FCC COMMISSIONER CALLS FOR GOV RUN ‘VALUES TEST’, CONTROL OVER MINORITY CHARACTERS, PROGRAMMING & SCHEDULING OF TV
Thu, 12/09/2010 - 9:12pm
Do you like the Internet?
Do you like the 1st Amendment?
Apparently the FCC does not. Despite Congress killing it and despite the Courts ruling against the FCC they apparently believe the Courts had it wrong.
The all powerful FCC has decided that you and I need their protection and they get to decide if the internet can pass a values test. They get to decide if it is fair.
Along with regulating the internet they get to decide on programing and even the Characters in TV shows.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/power-grab-fcc-commissioner-calls-for-go...
Genachowski and the FCC to push ahead with net neutrality next month:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailycaller/genachowskiandthefcctopushaheadwithn...
There is no end to the Progressive attacks on our freedoms. They want total control over our lives. What we see. What we do. What we eat.
Hold the brownies! Bill could limit bake sales
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101204/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_bake_sales
November taught them nothing. One thing for sure America was taught a lesson the last 2 years one I doubt we will forget for awhile.
Mon, 12/20/2010 - 10:34pm
#2
Net Neutrality
As I said in an earlier post, we have lost the law by turning it over to the bureaucracy. The Congress can't control the bureaucracy and we are its victims. It is 18th century France all over again.
We need to begin to dismantle this monster and we need to do it sooner rather than later or it will be too late.
Thu, 12/23/2010 - 11:19am
#3
The FCC's Threat to Internet Freedom
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870339520457602345225074854...
By ROBERT M. MCDOWELL
"Tomorrow morning the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will mark the winter solstice by taking an unprecedented step to expand government's reach into the Internet by attempting to regulate its inner workings. In doing so, the agency will circumvent Congress and disregard a recent court ruling."
Oh who is Robert M. McDowell? Mr. McDowell is a Republican commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission. So on the inside of the debate. So not sitting on the outside offering uninformed opinions.
Thu, 12/23/2010 - 11:20am
#4
FCC Approves Plan to Regulate Internet
FCC Approves Plan to Regulate Internet
"Clearly, the Obama administration did not hear the clarion call from Americans in November that stated that they did not want more government regulations and restrictions, like those imposed through the new health care law," he said in a written statement. "Instead of trying to encourage our economic recovery, this administration has become a shackle to innovation and growth in America."
Thu, 12/23/2010 - 11:51am
#5
Joe Kawfi
I know, I know! A real shackle.
Progress and CHANGE, as he says it, are really taking over.
Just look at such stuff as this man and that Harry Reid have gotten on the books lately:
1. A Health plan that will break somebody.
2. He says he has collected nearly all of the stimulus money back, huh!
3. 8% of our military now can say they are gay! WOW!
4. He is throwing away scores of our old atomic bombs and so is Russia-right! First real treaty since Carter. Right!
5. He actually wants about 15,000,000 to keep getting unemployment! Why?
6. Several thousand 9/11 responders wanted some health bills paid-he did!
It just goes on and on.
I read here somewhere that President Obama has been the most unsuccessful President in getting things done, yet! I agree.
Well, that is over with, now that we had an election. That old big budget coming up will be whacked so badly, that 15,000,000 more may join the unemployed next year. Mostly teachers, cops, firemen, Roads, dams, bridges, water projects, and wars.
Terrible, terrible.
Tue, 12/21/2010 - 8:40am
#6
Your government at work
Ironic that Clinton was a staunch proponent of keeping the government OUT of regulating the Internet and now his party is rushing to do exactly that. Of course, this is hardly a "progressive" idea when several Repubs like Orrin Hatch have been advocating more regulation for years and numerous Repubs are in the pockets of the recording and movie industry who hate the whole concept of the Internet because they are too incompetent to compete and figure out how to make money instead of lose money via the Internet, and it's easier for them to have the government/FCC make up for their shortsightedness and stupidity.
In some cases, the "net neutrality" bill as proposed is going to squelch competition due to escalating costs. In other cases, it's likely to resemble what the telecom industry looked like years and years ago and protect a few of the giants from meaningful competition. How is this a "good idea?"
You have on one hand the progressives who want control of everything and the loud group of fundie Repubs that also want control of how you live your life or even think, and on the other hand big business who will have some big winners and a few losers. Who will really lose big is people and business who already use the Internet and future generations of both.
Tue, 12/21/2010 - 3:00pm
#7
Net neutrality passes, 3-2
Net neutrality passed the FCC today by a vote of 3-2.
What does this mean?
It means that ISPs may not interfere with your ability to browse websites. You control your user experience, not the ISP.
Some examples:
Without net neutrality, the Fayette Daily News could pay an ISP (internet service provider) to re-route all user requests to www.thecitizen.com to their website and a user would have had no recourse.
A third party mapping website could pay an ISP to reroute all requests to Mapquest or Google Maps to their website.
A liberal ISP (think: Cox Cable) could arbitrarily block access to all conservative sites such as Fox News, Michelle Malkin and Aryan Nation.
An ISP could arbitrarily charge a user a nickel every time they visited YouTube, or charge a flat rate to visit certain website (i.e. 5 bucks for "unlimited" visits to Neal Boortz).
Tue, 12/21/2010 - 3:40pm
#8
Sounds Peachy
But where does it all ultimately stop?
Why shouldn't ISP's be able to charge and compete?
Sounds at lot like the myth of monopolies.
Tue, 12/21/2010 - 4:00pm
#9
ISPs compete on service and bandwidth
ISPs, as commodity providers, retain the ability to compete on service and bandwidth.
Don't like the fact that your DirectTV internet connection goes down every time it rains? Change your provider.
All net neutrality does is prevent ISPs from surcharging content arbitrarily.
They've always been able to profit on factors such as bandwidth, i.e. you want a high speed connection to efficiently stream movies, you pay extra for it.
You want written guarantees of uptime, you pay extra for it.
ISPs simply have no business determining what you can or cannot view, nor should they be able to profit on what you view.
One would think that a libertarian would find unrestricted access to information to be a positive thing.
Tue, 12/21/2010 - 4:53pm
#10
If only it were that simple, Bacon
The FCC and the political supporters of "net neutrality" have done a fine PR job in making it seem so harmless and even innocent in its intent, but I don't see it that way at all. That's also how long established internet privacy and freedom groups also view it have been 100% opposed since the start of this debate.
This all stemmed from Comcast throttling down the bandwidth to customers using p2p to share/download files. I can see why Comcast went that route because downloaders and pirating use up humongous resources that will deprive others of bandwidth that is shared. Where comcast screwed the pooch was not offering an alternative plan/bandwidth to those people, and that's where we are today; the FCC takes over and there is no end in sight to how politicians will decide to compel the FCC to regulate this, that, and the other now that they are in "control."
Tue, 12/21/2010 - 5:03pm
#11
It's passive right now
but with the framework in place all it would take to shut down what the Government calls a dissenting site is simply just doing it.
All the Government has to do now is "DEEM" a site is subversive or " not in the public interest" and they define that as well.
Tue, 12/21/2010 - 5:35pm
#12
Or observerofu
a "terrorist" website, whatever the heck that means to them at the moment.
We are simply doomed to well intentioned people pulling strings, regulating the market and destorying our freedom to choose.
Dispite Crispy's glowing report, in the end it will simply cost us more money in every respect.
Tue, 12/21/2010 - 6:07pm
#13
Chrispy - Overstated
I agree this statement is overstated; however, whenever the government passes more rules and regulations, we can count on one of two things, and many times both. The neo-capitalist cronies of the government or the politicans simply increase their power over us and threaten our pocketbook and freedom.
Pardon a knee-jerk reaction. See my last post on how this will cost us all more money.
Tue, 12/21/2010 - 5:52pm
#14
Crispy - Not exactly
"All net neutrality does is prevent ISPs from surcharging content arbitrarily."
This is may be so, but it is not exactly going to "save" consumers, ISP providers can charge more to services like Netflicks under this rule. So for example, Comcast can charge Netflicks for wider bandwidth and speed. For a premium they can provide priority to Netflicks to the detriment of other users. This of course will allow Netflicks to charge their customers more. I don't have a problem with passing on higher costs, but why don't they charge higher prices today for extra bandwidth? Think there is a competitive reason among the ISP's? Who benefits from these new rules? Consumers? I doubt it. It's going to be the ISP providers.
Finally, these new rules over step the authority that Congress granted the FCC and it is doubtful that they will stick with the new Congress. Look for more hearings on this next year.
Wed, 12/22/2010 - 12:33pm
#15
Net neutrality, my a@#$%
Internet Access Is Not a 'Civil Right'
"Broadband is becoming a basic necessity," civil rights activist Benjamin Hooks added. And earlier this month, fellow FCC panelist Mignon Clyburn, daughter of Congressional Black Caucus leader and Number Three House Democrat James Clyburn of South Carolina, declared that free (read: taxpayer-subsidized) access to the Internet is not only a civil right for every "nappy-headed child" in America, but is essential to their self-esteem. Every minority child, she said, "deserves to be not only connected, but to be proud of who he or she is."
Calling them "nappy-headed" is a rather questionable way of boosting their pride, but never mind that.
Face it: A high-speed connection is no more an essential civil right than 3G cell phone service or a Netflix account. Increasing competition and restoring academic excellence in abysmal public schools is far more of an imperative to minority children than handing them iPads. Once again, Democrats are using children as human shields to provide useful cover for not so noble political goals.
The "net neutrality" mob -- funded by billionaire George Soros and other left-wing think tanks and nonprofits -- has openly advertised its radical, speech-squelching agenda in its crusade for "media justice." Social justice is the redistribution of wealth and economic "rights." Media justice is the redistribution of free speech and other First Amendment rights.
Once again, Obama proves that he is not so much a leader as he is a dictator.
Wed, 12/22/2010 - 1:27pm
#16
Still waiting!
I'm still waiting for either Joe or Ooofu to explain exactly how the federal gummint can restrict free speech via this net neutrality legislation.
They both seem to be long on hyperbole and short on facts today.
Wed, 12/22/2010 - 5:12pm
#17
Congratulations Lame Duke Congress and President Obama
You have achieved more than any other lame duck congress in recent history. Compromise/cooperation works for the American people. Let's hope this continues under the new leadership in the Senate.
Mr. Kawfi:
A high-speed connection is no more an essential civil right than 3G cell phone service or a Netflix account.
Someone once said an electric light is not a right . . .but eventually those who wanted to SEE submitted to this inconvenience of progress.
restoring academic excellence in abysmal public schools is far more of an imperative to minority children than handing them iPads.
Your outstanding schools with outstanding teachers will be using modern/advanced technology in the future all over the globe. Of the 50 industrialized nations, the United States ranks 23 or 24 in reading, math, and science. To deprive any American child the opportunity to compete is not the American way. I think we saw that separate but equal just didn't work.
Wed, 12/22/2010 - 10:02pm
#18
DM
Without competent teachers, our children dont stand a chance in government run schools.
It is the fault of incompetent "educators" like yourself and absentee parents that our children are not learning to read and write.
We could equip children with the best technology in the world, but when daddy isn't in the picture (70% out of wedlock birth rate), the kids don't want to learn. They just want to join a gang and go bangin'.
Electricity is not a right. It is a utility that working people pay for.
Access to the internet is not a right, it is a privelege that comes from working hard and earning a living.
Wed, 12/22/2010 - 9:36pm
#19
What's a "Lame Duke", DM?
Are you denigrating John Wayne? Is it because he's white?
Please enlighten us, oh great 'educator'.
Wed, 12/22/2010 - 10:03pm
#20
kawfi
We could equipment with the best technology in the world
Really? Duke should be Duck. Sorry you couldn't see that I made a mistake. Private school education?
Wed, 12/22/2010 - 10:07pm
#21
DM
You can't even quote me correctly, DM. Another lie by another bed wetting liberal. Either that or your dimentia is kicking in again.
Wed, 12/22/2010 - 11:07pm
#22
LOL Kawfi
I got you to check your contribution and correct your mistake. Your immaturity is showing when you have to resort to denigrating others. Have a pleasant holiday.
Thu, 12/23/2010 - 6:25am
#23
Oh, DM
It is impossible to correct a post after someone has replied to it. You lie again and try to make me look bad? That's typical for you liberal teachers. They like to cheat by changing the answers. (see - Fulton County "teachers")
Thu, 12/23/2010 - 7:05am
#24
In all fairness Joe
You did have have equipment on there, I'm sure you have a good reason for lying your ass off.
Thu, 12/23/2010 - 7:54am
#25
Really, Hutch...
Prove it.
Thu, 12/23/2010 - 8:29am
#26
Well Joe
That's the beauty of it, I don't have to prove it, I know it was there, you know it was there, Hell, even Dm knows it was there. I'm satisfied, how 'bout you?
BTW, I doubt anyone but you and Fred would call me a liberal.
Thu, 12/23/2010 - 8:33am
#27
Hutch
No, it was not there and the post proves it was not there.
Case closed. You and DM obviously have been putting too much nog in the egg.
Thu, 12/23/2010 - 8:54am
#28
Joe
Like I said, you know it and I know it. So....whatever.
Thu, 12/23/2010 - 9:24am
#29
Yes, Hutch
I know that you, DM, and Krispie are all pathetic liars.
Thu, 12/23/2010 - 9:32am
#30
Like I said
Whatever
Thu, 12/23/2010 - 10:03am
#31
Whatever Hutch
Don't impugn my integrity again.
Thu, 12/23/2010 - 10:49am
#32
Whatever Joe
You just showed you have no integrity to impugn, so lets just break it down here, you put a word in a post wrong, then when called on it, can't just admit it, call people liars even though you KNOW you are wrong. Is this impugning enough, I can go on if needed. At least Bonker$ when he does this puts a funny slant on it. So the big question here is, I've impugned your missing integrity yet again, what you going to do about it? Call me a liberal again? You're a joke Joe, you should be on TV.
Thu, 12/23/2010 - 11:06am
#33
Hutch
Ha ha - it's always so much fun to see miserable weasels like yourself get all riled up Hutch.
I never stated what DM quoted, and the facts bear that out. Get over it already. You and DM were wrong. End of story.
Thu, 12/23/2010 - 1:33pm
#34
Nice deflection Joe
I never said anything about a Dm quote, so show me that fact Mr. Integrity.
Thu, 12/23/2010 - 6:27pm
#35
Hutch, better yet
Why don't you just piss off and go mind your own business. Who elected you blog monitor anyway?
Thu, 12/23/2010 - 8:04pm
#36
It's like this Joe
When you can't put up, insult. Can't answer that question, change the subject. Like I said, you should be on TV.
Tell you what Joe, get Cal to run me off and I'll go, until then, it's up to you, and frankly, I don't think you're man enough.
Fri, 12/24/2010 - 10:31am
#37
Answer the question, Hutch
Who elected you blog monitor? You talk big but you are nothing but a little, miserable weasel.
Fri, 12/24/2010 - 10:36am
#38
No election Joe
Just uncle Cal.
Fri, 12/24/2010 - 1:44pm
#39
Hutch, Joe & TV
Hutch, don't you watch "Joe In The Morning"? or is it "Your Morning Joe"? Merry Chaistmas to all from Bozeman, Montana!
Fri, 12/24/2010 - 11:35am
#40
Merry Christmas, Joe
Keep spreading that holiday cheer to all. Sheesh.
Wed, 12/22/2010 - 10:01pm
#41
Obama Tantrum Over Tax Deal
Funny - from tonight show with Jay Leno
Thu, 12/23/2010 - 9:56pm
#42
Net neutrality explained
I've come to the conclusion that I've used far too many two+ syllable words to explain the concept of "net neutrality" here.
I found a great website that breaks down the concept of net neutrality into easy to understand cartoon images. So simple, even oofu might understand!
LINK
Fri, 12/24/2010 - 10:58am
#43
Really, Hutch
Cal appointed you blog monitor? Well, isn't that special.
So, if you are now Cal's little blog boy, why don't you just ban me from posting?
that is if the FCC gets the votes it wants Tuesday.
FCC to Vote on Internet Regulation Plan Despite Economic Warnings
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/20/fcc-vote-internet-regulation-...
Annoy a Liberal-Use Facts and Logic