TexasCHLforum.com

If it aint broke...obama will fix it until it is.


"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."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12 ... z18qmuCacQ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is the Camel's nose under the tent, NOT GOOD.

Wall Street Journal
The Net Neutrality Coup, by John Fund, WSJ
The campaign to regulate the Internet was funded by a who's who of left-liberal foundations.

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."

This is the man that Obama takes his inspiration from. We are in deep deep trouble if Congress doesn't act in January to strip FCC of this specific authority.

The Annoyed Man wrote:Wall Street Journal
The Net Neutrality Coup, by John Fund, WSJ
The campaign to regulate the Internet was funded by a who's who of left-liberal foundations.

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."

This is the man that Obama takes his inspiration from. We are in deep deep trouble if Congress doesn't act in January to strip FCC of this specific authority.

No matter what you think of the man, Glenn Beck has been talking about this for over a year now. In order to make sense of what is going on, you must look at it from the eyes of the socialist. They want this government to fail, they don't want freedom in this country, and most people are too stupid to realize what is happening. Maybe the Dec. 21 2012 on the Myan calander was talking about the fall of America????

Get ready to pay a per-email tax to help support the FCC's meddling. The federal gov has been salivating over the prospect of taxing emails for years. As flintknapper said, this is the camel's nose under the tent.

It's precisely because the liberals lost big-time in November that they are trying to cram their agenda through in the lame duck. They know that come January they are done. Dead and stinkin'. This is a shameful December for this Congress, capping off a shameful 2 years. Silver lining: the Democrats are putting lots of nails in their own political coffins with each agenda item they try. Some of us have pretty long memories. And so do a lot of independent voters. Many of those independents now consider themselves former Democrats. And some now consider themselves Republicans.

Wait, which Net Neutrality are we complaining about? There are two definitions floating around...
1) The internet must remain neutral with regard to network traffic. For example, Google cannot offer to pay Verizon to slow down Bing & Yahoo, because the internet must remain neutral and not take sides in terms of which company has more important packets. (This is the original meaning, BTW.)
2) The internet must remain neutral with regard to letting companies do whatever they want. For example, Google can offer to pay Verizon to slow down Bing & Yahoo, because the internet must remain neutral and not take sides in terms of which company has enough money to shut down the competition. (This is how several telcos defined it when they were trying to convince the government that they were on the People's side.)

I'm in favor of the first meaning. Normally, I'm totally a free-market, let-the-consumer-sort-it-out, vote-with-your-wallet kind of guy. But some of these companies have so much money laying around that they can un-level the playing field, and that runs counter to one of the basic tenets of Capitalism -- keep it fair.

The Annoyed Man wrote:Wall Street Journal
The Net Neutrality Coup, by John Fund, WSJ
The campaign to regulate the Internet was funded by a who's who of left-liberal foundations.

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."

As an employee of one of those evil telephone companies I can attest that deregulation in 1986 caused service and quality to got heck in a handbasket real quick. Customers say that more than the employees. It is simply not a business that lends itself to competition, much like cable tv.

The problem with phone and cable service (and electric, gas, water and sewage, etc.) is that they are natural monopolies. There are some businesses that are just not well-suited to competition. In the case of utilities it is the need to construct infrastructure that is the problem. We don't want three different sets of phone lines run down the same street by three different companies. That is too expensive. The best way to deal with a natural monopoly is through regulation.

However, my concern about "net neutrality" is that it will somehow be co-opted into something approaching the fairness doctrine. Example, what if, when you Googled "NRA", you got the Brady Center instead, with the NRA's website buried three pages later? That is the sort of garbage that I fear from all of this.

rm9792 wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:Wall Street Journal
The Net Neutrality Coup, by John Fund, WSJ
The campaign to regulate the Internet was funded by a who's who of left-liberal foundations.

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."

As an employee of one of those evil telephone companies I can attest that deregulation in 1986 caused service and quality to got heck in a handbasket real quick. Customers say that more than the employees. It is simply not a business that lends itself to competition, much like cable tv.

And I'm one to agree. Service is atrocious. Particularly Verizon's automated phone system. But, that doesn't negate the fact that a self-described socialist who hesitates to say he is NOT a marxist is the architect of the whole thing, and his stated purpose is to get rid of media capitalism. In other words, he wants to put all media in the hands of the state.

That cannot be allowed to happen. When the state owns the media, the state also owns the people. Period. The founders understood this. We understand it. Even commie pinko leftist traitors understand it - which is why they support state ownership of the media.

rm9792 wrote: As an employee of one of those evil telephone companies I can attest that deregulation in 1986 caused service and quality to got heck in a handbasket real quick. Customers say that more than the employees. It is simply not a business that lends itself to competition, much like cable tv.

i agree that the service deteriorated back in the 80s - but this is now almost 30 years later. Cell phones and fiber optic distribution has changed everything. The government regulations on the phone companies have done nothing but box in the phone companies and not let them compete. I'm no fan of Verizon (who would work hard to pour water out of a boot with the instructions printed on the heal) or ATT but the government intervention into those businesses has not helped the consumer. Comcast and Time Warner Cable are regulated in different ways by local governments and that regulation hasn't served the public well either.

I consider Verizon to be the location of the perfect storm in telecom. Considering Verizon's inept management, the union's inept involvement (my brother worked there for 30+ years) and the government inept regulations, the result has been a disaster. While it wouldn't fix the problem, limiting or eliminating the government's intervention would make a significant improvement. And the latter is the same group that wants to regulate the Internet. NO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

Dave2 wrote:1) The internet must remain neutral with regard to network traffic. For example, Google cannot offer to pay Verizon to slow down Bing & Yahoo, because the internet must remain neutral and not take sides in terms of which company has more important packets. (This is the original meaning, BTW.)

I'm in favor of the first meaning. Normally, I'm totally a free-market, let-the-consumer-sort-it-out, vote-with-your-wallet kind of guy. But some of these companies have so much money laying around that they can un-level the playing field, and that runs counter to one of the basic tenets of Capitalism -- keep it fair.

I agree. The extent of what should be regulated is preventing ISPs from restricting access to content or giving preferential treatment to it's partners. ISPs should do nothing except provide a connection to the Internet, leaving all content-related decisions to the consumer. Anything less is comparable to what we condemn China for - restricting access to content they don't like.

Sad really.... Little by little... I hope the internet doesn't turn into "FM Radio" Because if the FCC gets a hold of it, we all know that'd be the direction it'd be heading in.