Uh-Oh... Here it comes

[GarMan]

They call it "net neutrality"...  What happened to the 1st Amendment?  Apparently, Kagan has a hard-on for this. 

http://www.blogherald.com/2010/05/20/political-blogs-regulated-fec/

Good News: Political Blogs May Be Regulated By The FEC
Filed as News on May 20, 2010 9:27 pm
by Darnell Clayton

It look like American bloggers could face a new threat that may make people think twice before criticizing their political leaders online.

Apparently the US government thinks bloggers are becoming a public hazard, and like a few other industries (i.e. airplanes, banks and nuclear power plants) need to be regulated by the government (in this case the Federal Election Commission).

The Obama administration has announced plans to regulate the Internet through the Federal Communications Commission, extending its authority over broadband providers to police web traffic, enforcing “net neutrality.”

Last week, a congressional hearing exposed an effort to give another agency—the Federal Election Commission—unprecedented power to regulate political speech online. At a House Administration Committee hearing last Tuesday, Patton Boggs attorney William McGinley explained that the sloppy statutory language in the “DISCLOSE Act” would extend the FEC’s control over broadcast communications to all “covered communications,” including the blogosphere. (Reason.com)

This law would probably extend to Twitter as well, not to mention Facebook too (the latter who is embroiled in another censorship case via Pakistan).

Although this law (or measure) will probably be struck down by the US Supreme Court (who seems to love the first amendment aka “freedom of speech” for you non-yanks), the fact that the US government would even consider this is troublesome.

Unless the government is dealing with slander, a terrorist threat or a pay per post scandal they shouldn’t bother regulating the blogosphere as that could result in a political backlash (not to mention an provide an incentive to host ones content over seas).

Hopefully common sense prevails regarding this issue, as the last thing bloggers need is to worry about is regulation from “Uncle Sam.” 

[Token]

What?!  The Obama administration thinks more government control is needed?!? 

Color me shocked.

[AUChizad]

Comprehension fail.

Taking after you heroes at completely misunderstanding what net neutrality is.

[Ogre]

Comprehension fail.

Taking after you heroes at completely misunderstanding what net neutrality is.

So I assume you're for net neutrality? 

[AUChizad]

So I assume you're for net neutrality?  

You're goddamned right.

I don't understand how this is a difficult concept to grasp, but apparently Republicans can't wrap their brains around it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality

Network neutrality (also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a principle proposed for user access networks participating in the Internet that advocates no restrictions by Internet Service Providers or governments on content, sites, or platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and on the modes of communication allowed, as well as communication that unreasonably degrades other traffic.

Neutrality proponents claim that telecom companies seek to impose a tiered service model in order to control the pipeline and thereby remove competition, create artificial scarcity, and oblige subscribers to buy their otherwise uncompetitive services. Many believe net neutrality to be primarily important as a preservation of current freedoms.[4] Vinton Cerf, considered a "father of the Internet" and co-inventor of the Internet Protocol, Tim Berners-Lee, creator of the Web, and many others have spoken out in favor of network neutrality

Definitions of network neutrality

At its simplest network neutrality is the principle that all Internet traffic should be treated equally.[9] Net neutrality advocates have established three principal definitions of network neutrality:

Absolute non-discrimination
    Columbia Law School professor Tim Wu: "Network neutrality is best defined as a network design principle. The idea is that a maximally useful public information network aspires to treat all content, sites, and platforms equally."[2] According to Imprint Magazine, University of Michigan Law School professor Susan P. Crawford "believes that a neutral Internet must forward packets on a first-come, first served basis, without regard for quality-of-service considerations."[10]

Limited discrimination without QoS tiering
    United States lawmakers have introduced bills that would allow quality of service discrimination as long as no special fee is charged for higher-quality service.[11]

Limited discrimination and tiering
    This approach allows higher fees for QoS as long as there is no exclusivity in service contracts. According to Tim Berners-Lee: "If I pay to connect to the Net with a given quality of service, and you pay to connect to the net with the same or higher quality of service, then you and I can communicate across the net, with that quality of service."[1] "[We] each pay to connect to the Net, but no one can pay for exclusive access to me."[12]

In other words, it's the exact opposite of what this moron in this article and this bimbo on Fox News is suggesting it is.

It is actually ensuring that no one controls what is available on the internet.

Everything you just claimed big bad Obama is trying to do? That's actually what he's trying to prevent AT&T, Charter, Verizon, etc. from doing.

[Ogre]

I've read the Wiki article before, and I agree that there is a lot of mis-information about what 'net neutrality' really is.  However, this seems to me like the government trying to fix a problem that is basically non-existant.  Anytime the government is looking to expand their role in our lives, I am automatically suspicious.

[GarMan]

Comprehension fail.

Taking after you heroes at completely misunderstanding what net neutrality is.

You might want to do a little research on the topic before you run your mouf next time.  

You can start by reading the article to understand how they're attempting to use the Federal Election Commission in this situation.  Wait, I know...  That must be a lie.  

"Her Buckley principle is almost the opposite of the Obama statement that 'powerful interests must not be allowed to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens,'" Ammori wrote.  

Huh...  How's he gonna keep dem powerful interests back?  Under the cloak of "net neutrality", I'm guessing...

[GarMan]

I've read the Wiki article before, and I agree that there is a lot of mis-information about what 'net neutrality' really is.  However, this seems to me like the government trying to fix a problem that is basically non-existant.  Anytime the government is looking to expand their role in our lives, I am automatically suspicious. 

You're thinking right...  Why else would the FEC be involved?  Oh wait, I forgot.  That's supposed to be a lie. 

[Token]

However, this seems to me like the government trying to fix a problem that is basically non-existant.  Anytime the government is looking to expand their role in our lives, I am automatically suspicious.

This.

[GarMan]

By the way, most Republipukes are for the pure concept of net neutrality as posted by our resident Advocate.  It's the bastardization with elements of the Fairness Doctrine the we're all concerned about. 

[AUChizad]

You might want to do a little research on the topic before you run your mouf next time.  

You can start by reading the article to understand how they're attempting to use the Federal Election Commission in this situation.  Wait, I know...  That must be a lie.  

Huh...  How's he gonna keep dem powerful interests back?  Under the cloak of "net neutrality", I'm guessing...

Ok, you're going to force me to talk to you like a child.

"Powerful Interests" = Telecom componies. They are attempting to "drown out the voices of ordinary citizens" by regulating the Internet.

The Government is NOT REGULATING THE INTERNET. They are REGULATING THE INTERNET PROVIDERS that ARE TRYING TO REGULATE THE INTERNET. It's that simple. You can be opposed to that if you prefer to be communist China, but for the love of God at least understand what you're talking about.

I've read the Wiki article before, and I agree that there is a lot of mis-information about what 'net neutrality' really is.  However, this seems to me like the government trying to fix a problem that is basically non-existant.  Anytime the government is looking to expand their role in our lives, I am automatically suspicious.

I'm with you on that. But what apparently no one here is getting, is that they are NOT EXPANDING THEIR ROLE IN OUR LIVES. They are preventing the INTERNET PROVIDERS from expanding their role in our lives. Your concerns would be valid if the government was doing what is being suggested in this thread, but they SIMPLY ARE NOT. They are protecting us against that happening.

I really don't get why that's hard to understand, and frankly it's frustrating that you people don't get it...

[Ogre]

'Protect' us from what?  Did I miss AT&T trying to shut down a bunch of liberal blogs? 

Methinks you are too trusting of our federal government. 

[AUChizad]

'Protect' us from what?  Did I miss AT&T trying to shut down a bunch of liberal blogs?  

Methinks you are too trusting of our federal government.  

I've been aware of (and understood) Net Neutrality well before I'd ever heard of evil Barack Obama.

Methinks most of you here automatically oppose anything Obama favors without any thought towards what it is you claim to oppose. If Obama's for it, you're against it. Period. Politics over principle.

I would think that maybe this video would do a better job explaining than apparently I have been able to, but of course, Obama is explaining it, so it's obviously a bold faced lie...

[GarMan]

Ok, you're going to force me to talk to you like a child.

"Powerful Interests" = Telecom componies. They are attempting to "drown out the voices of ordinary citizens" by regulating the Internet.

The Government is NOT REGULATING THE INTERNET. They are REGULATING THE INTERNET PROVIDERS that ARE TRYING TO REGULATE THE INTERNET. It's that simple. You can be opposed to that if you prefer to be communist China, but for the love of God at least understand what you're talking about.

Even though it's right there in the article, you're not going to acknowledge it.  What does the FEC have to do with what you're saying?  Maybe, you should read the article again. 

I know this is a rightwing blog, but just review some of this legislation and think about what we're talking about here.  I think Ron Paul's position states it best for me. 

Preserve Internet Freedom -- Beware Obama's Net Neutrality
Written by Larry Greenley     
Wednesday, 21 October 2009 14:36 

A few years ago I was momentarily fooled by the "net neutrality" campaign. At that time I was surprised to see a coalition for net neutrality featuring liberal MoveOn.org and conservative Gun Owners of America. I just checked and this coalition is still in effect.

More recently I haven't been paying attention to the net neutrality issue. I was surprised yesterday to learn that President Obama is a big backer of net neutrality. Here's a 50-second video of Obama speaking at Google back on November 14, 2007, where he said, "I will take a back seat to no one in my commitment to network neutrality."

In contrast, constitutionalist Congressman Ron Paul is opposed to net neutrality regulation of the Internet based on his opposition to government regulation and support for a free market economy, as you can see in this 56-second video:

<snip>

Here are some revealing excerpts from "Net Neutrality enforcement may reach into your computer," dated October 21, 2009:

The Net Neutrality policy proposed by the Obama White House is set for a vote by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) on Thursday....

The vote on Thursday, which is expected to pass, will set up a show down between providers and the government. Once the provision is passed it will give the FCC the ability to begin formulating rules and readying them for the legislative process.

The following are some of the FCC's proposed rules:

• Consumers are entitled to access any legal Internet content
• Consumers are entitled to use any Internet applications or services
• Consumers are entitled to connect to any devices that won't harm the network
• The same rules apply to cable/DSL and wireless Internet
• Internet providers can't block or slow competitors' online services

So, the FCC will vote on Obama's net neutrality policy tomorrow.  Of course, the policy is expected to pass. The next step would be for the FCC to get congressional authorization to implement the net neutrality policy. And sure enough, a net neutrality bill has already been introduced in the House on July 31 as H.R. 3458. For detailed commentary on this bill read "Net Neutrality Regulation vs. Internet Freedom" by Adam de Angeli, posted on September 30.

The examples of the FCC's proposed net neutrality rules shown above don't seem immediately harmful to your Internet freedom until you realize that these rules would be enforced by the federal government. This would be the beginning of a government takeover of the Internet. As mentioned on the Beck TV show linked to above, it wouldn't be long until the government would be regulating content. We're already hearing repeatedly from Obama and his administration that the Internet and blogosphere are rampant with misleading information. We already know where this type of regulation would lead by looking at how China regulates the Internet over there.

It doesn't seem possible that the tens of millions of Americans that use the Internet daily would put up with a government takeover of the Internet. I sure hope they don't. It should be an epic struggle.
<snip> 

We tease you about being a lefty, but can you blame us?

I'm with you on that. But what apparently no one here is getting, is that they are NOT EXPANDING THEIR ROLE IN OUR LIVES. They are preventing the INTERNET PROVIDERS from expanding their role in our lives. Your concerns would be valid if the government was doing what is being suggested in this thread, but they SIMPLY ARE NOT. They are protecting us against that happening.

I really don't get why that's hard to understand, and frankly it's frustrating that you people don't get it...

Perhaps, you should take your rose-colored glasses off...  And, what's this "you people" schit? 

[AUChizad]

'Protect' us from what?  Did I miss AT&T trying to shut down a bunch of liberal blogs? 

Yes. You did miss what ISP's are trying to do, apparently.

Broadband providers have expressed their desires to be free to design their networks as they see fit and have the ability to prioritize certain types of traffic--such as streaming video--over others.

http://news.cnet.com/Verizon-says-Net-neutrality-is-overhyped/2008-1037_3-6056210.html

[Token]

I've been aware of (and understood) Net Neutrality well before I'd ever heard of evil Barack Obama.

Methinks most of you here automatically oppose anything Obama favors without any thought towards what it is you claim to oppose. If Obama's for it, you're against it. Period. Politics over principle.

I would think that maybe this video would do a better job explaining than apparently I have been able to, but of course, Obama is explaining it, so it's obviously a bold faced lie...

My problem isn't specifically with Obama.  My problem is with the federal government.  Obama just happens to be "the man".  

And I'll admit, the article Garman posted was the first article I've read regarding net neutrality.  Ignorance on my part.  But I'm still with Ogre.  Anytime the federal government looks to expand it's role in ANYTHING, I'm suspicious.  

[GarMan]

Methinks you are too trusting of our federal government. 

BINGO!!!  He's actually supportive of more government regulation here.  We see what government regulation has done with the financial industry.  Now, he wants them play with the InterWebz.  This blind trust and blatant ignorance drives me nuts!

[AUChizad]

BINGO!!!  He's actually supportive of more government regulation here.  We see what government regulation has done with the financial industry.  Now, he wants them play with the InterWebz.  This blind trust and blatant ignorance drives me nuts!

I am opposed to any regulation of individual rights. If the government was trying to prevent me from viewing the internet as I see fit, as you were suggesting earlier, then I would absolutely be opposed to that.

When AT&T and Verizon are trying to do the same thing, I'm opposed to that too.

It's not so much Government Regulation as it is Government PREVENTING regulation by ISPs.

I don't trust the government, but I sure as shit don't trust AT&T who stand to profit from rationing the Internet.

[GarMan]

Yes. You did miss what ISP's are trying to do, apparently.

Broadband providers have expressed their desires to be free to design their networks as they see fit and have the ability to prioritize certain types of traffic--such as streaming video--over others. 

You do realize that I'm actually in the industry of e-enabling applications and physically host an InterWebz server out of my home?  You, of all people, talking down to me on this subject is humorous.  By the way, those evil ISPs have been doing this for years, and nobody has figured it out primarily because it's usually of little consequence. 

[GarMan]

I am opposed to any regulation of individual rights. If the government was trying to prevent me from viewing the internet as I see fit, as you were suggesting earlier, then I would absolutely be opposed to that.

When AT&T and Verizon are trying to do the same thing, I'm opposed to that too.

It's not so much Government Regulation as it is Government PREVENTING regulation by ISPs.

I don't trust the government, but I sure as poop don't trust AT&T who stand to profit from rationing the Internet.

The FEC will make it all better for you, I suppose...   

Down wiff those evil corporations!  They control everything!