with the ultimate goal of the United States becoming a subserviant member of the global community. Stand up and let your voice be heard now and in 2010. We cannot afford to be complacent, vote these people out of Washington!!!!!!
Comcast shuts down websites, I change providers. Simple. No need for further complication. Why the anger?
Hello.
It's called the Constitution.
It keeps the government from doing crap.
If you're worried about speech then worry about the Supreme Court but not about the FCC. The FCC is actually prevented by the Constitution from doing anything.
Except when the other service providers are in the hands of these private interest groups and do the exact same thing Comcast does, you're screwed.
It's as futile as saying 20-30 years ago. So what? I won;t buy the NY Times.
That didn't prevent the NY Times from being really powerful before the Internet.
Net neutrality ensures the Internet doesn't turn into the NY Times.
It's AM 1170, the same station Michael Medved is on. I won't have the schedule until early next week. I will also keep everything updated on my site.
http://www.myfreepress.net
If you subscribe to our news letter you will get an email on show times.
Thank you Gary. If you go to our website and subscribe to our newsletter you should get updates when the dates and times are ironed out.
Giving private interests control of the Internet as opposed to the people through their elected representatives is the equivalent of giving control of your police force to the Mafia or Al Capone.
Conservatives: Don't Fall For The Trap.
Support Net Neutrality.
There ARE "DEATH PANELS" and abortion IS covered.
You haven't read the Bills, have you ?
The entire AMA is but a pawltry few doctors who have been paid off. Most doctors don't belong to the AMA and many WILL either cut far back, or quit, should this crappy ObamaCare pass.
Hack them before they Hack You.
In other words, free enterprise is dead?
Damnit, Obama, you don't know what you're doing! If you don't know how to cook you stay out of the kitchen. If you can't shoot, don't go hunting. Right? Since you have zero experience…. since you don't understand the difference between ruling and governing, since all your meddling in the free market may just collapse the dollar… please, for the sake of global security, STEP DOWN!! RESIGN!!
) and prepare to face the wrath of a new generation of hackers.
Oh, good luck hitting my networks
You have a flawed view of what they intend to do with net neutrality. The Constitution? Obama calls it White House Toilet Paper. Oh, how about the way Andrew Cuomo took away Usenet access as part of my ISPs service just by threatening lawsuits? Everybody's ISP service. Since the beginning, WE controlled Usenet. That is, nobody did because nobody could. Enter meddling liberals and freedoms that were once taken for granted are taken away, time and time again.
Fool me more than thrice? I don't think so.
that is why they invented the "mute" button
Let me see here. The far-left is trying to take over all aspects of the government and the courts and you think we would have a "free" internet.
I"ll take my chances with private enterprise!
I'll take my chances with the people of the United States and the Constitution.
John McCain is against net neutrality.
That should sound the alarm bells.
This is the same John McCain who through McCain-Feingold strangled Conservative speech.
He's doing it again.
1) The control of information by one group is less likely now than at any time in our history. Newspapers have competition (New York Post versus New York TImes). Broadcast news have competition (ABC, CBS, and NBC). Cable News Channels compete (CNN, MSNBC, FOX news, CNBC, HLN, etc).
2) The Federal Reserve Bank is not similiar to corporate media. The Fed operates with minimal constraints (reports to congress by laws, officals appointed by the president). In fact, the FCC is very similiar to the Fed as both are independent federal agencies.
3) You don't appear to understand the regulatory role of the FCC. The FCC was created to to regulate the frequencies of broadcasters used for radio and TV. This was necessary given that the airwaves are public and the us citizens needed a fair allocation to broadcasters. With time, the FCC has evolved to include other communication modes which use wires. In this case, the FCC fulfills the goal of the 10 ammendment to regulate (make regular) interstate communication. Communication consists of the message and the medium. The FCC regulates the medium. The forays of the FCC into regulations of the message is what concerns many americans, not just conservatives.
4) The notion that we can use congress to make sure net neutrality protects free speech is laughable. Note that congress is selected by a majority. If the majority wants to favor one type of internet content, the minority is powerless. The constitution and its 1st amendment rights prevents the federal government from interfering in any way with the speech (message, not medium) of its citizens.
The Federal Reserve is not a federal agency. To claim it is, is blatantly false. It is a private bank serving private interests not the people's interests. It is privately owned. The Fed is not part of the government. The name Federal in Federal Reserve is a deception
The people via the government gave away control of the quantity of money in 1913. If they put a stop to net neutrality, then the people via the government will have given up control of the Internet.
Net Neutrality is about allowing the people to control the internet. Ending net neutrality is about private interests controlling (see:manipulating) the Internet for their own interests.
Go ahead and side with John McCain(McCain-Feingold) in the efforts to shut up the people.
Oh and by the way. The Constitution prevents the majority from meddling with the message.
Be clear, net neutrality as it is commonly defined refers to the service provider that connects an individual to the internet. The Internet service provider owns the wires (cable, DSL, wireless) connecting my computer to the internet. Net neutrality represents an intrusion of the government into the operation of a business. It also interferes with the contract between the service provider and the customer. The federal government should have no say in this contract.
When the government can interfere with private contracts, then freedoms are lost and tyranny is more likely.
McCain-Feingold regulations on political contributions do interfere with political speech, all speech and not just conservative speech. However, McCain-Feingold was in response to the perceived corruption that political contributions engendered. Net neutrality is government interference in communications medium disguised as protections of free speech. Until there is evidence that internet speech is not free, then the government has not legitimate motivation to interfere. Why support net neutrality is not to give the government more control over private businesses?
From http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faq...
Your correct that the Fed is not an agency. As the US central bank is is not owned by anyone but is an "independent entity within the government". It "derives its authority from the U.S. Congress" It is "subject to oversight by Congress" Granted, the actual operation of the Fed justifies the current questions into its activities raised by, for example, Rep. Ron Paul. McCain-Feingold is problematic.
The "people" don't own the internet without qualification. Early networks were build by the government. However, additional corporate networks have been added to the internet. In particular, most privately owned computers are connected to a corporate network by contract (cable model, DSL, etc). Allowing the government to control how a corporation conducts business is something done by communist, socialist countries. Do you want to live in a country where businesses are controlled by the government and not the owners of the business?
Much of the internet is controlled by corporations now. History shows that irresponsible corporations are generally easy to control. 1) Loss of business by unhappy customers and 2) bad press that will lead to loss of business.
The trap being laid here is the straw-man argument that net neutrality is about corporations controlling speech.
"to the people through their elected representatives is the equivalent of giving control of your police force to the Mafia or Al Capone."
Mr. Guest. Allow me to quote you. Our "elected representatives"…ROFL.
"Conservatives: Don't Fall For The Trap." Okay. Are you asking me to choose which trap? Someone handpicked by this administration is a trap I know I don't want. So what you are saying is that the other is worse? I may not disagree but invoking the mafia and Capone (as a likeness to the perps) as a guest means you know what you are talking about or you know who you are protecting or it's all hot air.
BTW….WTF is Net Neutrality? Just another f**k you from GS and the Rothschild family?
"And the meek shall inherit the earth."
[...] the original post: Big Government » Blog Archive » Obama Back-Tracking on Net Neutrality? News, [...]
I just read through the ENTIRE Cato policy analysis (36 pages!) and I have to recommend it to anyone in search of a well reasoned and technical argument against the FCC getting involved in the issue of net neutrality. I will have to save the other link for later. XD
In recent American history, the Constitution has NOT kept a president from doing unconstitutional stuff at all!
Need a recent example? During Clinton's first term in office he got both Houses to push through not only the BIGGEST tax Bill, ever, but it was RETROACTIVE. That is UNCONSTITUTION !
The exact opposite of what you claim is true.
The FCC can and does tell radio and T.V. stations what to do. The government forced a change in how T.V. programs were broadcast this year, or have you already forgotten all about that?
The misnamed "NET NEUTRALITY" thing, in the hands of the FCC WILL be tryannical; not "benevolent", as you keep trying to claim, with no proof at all.
The government shut down radio stations, in the past, made others change their programing, so why do you believe that it couldn't/wouldn't do the same thing with the net ? And don't even try, again, to tell me that the Constitution would prevent such a thing from happening; it has yet to do such a thing, vis-a-vis "THE FREEDOM DOCTRINE" and radio.
[...] Miami Herald – Florida a Battleground State … Again San Diego Union-Tribune – Fear of Health ‘Reform’ is Warranted Charles Krauthammer – The Myth of ’08, Demolished Breitbart – Obama Back-Tracking on Net Neutrality? [...]
Dear Mr. Guest.
Some of us believe in free markets and free interprise. Many of us also believe in freedom from Big Government controll and regulation. We certainly don't want it anywhere near our free market driven internet. So please Mr. Guest go back to your move on, madia matters "free press" loving progressives.
JWN & other Guest – Question-? – if the FED is backed by "independent entity within the government" [yeah, wonder who THAT is (insert eye roll here)], then I'm sure they have enough clout to own quite a lot of the big "evil" corporations supporting the net. It looks to me that no matter what, some "entity" will get what they want no matter which way this goes.. yeah, I guess you could still argue the principle- but is sounds to me like it won't matter- a win-win either way- "subject to oversight by Congress" -Hahahaah >cough- cough< oh,.. um.. yeah, I believe that.
The government is E-LEC-TA-BLE and subject to SEPARATION OF POWERS unlike Comcast and the other Telcos who have no Constitution or separation of powers to prevent them from shutting up speech.
With net neutrality, the people through their elected representatives shall maintain control of the Internet. Yes the government is incompetent but if their handling of the Internet was a major issue every election cycle, then political pressure from the people can keep them in check. The uproar on Election day every 2 years is enough to scare them into not shutting down websites even if they could.
These net neutrality principles actually are against any interference with regulating content. You're giving private interests control of what you can and can not say without them. They are going to cave into the Abe Foxman's of the world to shut down your pro-life website because the ADL considers anything they don't agree with to be "anti-semitic hate speech." The government can't do any of that under the Constitution. It's the people's job to ensure that they elect the right people who will also choose the right judges.
The anti-net neutrality movement is a complex smoke and mirrors scam.
Fine then don't complain when Jesse Jackson shuts down your website for being "hate speech" and the courts saying they can do nothing about it because your ISP is a private party not subject to the constraints of the Constitution.
Yes they are easy to control by those private interest groups with the money and power to influence them.
George Soros will have a much easier time controlling the Internet with the first amendment out of the way.
The ISPs won't want the bad business of having powerful wealthy pressure groups call them "racist" and "sexist" and "anti-semitic", and they'll shut down websites.
[...] the flurry of news this week, you may have missed another body tossed under the insatiable Obama bus: Internet Czar Susan [...]
Wasn't Susan Crawford Obama's second internet czar? I think I remember he had someone in the job for a very short time right after he was elected, but she quit. It looked a little shaky, as I recall, like she didn't like what she was being asked to do.
Does anyone else remember this?
Fools. You're being used as pawns to line Comcast's pockets. Net Neutrality is status quo. You're ADVOCATING private censorship of the internet and DEMONIZING a bill that would do nothing but prevent it.
Don't you find it curious people that those who have weak arguments, hidden agendas, or weak minds seem to always resort to name calling and or outright lies to articulate their views? I wonder what Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Panyne, or John Adams would recommend? Limited Government or Big Government?
So.. Do I leave my eggs with the yearly mood-swinging fox, or the always obvious coyote? Really guys- at this point is there a difference? If our Gov ran the way it was SUPPOSED to- then maybe… but now? The gov bends the rulles to what they want – in any sly way they can. Sure I could elect them out.. in a couple of YEARS -assuming there wasn't any voter faud involved. Maybe just like the Times, by the time "some entitiy" buys up all the internet supporter- a new media of new will be out. Assuming we last that long. PotVsktl – explain to me just how this "status quo" will be enforced – who [ acual people] is enforcing it? And if is currently the "statsus quo" why do we need something to protect it? Doesn't that imply that we are already being censored by big biz? Please [somebody] explain…
Guest, I strongly disagree.
You are basically saying we need to accept an evil of government control for the greater evil of private sector monopoly, when the only difference between government and private monopoly is that once it gets its foot in the door government never leaves. A Private monopoly still must maintain profitability, which it could not if word got out about censorship. Censorship carries a stigma akin to Naziism in the ISP world
Market size of huge companies is an ANTI TRUST Issue, which can be dealt with using existing laws and breaking them up like Reagan did to AT&T in the 80's. I have no problem with that.
Censorship of speech by an ISP is a FIRST AMENDMENT Issue to be taken up by the courts. Speech belongs in the judicial branch of government (Interpreting the constitution) and not the legislative or executive (where the fcc falls). Nothing but censorship can come from another legislative endeavor because it cannot possibly impart any more freedom of speech than already stated in the constitution.
This Net Neutrality push has nothing to do with these issues though for the Obama administration, it is all about redistribution of wealth (and bandwidth). There is a huge amount of dough in the stimulus dedicated to creating government-run (and owned) broadband service. Heard of the "public option" in health care? This is their "public option" in broadband internet. These new net neutrality rules are nothing but the fulfillment of what they set out to do when they stuck all that money for it into the stimulus, which is a slow marxist takeover of the internet infrastructure. Next will come price controls and market regulations that push the private sector providers into unprofitability and then out of business. Just like the health insurance companies. it the the progressive-marxist m.o. Demonize them, regulate them out of business, take them over.
And I for one do not want the government privy to which sites I visit or what my web traffic is. Just think of the way they will be able to track and shut down peer to peer sharing. The government owning broadband providers sets up a horror scenario where they truly will be able to go 1984 on our asses if the wrong person (or people) seizes enough power. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, they care nothing for the constitution, nor does any other progressive. Woodrow WIlson wiped his ass with it with the creation of the Federal Reserve and War Socialism. FDR wiped his ass with it by packing the supreme court to get the New Deal legitmized. The Supreme Court and Oliver Wendell Holmes the SHAT on the constitution when they did that, even though a large part of the New Deal was completely illegal.
To compare comcast to the federal reserve is asinine. The internet is not nor ever has been a government owned or issued asset like the US DOLLAR is. The purposeful destruction of the dollar is the greatest sin ever against the republic our founding fathers created, from Bush & hastert to Pelosi and Obama, only the scope of their treason has changed. A balanced budget amendment, and a return to the gold standard is the only way out of becoming the banana republic we are headed for.
Well Smarter Guest, that seems to be the definitive word on this "Free Press" baloney/. Well said my friend Well said.
Most peopje should get the message 5 by 5.
Obama back-tracking on net neutrality? NOT!
AS SOON AS YOU RELAX Obama ahd his CORRUPT CONGRESS backed by a PUPPET PRESS will push it through in secret just like they do for their own raises! MARXIST OBAMA is determined to socialize America.
Corruption in Congress…
http://usataxpayer.org/pagex.asp?Get=corruptcongr...
Obama wants America to fail…
http://usataxpayer.org/pagex.asp?Get=obamafail
[...] Schweizer, Big Government: Obama vs. The American Businessman Capitol Confidential, Big Government: Obama Back-Tracking on Net Neutrality? Political Derby: Obama wrong for the 34,837th time since being elected Michelle Malkin: If you [...]
It would be great if a right-left-libertarian coalition forces Obama to back off on this matter – as well as on issues such as amnesty for illegal aliens, foreign interventionism, violations of individual liberties.
Here is a recent piece, from the Goldwater Institute and Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), on how this "net neutrality" could violate the First Amendment.
Also: Don't miss this amusing piece, on Google's involvement in this situation.
[...] Technology Policy Adviser Quits! Appointment Scandal # 60 – Susan Crawford 8/4/9 Big Government reports Obama may be back-tracking on his so-called “Net-Nuetrality” position. [...]
I would agree to your opinion.
Ca Homes For Sale
Ca Foreclosures
Ca Mortgage
That was a great post. I couldn’t agree more with your sentiments. Thanks for the effort.