Corvette Forum : DigitalCorvettes.com Corvette Forums banner

1 - 20 of 52 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,253 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
The new regulatory takeover of the internet by the FCC is a response to a manufactured problem by far left activists. Obama cronies abound in the FCC, and their ultimate goal is government takeover of the internet as well as all other media. Interesting article explains how this all happened when there is no real problem with internet service providers interfering with traffic at all. Read entire article below. It is very interesting.

Link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703886904576031512110086694.html

"The net neutrality vision for government regulation of the Internet began with the work of Robert McChesney, a University of Illinois communications professor who founded the liberal lobby Free Press in 2002. Mr. McChesney's agenda? "At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies," he told the website SocialistProject in 2009. "But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control."
A year earlier, Mr. McChesney wrote in the Marxist journal Monthly Review that "any serious effort to reform the media system would have to necessarily be part of a revolutionary program to overthrow the capitalist system itself." Mr. McChesney told me in an interview that some of his comments have been "taken out of context." He acknowledged that he is a socialist and said he was "hesitant to say I'm not a Marxist."
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,106 Posts
wow.. did you see what the net neutrality law did?
It made it so that your ISP couldn't block the websites of competitors. How is that a bad thing and a leftist agenda? Oh wait-- because true capitalism/republicanism would allow the rich and powerful to choke everything not theirs? And don't talk about how it costs for infrastructure and upgrades-- I know better.

The rules are designed to, in effect, keep the companies that own the internet's real-world infrastructure from slowing down some types of websites or apps -- say, those belonging to a competitor -- or speeding up others for high-paying clients.

For average internet users, the vote affects whether government will guarantee they'll continue to have access to all Web content, regardless of their internet provider's wishes, and whether they'll get that content as quickly as businesses or individuals able to pay more for it.


http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/web/12/21/fcc.net.neutrality/index.html?hpt=Sbin


The way I see it is that I'm buying service X. if the ISP wants to block other sites or "persuade" me to go to "friendly" sites via manipulated speeds and limited availability-- then let the "ISP friendlies" pay for my service. Until that happens let me decide what content I view-- you just provide the data.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,516 Posts
wow.. did you see what the net neutrality law did?
It made it so that your ISP couldn't block the websites of competitors. How is that a bad thing and a leftist agenda? Oh wait-- because true capitalism/republicanism would allow the rich and powerful to choke everything not theirs? And don't talk about how it costs for infrastructure and upgrades-- I know better.

The rules are designed to, in effect, keep the companies that own the internet's real-world infrastructure from slowing down some types of websites or apps -- say, those belonging to a competitor -- or speeding up others for high-paying clients.

For average internet users, the vote affects whether government will guarantee they'll continue to have access to all Web content, regardless of their internet provider's wishes, and whether they'll get that content as quickly as businesses or individuals able to pay more for it.


http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/web/12/21/fcc.net.neutrality/index.html?hpt=Sbin


The way I see it is that I'm buying service X. if the ISP wants to block other sites or "persuade" me to go to "friendly" sites via manipulated speeds and limited availability-- then let the "ISP friendlies" pay for my service. Until that happens let me decide what content I view-- you just provide the data.

:thumbsup: I dunno know what Tex was thinking :nuts:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,914 Posts
So, what you are saying... is the government should be in control and dictate what data should be available... regardless of the ability to pay for higher tiered speeds ?

Do you not see a future problem in the government having that much sway over content ? -Keep in mind... your party of choice will not swing control over governmental policy, forever.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,516 Posts
So, what you are saying... is the government should be in control and dictate what data should be available... regardless of the ability to pay for higher tiered speeds ?

Do you not see a future problem in the government having that much sway over content ? -Keep in mind... your party of choice will not swing control over governmental policy, forever.

I see it as keeping the playing field "Fair"

So the little guy, Doesn't get choked out :nuts:


By those who are really trying to Own the internet

Ohh yeah I'm a Conservative :nuts:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,914 Posts
What if the "little guy" is purposely and willfully intending on spreading misinformation from a rival country... like Iran ? These same "protections" have to be awarded to them... regardless of intent. Still sounds harmless and in the spirit of equality... I mean fairness, to me.

You guys have a tendency to view these "protections" on a case by case basis... without stepping back and taking a look at the bigger coup... I mean ploy... I mean, picture.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,106 Posts
What if the "little guy" is purposely and willfully intending on spreading misinformation from a rival country... like Iran ? These same "protections" have to be awarded to them... regardless of intent. Still sounds harmless and in the spirit of equality... I mean fairness, to me.

You guys have a tendency to view these "protections" on a case by case basis... without stepping back and taking a look at the bigger coup... I mean ploy... I mean, picture.
huh?

back on target please.. the FCC just said if you are being paid to provide a pipe of information you provide the pipe-- you don't get to pick and chose what comes out of it. and it regulates further to say that the pipe holder has the power to manage the information-- but everyone must play by the same rules-- you can't put one set of restriction to this data and a different set to that.

what does that have to do with one country trying to dissemenate lies about another?? Hell if an ISP tried to block lies and obfuscation half the politically motivated threads in here would be blocked...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,253 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
wow.. did you see what the net neutrality law did?
It made it so that your ISP couldn't block the websites of competitors. How is that a bad thing and a leftist agenda? Oh wait-- because true capitalism/republicanism would allow the rich and powerful to choke everything not theirs? And don't talk about how it costs for infrastructure and upgrades-- I know better.

The rules are designed to, in effect, keep the companies that own the internet's real-world infrastructure from slowing down some types of websites or apps -- say, those belonging to a competitor -- or speeding up others for high-paying clients.

For average internet users, the vote affects whether government will guarantee they'll continue to have access to all Web content, regardless of their internet provider's wishes, and whether they'll get that content as quickly as businesses or individuals able to pay more for it.


http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/web/12/21/fcc.net.neutrality/index.html?hpt=Sbin


The way I see it is that I'm buying service X. if the ISP wants to block other sites or "persuade" me to go to "friendly" sites via manipulated speeds and limited availability-- then let the "ISP friendlies" pay for my service. Until that happens let me decide what content I view-- you just provide the data.
This would be all well and good if there was evidence ISP's were doing this. They aren't. It is a manufactured problem to justify the government taking control of the internet, which nearly everyone outside of Obama's Marxists friends agrees is a bad thing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,914 Posts
Brother... if your belief is -this is nothing more then it's harmless sounding name... and has nothing to do with equality of future content and opinion being forced upon those not airing those alternate views -regardless of those views... then we have nothing more to debate, about.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,516 Posts
What if the "little guy" is purposely and willfully intending on spreading misinformation from a rival country... like Iran ? These same "protections" have to be awarded to them... regardless of intent. Still sounds harmless and in the spirit of equality... I mean fairness, to me.

You guys have a tendency to view these "protections" on a case by case basis... without stepping back and taking a look at the bigger coup... I mean ploy... I mean, picture.
Countrys like Iran. Iraq. Korea, China and russian

Ought to be Blown off The Map :nuts:

But in case they aren't

The government for national security reasons

Should De-rail their connection to various sites
that will infect their Boxes and Cause a complete Melt down of their Mother Board:nuts:

Once we invite these Salaud's into our society

We also invite all their problems as well as their Corrupt Minds

Bon
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,253 Posts
Discussion Starter #11

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,206 Posts
I wonder if the bill would have had enough support if Barry and the Dems were not behind it. If any Pub was pushig for it you could bet your bottom dollar every single vowel, paragraph or statment about would have been checked and double checked and turned down because of too much government intervention :crazy:

Lets see now, the Government is now in charge of:

My Home value
My retirement plan
My banking practices
My heath insurance
My take home pay
My automobile

and now I'm supposed to just give up my freedom on the internet:thud: under the guise that some day sombody might build an monopoly of the internet and raise the price?

Bottom line, this is just the first steps of censorship by the left plain and simple. Fist sign this is wrong, Obama wants it:smack
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
31,366 Posts
This would be all well and good if there was evidence ISP's were doing this. They aren't. It is a manufactured problem to justify the government taking control of the internet, which nearly everyone outside of Obama's Marxists friends agrees is a bad thing.
The left don't do anything without a future plan. There was no problem, there was no instance of anything regarding what this law covers, ever happening on anything more than a minuscule scale.

You can bet, they have a plan for the future use of this regulation.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
31,366 Posts
I see it as keeping the playing field "Fair"

So the little guy, Doesn't get choked out :nuts:


By those who are really trying to Own the internet

Ohh yeah I'm a Conservative :nuts:
When the left tells you they are taxing you to "help the poor", they are lying.

When the left uses the term, "for the children", they are lying.

When the left tells you they are going to regulate an industry to help the "little guy", they are lying.

The left don't give 2 shits about children, the poor, or the little guy. Don't buy the lie... everything they have done has been geared towards helping big business special interests. The stimulus, the healthcare fiasco, the bailouts, etc, etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,253 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
The left don't do anything without a future plan. There was no problem, there was no instance of anything regarding what this law covers, ever happening on anything more than a minuscule scale.

You can bet, they have a plan for the future use of this regulation.
It's a dead giveaway about the purpose of the bill knowing it is backed by the same people who are pushing the "Fairness Doctrine" intended to kill conservative talk radio. These people can't stand NOT to be in regulatory control of all public speech. They have just taken another giant step down that road. I still think the courts will overturn it if the new congress doesn't step in first. The Executive Branch is not supposed to have this kind of power.

For you guys who have bought the "level playing field" explanation - read all you can about this boondoggle. The playing field is red herring designed to convince you that you need something that can be used against you in myriad ways.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,914 Posts
Lets see now, the Government is now in charge of:
This is what I'm saying... -How the hell do you look back at the last two years and not ,at the least -ask yourself what the real purpose and intent of this "protection", is ? Even if you hold the same ideology... how then, do you ignore those that are put in-charge of these governmental agencies swaying power of rights awarded and denied... and their admitted ideological beliefs ?

Socialism ? Marxism ? -...admittedly ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
Online.wsj ,,,,,,,,,,,,,, can you wall st journal aka fox news !!!




Gman
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
31,366 Posts
This is what I'm saying... -How the hell do you look back at the last two years and not ,at the least -ask yourself what the real purpose and intent of this "protection", is ? Even if you hold the same ideology... how then, do you ignore those that are put in-charge of these governmental agencies swaying power of rights awarded and denied... and their admitted ideological beliefs ?

Socialism ? Marxism ? -...admittedly ?
It is kind of comical watching all the brown shirts stamp their feet and clap their hands, knowing that history tells us, the useful idiots are the 1st to go...

Their "night of the long knives" is coming... notice how bad things have gotten for the poorer folks who voted for these idiots.. losing their houses, losing their incomes, inflation swamping them.. and they aren't even bright enough to realize that they voted against their best interest. They thought Barry would come in, take all the wealth, and redistribute it to them.. :crazy:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,914 Posts
Online.wsj ,,,,,,,,,,,,,, can you wall st journal aka fox news !!!




Gman
Does this, somehow, make the facts incorrect ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,914 Posts
They thought Barry would come in, take all the wealth, and redistribute it to them.. :crazy:
He's addressed this...

We've accomplished a lot... have patients.
 
1 - 20 of 52 Posts
Top