The White House-owned internet?

[ISASO]

In the name of providing access to the downtrodden victims of corporate greed, the FCC proposes to take unto itself the power to regulate how Internet providers manage their networks and serve their customers. The FCC would decide how and what information could flow through the Internet.

The Internet is not broken and does not need to be fixed.

In the House, 72 Democrats, an unusual coalition of members of the Blue Dogs and Congressional Black Caucus, sent a letter to the FCC raising objections to administration plans for regulating the Internet. They noted that after only a decade, "roughly two-thirds of Americans connect through high-speed communications that are available to 95% of households."

The issue is not access, but control. In February 2008, FCC diversity czar Mark Lloyd, an admirer of what Hugo Chavez did to silence Venezuela's media, wrote about net neutrality in an article titled "Net Neutrality Is A Civil Rights Issue" and published by CommonDreams.org.

"Unfortunately, the powerful cable and telecom industry doesn't value the Internet for its public interest benefits," Lloyd wrote. "Instead, these companies too often believe that to safeguard their profits, they must control what content you see and how you get it." Lloyd feels government should be the voice controlling what you see and hear.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=509810

[kcshocker11]

Heres a more fair and balanced article(no pun intended!)

http://features.csmonitor.com/economyrebuild/2009/09/21/net-neutrality-fcc-proposes-three-new-rules/

When I went to the Investors editorial page I saw such gems as

Gun control by the way of health reform.
or
Dems shred constitution
or
US gets rolled (Iran nuc deal for uranium enrichment with Russia)
or
Service.gov and its Soviet simularities
or
Nanny state squared!

Watch out for the black helicopters! 8) 8) 8) :whistle:

[RoyalShock]

Someone is going to control your internet access.

I would rather those with a financial incentive to provide good service for their customers have that control.

These "three new rules" will be temporary. I can virtually guarantee that the number will grow and probably overrule any or all of the first three. That is how government works once they are given (or take) any amount of control.

It is the job of local governments and the citizens who [should] hold them accountable to make sure they are not giving exclusive contracts to providers so there is a competitive choice.

[kcshocker11]

I think part of the problem is that internet service providers are blocking access to web content,at least thats what little bit I have gather on the tv in passing stories. Just thought this was a bit more informative without taking sides.

[ISASO]

Is there any aspect of our lives that you don't want politicians and bureaucrats to administer and dictate?

Would you prefer to have a government worker give you a call on your cell phone on the day in which you're allowed to take a dump? Afterall, we need to protect and preserve our nation's sewer system, right?

We just can't allow rich people who eat three times a day to abuse the sewer system with their overindulgent lifestyle.

[kcshocker11]

Is there any aspect of our lives that you don't want politicians and bureaucrats to administer and dictate?

Would you prefer to have a government worker give you a call on your cell phone on the day in which you're allowed to take a dump? Afterall, we need to protect and preserve our nation's sewer system, right?

We just can't allow rich people who eat three times a day to abuse the sewer system with their overindulgent lifestyle.

I guess you liked AOL and the way it filtered your web searches. FCC is saying users should have access without big companies controlling speed or content. Sounds like more freedom to me.

There again I dont see the world as some big evil plot
8) 8)

[wu_shizzle]

There again I dont see the world as some big evil plot
8) 8)

Most people don't. But, it seems like you trust people, who after damning evidence of manipulation for political control, should have lost it long ago.

[kcshocker11]

There again I dont see the world as some big evil plot
8) 8)

Most people don't. But, it seems like you trust people, who after damning evidence of manipulation for political control, should have lost it long ago.

Oh how ridicules! 8)

[ISASO]

I guess you liked AOL and the way it filtered your web searches. FCC is saying users should have access without big companies controlling speed or content. Sounds like more freedom to me.

There again I dont see the world as some big evil plot
8) 8)

There again, I don't view the government as the only answer to every question posed. And I'm not infatuated with the promise that proven corrupt people will legislate themselves more power over the details of our everyday lives.

The difference is that AOL was just a business. They cannot make law or enforce rules written by unelected bureaucrats.

There was no law that you had to subscribe to and pay for AOL. Its fate was determined by free market forces. With a government-controlled Internet, where is the choice? How do you exercise your freedom?

Equate this to a government-run health care single-payer system in which you are required to buy something from a monopoly. Which amendment of the Constitution gives government the power of law to require people to buy things from itself?

[kcshocker11]

I guess you liked AOL and the way it filtered your web searches. FCC is saying users should have access without big companies controlling speed or content. Sounds like more freedom to me.

There again I dont see the world as some big evil plot
8) 8)

There again, I don't view the government as the only answer to every question posed. And I'm not infatuated with the promise that proven corrupt people will legislate themselves more power over the details of our everyday lives.

The difference is that AOL was just a business. They cannot make law or enforce rules written by unelected bureaucrats.

There was no law that you had to subscribe to and pay for AOL. Its fate was determined by free market forces. With a government-controlled Internet, where is the choice? How do you exercise your freedom?

Equate this to a government-run health care single-payer system in which you are required to buy something from a monopoly. Which amendment of the Constitution gives government the power of law to require people to buy things from itself?

So where is the single payer healthcare your talking about? The health insurers are the only businesses not subject to the anti trust laws. You have quite an imagination. 8)

[ISASO]

It's the single-payer system Barack Obama advocated in 2007. It's the system he would enact immediately except that he knows the American public would show up at the White House with pitchforks and torches lit with the fire of revolution.

The insurance companies are not a single-payer system. In which state is there only one insurance company? They cannot write and enforce laws with the threat of fines and/or imprisonment.

[kcshocker11]

In my state alone there are only 2! Congress is in process of righting this wrong as we speak. I doubt the public would show up like you imagine! Do you hear those copters?

[ISASO]

Do either of those two companies write federal laws or have enforcement power?
Do either of those two companies fine those who refuse to buy something from them?

[kcshocker11]

No they just jack premuims every year. Deny claims. Find reasons to drop people from coverage and cherry pick all in the name of profits.Believe me if you want to keep your over priced health insurance , no one is now or ever will try to take that away from you. Dont deny me my right to competition. Robust public option now!

Sicko!

[ISASO]

"Trigger" is not the name of a cowboy's horse in this story. It's the Marxists new way into a single-payer government-run system the people don't want.

And now they're slicing off parts of the costs to hit some magical number geared to prevent a repeat of the summer taxpayer revolt.