Network Neutrality is Engaged in the California Senate Race
by Seton MotleyNews broke just before the weekend that California Republican Senate candidate Carly Fiorina opposes the absurd notion known as Internet Network Neutrality (NN).
“The principle sounds fantastic, but the principle is not the problem,” Fiorina said in an interview at the Technology Policy Institute’s conference in Aspen, Colo. “The problem is how companies and regulatory bodies are trying to translate that principle into policy, which would have a bad effect.”
A spokeswoman later added that Fiorina “opposes Net neutrality and thinks government intervention and more regulation will not be helpful where the Internet is concerned.”
It’s really helpful to have someone running for office publicly standing opposed to NN who is as knowledgeable on it as is Fiorina – she is a former (1999-2005) chief executive officer of Hewlett-Packard (HP).
Fiorina’s opponent is a big NN proponent.
Fiorina’s position contrasts greatly with that of her opponent, Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, who previously cosponsored legislation that would have set open Internet rules firmly in place.
In a statement, Boxer reaffirmed her support for Net neutrality. Her office later added that Boxer felt it was “premature to comment” on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)’s efforts to mandate Net neutrality using its own rule-making process.
(Emphasis mine.)
“Premature to comment?”
In other words, Boxer is an elected official willing to cede her responsibility to write laws authorizing the FCC to regulate the Internet – so as to achieve her desired NN outcome via FCC regulatory fiat.
In this Machiavellian mindset Boxer joins with a handful of other Democrats – Reps. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Anna Eshoo of California, Jay Inslee of Washington and Mike Doyle of Pennsylvania among them.
In this way, they are no different than Congressmen who are pro-Cap & Tax energy control – but who can’t pass the Cap & Tax bill. So they are more than willing to sit idly by while the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) unilaterally takes domination of our energy sector.
The end justifies the means – lather, rinse, repeat.
And on Net Neutrality, Boxer and Co. are woefully outnumbered in their will to abrogate their Constitutional obligation – as 299 members of Congress have thus far demanded the FCC stop their unilateral Internet reclassification process and allow the Congress to do what it is supposed to do.
Perhaps Fiorina will point out that Boxer no longer wishes to do the job of Senator – and that the people of California should alleviate her of the wearying responsibility.
Before her HP gig, Fiorina was an executive vice president at AT&T (where she successfully coordinated the spinoff and initial public offering of Lucent Technologies). You would think this would lead the pro-NN Media Marxists like Free Press to dismiss her as just another tool of the Evil Industry, but I perused their website and as of this writing there’s no mention of her anti-NN announcement.
Perhaps they’re a bit distracted, what with their pro-Net Neutrality “coalition” collapsing and all. Or they may not wish to drag Boxer down along with the sinking pro-NN ship.
It will be interesting to see how big a role Net Neutrality plays in the California Senate race going forward. It is empirically useful to have a national race with the candidates clearly staked out on opposite sides of the issue.
In an electoral environment as anti-big government (no pun intended, Mr. Breitbart) as this one is, Boxer being in favor of an FCC land grab of 1/6th of the economy can’t bode well for her come Election Day.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
76 Comments
I know that I feel good about the government determining what I need to see and know. It will be just like the 30's and 40's all over again.
Progressivism! Forward to the past!
Anything involving Government interference in our daily lives cannot be good.
The seeds of Revolution have been sown over the past two generations. Everything from 8/28 forward that is said, or done by politicians is merely fertilizer.
Hello Carly, buh bye Boxer.
How many people are aware that over this past week end prior to Glenn's Rally, if you typed in "Lincoln Memorial" at google search, it would have taken you to FDR where sharpton's rally was held?
I had several people tell me this and than it was on the radio yesterday before Beck came on. After Glenn's rally things went back to normal on google.
This is not about anything but more big government controlling access and content. Boxer wants the little people to be told how to do everything. I have enough sense to make my own decisions in life thank you.
Nothing statists wish for more than internet regulation. The free market of ideas and information vie the internet, needs regulation for our own good of course…..
Barbara Boxer's office meant to say that she's too "immature" to comment.
They need to make real world, private sector experience a prerequisite for gubmint work. Honestly. Her staffers are probably scrambling to coach her on this fascinating creature called the "internet" that has managed to thrive largely because the federal government hasn't corrupted it yet.
I am distrustful of anything that comes from this adminstration, particularly things that touch our daily lives. If Obama and his henchmen want something done,,,I am skeptical enough to assume it has bad attributes waiting to be discovered.
If he is for it, I am against it. This philospophy provides a nice insulating blanket until the true intentions can be discerned.
Obama never learned the golden rule of: If it ain't broke don't fix it. In Obama's world view: If it ain't broke and he don't like it, fix it til it is broke and blame others for the failure and the go and replace it with something truely horrible,,,ala Health Care.
Just like Obamacare, looks good on paper, never works in the real world.
Democrats really believe Socialism will work, even though history has shown Socialism never works.
Purposefully neglecting your responsibility as an elected official so your authority can be usurped by a bureaucrat who can be blamed but has no fear of being fired is a hellava plan.
They sure have the Trojan horse named really "pretty". It sounds so appealing. However, all you need to do is look and see who favors it and who does not and you can easily see the cult progressive movement with their sticky left-bent fingers trying to take over some other freedom we have.
We are on to you, you dip-sh*t's.
Just what we need, the govt to regulate and control the internet. This begs me to ask why people think the govt can regulate the internet to our benefit? Simple answer is that they are trying limit the flow of information people of this country can get. Why would they want to limit the flow information, what are they sacred of? Simple answer is the better informed the people are the harder it will be for them to fundamentally change our country.
Its not that it wont work, its just that up until now, the wrong people have been in charge of it.
Now, with Babs Boxer and the ruling elite we have, why, everything is just going along perfect, as you can see.
Personally, when it comes to Government Invvolement, in anything other than the Military, I'd like to invoke Anthony Hopkins' "Government Option": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClwprO6KyGg&fe...
Which is why the idea may sound nice, but, the Government will only take freedom away.
Didn't know this! Google be damned.
Remember that most of the people running the govt have the best education at the best colleges in our country. The problem with their education is that they have been taught that each and every problem is a an academic exercise. They have also been taught that the use of common sense is forbidden when looking at the solution to a problem.
When the internet was designed, at least as far back as IP version 4 in 1981, it was designed to be NOT neutral.
A rarely used section of the IP header was called "Differentiated Services" and was meant so that voice (or interactive data) could have a higher priority then non-interactive.
By what right or Constitutional provision does the Federal Government claim the authority to regulate the internet? It really isn't in there! I expect a few kooky attempts at an explanation, but this is the one that is true: This can only happen because the people of this Nation long ago discarded the Constitution and a Republican form of government and decided to place their future liberty, freedom and physical and financial security at the mercy of Majority Rule Democracy. How's that been workin' out?
If the US Gov't would ever go back o functioning as designed, these matters would be debated on
the floors of both Houses. The debate brings out the positives and negatives of all issues, for those
who bother to listen or be informed.
But watching Congressional debate is sooooo booooaring for our lovely elite LSM.
So, so much easier to just to consult with Ezra Klein on JournOlist for the talking points and fill in the
blanks from their fairy-tale imaginations….
Folks,,,you just can't make this 'stuff' up.
FOLLOW THE FRIKKIN MONEY……ON EVERY ISSUE NOW, no issue is exempt, or too small.
.
Boxer…
“Premature to comment?”
That just means she has no friggin' idea about what it is….
She's evil and that stupid simultaniously….
More Obama Arrogance – Birth Certificate Plastered On Forehead Comment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7dJqmfLR38
That is a simple answer.
BECAUSE THEY ARE THE GOVERNMENT AND THEY CAN DO ANYTHING THEY WANT TO DO!
Duh……..
No idea?
She probably does not know what the internet is, I'd doubt if she could operate a computer. Probably still refers to them as "the magic box"………..
The problem with Government is people in Government think they are better than the Citizens at large.
Possibly they were just practicing for net neutering?
It's the ol' insanity definition.
"We'll keep doing it because everyone else did it wrong." "We have a better socialism." and on… and on…. and on….
blah, blah, blah 'til I puke….
It will not stop, until we take back education and rewind all the revisionist twaddle. It is a long road.
Try Googling "9/11 2010 rally ny". Should warm your heart even more…
"Socialism only works when you have a compliant media -ready, willing and able – to twist fact, revise history and willfully lie to the population."
– Me
What is it about Socialism or ObamaCare that "looks good on paper"? I am more familiar with the former, but what little of the latter I have seen reads like a nightmare…
SunCon…
Mooschelle and BHO are weirdly dumb and out of touch,
but this lame brain woman, Boxer, literally, could not pour water out of your boot,
if the instructions were written on the heel…
She is an embarrassment even by CA low standards…
Information is power and without the internet how much would we know? Or how many would still be asleep?
NN is not what it seems like, it's just the OVER BLOATED GOVERNMENT wanting to take over the NET!!!!
So do we call the dems the "National Socialists Party" now? Is Obama a Liberal Fascist?
Did you know that Saul Alinsky is on the NEA'S Teachers list? http://www.nea.org/tools/17231.htm
That is one of the problems. Another of the problems is that they are there for their interest and not the interest of the American people.
"premature to comment"? Another case of a politician hoping that a bureaucracy will make a decision so that she doesn't have to. If you don't want the responsibility of making difficult decisions, don't take the job.
This isn't even a difficult decision. Net Neuterality is dead.
Dave,
you are absolutely correct.
The internet today is for US, what the Gutenberg printing Press was to a past generation. It has opened the door to a plethora of knowledge, and communication.
Oh that whole page just touched my heart. ; )
Why do you feel a need for so many different personalities Mr. "HiPlainsDouchebag"?
Is it because you are immature and suffer from so many personal insecurities?
No need to answer -that was a rhetorical question…
Yikes!
And that Cowboy is why they want to control it!
If the government had regulated the internet in its early days rather than just providing the DARPA/ARPA-net backbone and funding BBN's development of packet switching, the net would NEVER be as far advanced as it is now.
For one thing, AT&T (regulated monopoly at the time) fought packet switching tooth and nail. Fortunately government scientists back then could see through the BS and went with BBN's approach.
This situation highlights the problem with liberal thinking on just about all private industry issues.
They figure that if we get far in anything with minimal government intervention, we could go much farther with more intervention.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Yep.
Even Stevie Wonder can see that picture clearly.
Looks like Boxer is going to be looking for a new job after the elections. MARXIST=DEMOCRATS=TERRORIST All the same. P.S can't wait for all the investigations of the Democrats after the Rep. take back control.
ObamaCare would be fine if everyone got the same Medical Coverage as the President of the United States, at the same price the President pays out of pocket.
The real world works differently.
Socialism? Well, that would work just fine if everyone was a Trillionaire, but, if everyone was a Trillionaire a Trillion Bucks would not be worth much at all.
Socialism does not work because not everyone produces at the same rate.
No matter what Laws get passed it turns out that Humans are not equal. Some are smarter, some are stronger, some are not lazy, ect., ect., ect.
Socialism in theory may seem like utopia, in practice someone (workers) is always slaved to someone else (non-workers).
Margaret Thatcher put it best when she said that "the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples money"
The Democrats want some people to work and pay for those who do not work.
"What we have here is a failure to communicate"
What a crafty bunch of net wizards.
Thanks for the high praise…Comparing a nubie, like myself, to a poignant commenter like HiPlains…He usually has a good take and doesn't suck…
You on the other are easily spotted posting as the over -wordy, didactic, pontificaters, Rainman1234 and JoeDopes…your stupid "letter writing" campaign is old now…you can stop…
and selling your "Lovellian Economics" as RainMaker1145 is kinda brilliant for a loser like you….Sold many?…Love the price $29.95 plus ship and handling…Awesome!!
He who lives in glass house shouldn't throw stones…
"Perhaps Fiorina will point out that Boxer no longer wishes to do the job of Senator – and that the people of California should alleviate her of the wearying responsibility."
Let's hope this comes to pass.
All progressives wish to do is gain control so to be better able to tax it and eventually to control free speech and information flow on the Net. They fear the ability to communicate ideas and information between individuals and groups over vast distances almost instantanousely.
Thanks for the laugh, loser. Why don't you just crawl back under your rock and play with the rest of your imaginary friends? Afraid you might get caught between characters and "HiPlainsDouchebag" might kill the snake?
You don't fool anybody. Except maybe yourself…
Pathetic…
This will come back to bite the liberals in the ass in multiple ways.
First, being short sighted as they are, this very rule will be turned against them the day they are out of power. They never have long term vision.
Second, it will validate everything we've been saying about the left being tyrannical and against liberty and rights.
Third, their energized voter base is the brain washed college kids who are hooked to the internet. This coupled with record unemployment amongst their generation, will turn away a good chunk of their legal voters.
"Perhaps Fiorina will point out that Boxer no longer wishes to do the job of Senator"
But Babs worked so hard for that job and deserves the title of Senator!
Does anyone really believe that Babs has the faintest clue what net neutrality means?
The best way to view the prospect of FCC control over the internet is to see what government control over home loans brought–nearly infinite amounts of government corruption in the form of Fannie/Freddie graft, bank payoffs to race extortionists like Jackson and Sharpton, a purchased Congress by real estate interests (Dodd, Obama, Frank, Conrad, etc.), and goodies to supporters in the form of worthless subprime loans.
Now there will be a new way for the elite to extort money from–and utterly corrupt–private industry by being the arbiter of "fair" internet pricing, the incentive to pay off and become crony capitalists is extremely high.
Because it involves interstate commerce.
There is no reasonable way to assert that it does not.
So sadly, this is one area where Congress really does have a legitimate Constitutional authority to take a massive crap on commerce and the American people.
They shouldn't, particular in this manner, but . . .
"Progressivism! Forward to the past! "
Best theme for the Leftist Loons yet.
BZ,
I understand where you are coming from, but I disagree. I know there is a conventional way in which the Constitution is taught, and many of us learned it that way. There is also a Leftist version, and that is what many are exposed to today, especially if they make it to the college level. There is also a radically simple way to view it, especially some of the more abused clauses or provisions.
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
The purpose of this clause (interpreted historically -imho) is to:
Prevent States from undermining foreign policy by engaging in separate trade deals with foreign nations;
Prevent States from engaging in trade or economic wars amongst themselves.
Regulate = regularize in these examples. There are other reasons, but those are the most pertinent to the discussion.
Also, being at this site does not constitute engaging in "commerce" on my part unless I buy something. If I were to do that, it would be from a third party at a separate site. Andrew may be engaged in "commerce" with his advertisers, but that is uncertain on their part, and also brings 1st amendment rights into the picture.
I sympathize with your point and your understanding in the sense that it is the prevailing view, but I can be a bit radical at times. It is my opinion that the SCOTUS has long since distorted the Constitution beyond its original meaning. It is a short document and most of it can be easily understood if all of the more recent debris surrounding it were to be blown away.
I don't usually address issues from my more radical Constitutional viewpoint, but I respect your intelligence and point of view, so I chance that you may see where I'm coming from…
Oh, and my initial disgust with this whole notion arises from the arrogance of people who never created anything to presume for themselves the wisdom necessary to make it run more efficiently than those who have to secure their future doing so. -And the leach businesses that seek an unearned advantage at the expense of those who created the "internet". F'ing big gov't crony capitalism…
GaltSpam…
Thou doth protest a wee bit too much….Mr RainMan or are you JoeDope..today.?
Thanks again for the compliament….I don't really deserve it…But I'll take it….
I'm surprised congress is letting other parts of the government make laws.You would think these egotistical power hungry types would not allow law making powers be taken from them.I guess they are too busy going on "retreats"(translation=paid vacations) with their lobbyist, or campagning for themselves or someone else.The only laws they seem worried about are the ones that give them and their union friends bigger retirements.I can't wait for the day they have the retirement I am going to bet–NOTHING!
GaltSpam…
What a load….I didn't even have to read it to know convolution when I see it…
Yeah, with government involvement, we'de still be walking down to our local telegraph office to send information to eachother…
Do you have little action figures that correspond to your different "personalities" here?
What happens if you are playing with the wrong one when you post drivel under a different personality?
What is it like to go through life as such a bitter little man?
C'mon Drifter -share! Tell us all what it is like to be a pathetic loser such as yourself…
Again, I'm not saying I like this bill, nor am I saying I like any concept of taxing the internet or what not. I don't. I think they are terrible ideas, guaranteed to wreak havoc. If anything, I think the internet as it is does more to actually, as you note, regularize trade between the states than just about anything Congress has ever even imagined doing.
However . . .
Use of the internet, even when not buying something, almost universally involves interstate commerce. Your ISP is not going to be in the same state as the ISP of a web site you visit. Advertisers may not be in the same state as the site owner. The ISP may not be in the same state as the site owner. Indeed, your ISP may not even be based in your state. As such, simply logging on may involve some form of interstate commerce.
It is that ubiquitous and that inescapable.
As such, yes, the Congress "gets to" regularize that trade. I cannot see any other reasonable construction of it, no matter how rawly originalist, literalist, or intentionalist you get. The authority is simply there.
But . . .
That brings me back to what I first said, that I equally cannot conceive any way to regularize that trade specifically, or trade in general, more than to do absolutely nothing, beyond perhaps, PERHAPS, making sure the states do absolutely nothing. There's nothing to regularize! It already is!
I absolutely agree with you that it should not be done, I just cannot see a way to contest it on legitimate (non-"progressive") Constitutional grounds. I wish I did. I'd endorse that reasoning so fast people would get friction burns just reading it.
Yeah,writing of socialists, have you all been following the recent news from Cuba?They are going capitalist!Soon Cuba will have an embargo on socialist USA!
Until the citizens do not fund them…
Such biting criticism from a little boy who would probably get lost half-way through a U-turn…
Have the decency to "harass" me as "HiLameDouchebag" if you're going to bother at all…
Sorry about the troll. It is beyond my control.
I understand what you mean about the ISP locations and such, and we fall on the same side of the coin here because nobody wants to make the leap that the Fed's power IS "making sure the states do absolutely nothing" with regard to "trade" across State lines. Nobody will ever buy into it, but I knew you would get what I meant…
Now, about "respecting an establishment of religion"…
Just kidding…
Understandable about dealing with useless sniping.
As for buying into it:
I've read the Federalist.
I've written here trying to explain to others the difference between internal trade and the illusion of applying that to globalization.
On a theoretical level I can see how people don't understand it, but on a functional level I remain utterly baffled. Its like assuming the point of a game like Jenga is for the tower to never fall down. It simply defies observable reality.
Much like confusion over the establishment clause.
Congress
shall make no law
respecting (With respect to; concerning; with regard to…)
an establishment of (def. -the act of establishing or state of being established) (syn. -constitution, formation, organization)
religion
I know -too easy. Where's the fun if people can't disagree?
Net Neutrality i really a cover for government control of the internet. All you have to know is that if Babs Boxer is for it, it won't be good for freedom.
THEN: Californians elected and supported liberal politicians who squandered their tax dollars for years. The politicians entitled unions, welfare recipients, government drones, illegal aliens, those still mooching off mom and dad, and other worthless freeloaders, giving them taxpayer dollars. They said it could all be paid for by taxing the rich, taxing big business, taxing their children's future, credit, and other fiscal nonsense. Californians were happy, they were getting a free lunch.
NOW: Business is moving out, the rich are moving out, California has maxed out their credit, more freeloaders are moving in, taxes are going up, inflation is going up and the State is issuing IOUs. So what do the California politicians do? Boycott Arizona! What a bunch of incompetent morons.
So… Just how stupid are Californians? We will find out November 2nd. It is uncertain if Meg Whitman can bring California back from the brink but, electing Moonbeam Brown will be a commitment to disaster.
Runaway Spending… http://usataxpayer.org/?0055577011
TRAITORS… http://usataxpayer.org/?0072194997
California… The land of fruits and nuts harvested by illegal aliens.
Most Californian's hate Boxer and Feinstein. Unfortunately the Democrat machines in the SFO Bay Area, LA and Sacramento aided my massive voter fraud have made them all but undefeatable. Thanks to Bill Clinton and MotorVoter, anyone applying for a California Drivers License is automatically asked to register to vote. No questions asked, just fill-out the form and vote. Neat, huh!! NOT!!!!
*sigh*
I swear, if we don't change the f@#king narritive in November, I'm booking a room at FEMA DISOBEDIENT CAMP # 2147, so I can get a top bunk and beat the rush.
If any of you are in California let's get off our lazy butts and help Carly beat Boxer. Make a donation, or even better walk a precinct, get a bumper sticker, a yard sign, seriously. Carly would be so much better than Boxer.
Net Neutrality AKA what the left REALLY thinks about freedom of speech
Hell the reason why they're so obsessed with the "moving forward" language (made popular by this chummy old fellow named Mao Zedong) is that their views on economics basically call for a return to FEUDAL AGRICULTURE! Case # 12018921087687676 of leftist projection.
Like the housing bubble, "Net neutrality" is a left-wing "solution" to a problem they're already causing.
Just another government power grab to determine winners and losers, for campaign donations and control of content.
I dunno. The government might have perceived the telegraph as competition for the USPS, so they'd have banned all forms of electronic communication.
You must be logged in to post a comment.